Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:58, 25 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.

Spinboy

Final (19/18/2) ending 20:29 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Spinboy (talk · contribs) – Spinboy has been an active user at Misplaced Pages, and has been involved heavily in fixing vandalism, putting articles on AfD and dispute resolution. He knows the wiki process better than me, and I'm an admin! -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept the nomination. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 03:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I withdraw my nomination. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 20:29, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. MSJapan 03:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
2. -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Strong Support May need some coaching, but a definate good faith user who has excellent admin potential. Who amongst us (myself included) can hope to be the one without sin who casts the first stone? -- Essjay · Talk 03:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Support Maltmomma 03:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Support--Shanel 05:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Strong Support Active, friendly, factual, articulate and honest Wikipedian. I feel that it is in the best interests of our community that we get more helpful admins onboard like this young addict.  :) Jachin 06:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
7. More levelheaded than a lot of Wikipedians I've interacted with - but still just a human like the rest of us. Support. WegianWarrior 07:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
8. Support --Kefalonia 08:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
9. Support He has been here awhile, and made many sound contibutions, however, edit summary use could be better. Banes 10:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
10. Support. Another fine editor from the land of the Moose. Grutness...wha? 12:43, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
11. Support, for all the reasons given above. Phronima 17:32, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
12. You spin me round and round, like a record baby, support. CDThieme 17:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
13. Support - go4it--Irishpunktom\ 19:04, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
14. Support. I see him during RC patrol and he does good work. My concerns below have been addressed by him, so I think he could do a good job w/ the mop. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
15. Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 08:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
16. Support worked with him before and I think he is a fine user, the links below do not change my mind a bit. Molotov (talk) 15:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
17. FireFox 17:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
18. Support, although I think Spinboy could improve aspects of his editing and community interaction per many of the oppose voters, I feel he would employ admin tools responsibly. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:37, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
19. Support, Spinboy has been very helpful to me and is the one who initially welcomed me. He'll make a great admin. HGB 06:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose, I think, although I'm reasonably willing to debate that. Doesn't quite have the temperament for it is my feeling. See the edit summaries here and here for example. Those are among the very few times he uses edit summaries at all. I've noticed him principally on CfD where he seems to oppose even the simplest of renames without offering a reason at all (he's allowed to oppose of course, but see for example here: note that another user expresses what I just said because it is far from the first such oddity). Also has a habit of voting without reason in the deletion processes, which is rarely appropriate and suggests he views such operations as pure votes rather than discussions-with-polls e.g. , , , , , and the stubborness in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ottawa municipal election, 2006 isn't great, either (although there are users more stubborn by far). These are a pretty random result of a trawl through contribs to see if my gut instinct was borne out: they have to be random, because it's impossible to tell from edit summaries what might be in the edit. -Splash 03:59, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Tony Sidaway 05:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC) I was about to vote support, but Splash's examples gave me pause. This one in particular: "Please discuss your edits on the talk page, none of you are being productive." He may have been right, but if he wanted people to use the talk page he could have put the message there instead of making yet another revert and putting the comment in the edit summary. I was about to settle for neutral when, on reading the comments section, I went to look at freemasonry. There are misleading edit summaries ("rv vandalism", which is actually in one case his removal of a contested external link to an anti-freemasonry website, and in another his removal of a reference to a book, a propaganda piece albeit, called Freemasonry and Catholicism.) This was most likely POV pushing, but it doesn't do to confuse that with vandalism. Then there's this one, "Misplaced Pages isn't a links repository" which suggests that he either hadn't read, or simply misinterpreted, the policy he cited. This isn't quite up to snuff. Oppose for now, but shows promise and, if he fails this time, should probably try again in a month or so when he has matured. I am concerned that you're engaging in edit wars. This isn't right for an administrator. You need more time.
3. Oppose. Dedicated worker, but far too volatile. You're supposed to keep to the civility policy even if you don't feel like it. God knows it's hard to deal with people you consider destructive idiots as if they aren't, but it's pretty much a requirement of working on the wiki. (See also User:UBX/du-1.) This particularly applies to someone wanting to be an admin. May calm down in the future; ask again in six months - David Gerard 10:32, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Oppose per Splash and Tony Sidaway. I've found other incidents of incivility as well. --Durin 13:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Oppose per Tony's excellent comments. Proto t c 14:01, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Oppose This editor is excessively possessive of articles related to Ottawa. For example, he reverted my tagging of a photo as "replaceable fair use" for no good reason, and became argumentative about it on my talk page afterwards. In addition, I'm not comfortable supporting until I better understand what his role in the Freemasonry dispute is (see Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Lightbringer). In general, not a good candidate for adminship. Finally, I disapprove of images in signatures. Kelly Martin 15:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
7. Oppose I am not well acquainted with the gentleman in question, but the comments brought up by Splash and Tony, as well as a check of his edit history, do cast his temperement in a rather poor light. Anyone who is not capable of garnering the respect of his peers should not be an admin, in my opinion.--Xiphon 16:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
8. Oppose. The links provided by users above show an unfortunate lack of civility. Carbonite | Talk 19:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
9. Reluctantly oppose. Spinboy has done a great deal for Misplaced Pages and his enthusiasm for improving it is remarkable and in good faith, IMO -- but an administrator has to be trusted to use the mop to clean up spills, not beat the person doing the spilling, and I think at this point it would be a license to continue the behavior detailed above. (Replying to a question about intent below with an edit count is not encouraging, either.) — mendel ☎ 20:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
10. Oppose per Splash and Tony Sidaway. Also, not convinced by the candidate's answers in "Questions for the candidate". --PTSE 00:30, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
11. Oppose, reluctantly, per Splash. I like Spinboy, but I too have noticed too many AfD votes and edits without explanation. Admins need to have reasons for these things, and need to be comfortable routinely expressing them. Xoloz 02:46, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
12. Oppose per civility problems as stated above. An admin cannot be uncivil. Ral315 (talk) 07:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
13. Strong Oppose . Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
14. Oppose for the reasons cited by Tony Sidaway. Needs time to work out issues of civility. Silensor 20:42, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
15. Oppose For not being civil and for not using edit summaries nearly enough.--Alhutch 00:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
16. Oppose per Splash and Tony Sidaway maybe later not a big fan of this user espcially over some conflct in AFD lately over Toronto Roads --JAranda | watz sup 06:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
17. Oppose, spelt vandalism with a Z and has an image in their signature. AfD seems to have turned another potential admin bad. Alphax  13:15, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

    The problem with AFD is it teaches people to Assume Bad Faith. That's why it's so poisonous - David Gerard 16:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

    You're opposing me because of how I spell vandalizm and I have an image in my signature? How immature is that? --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 19:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

18. Oppose per above.  Grue  13:41, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
19. Oppose per things above. Private Butcher 20:23, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral, after reading everything. Oran e (t) (c) (@) 02:57, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Extreme Neutral, the editor is certainly prolific, and his constant activity in improving[REDACTED] ought to be encouraged. However, he uses very few edit summaries, and they're rarely all that descriptive. Creating a harmonious environment amongst editors is important. —thames 14:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Neutral, I've read the comments here and some of the links from the oppose votes. I don't have time to do the verification myself at the moment so can't agree or disagree with the criticisms. Tedernst 19:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• Comment please fix your ending time, and format the date correctly by spelling out the month. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:01, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• I recently had to protect freemasonry and noticed you were involved on the talk page. I also see you are a party to the associated RFAR. I'm not trying to implicate you in anything, but considering that's all I've seen of you (I think), can you reassure me about your involvement? I think others would be interested to hear as well. Dmcdevit·t 03:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I have over 10,000 edits, and my involvement there was not editing, but trying to prevent POV pushing by a particular user. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 03:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't care about your edit count and I was kind of hoping you'd explain (without me saying as much) the edit warring. Before the protection you had six reverts in under 48 hours. That was a week ago. Dmcdevit·t 04:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
      • A new user was on the scene, and was inserting Anti-Freemasonry POV's into the article, all of them unsourced. Most (although not all) of the edits were reverted. On the talk page it was discussed, but the user wasn't listening to consensus. I suggested to one of the other users involved they should use one of Misplaced Pages's many dispute resolution method's which is now going on through ArbCom. --] 04:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Six reverts in three hours? Good grief, I think you're right. No, we have no need for edit-warring admins. --Tony Sidaway 05:16, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Actually it was in less than 48 hours, I said (which is still worrying for another reason). And I'd still like an adequate answer to that. As far as I'm concerned, POV pushing does not justify edit warring, which is harmful in its own way. Dmcdevit·t 05:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• (Update: Support vote above). I have a comment. In August, Spinboy went on a spree through all the Star Trek articles removing links to Memory Alpha. A number of editors (myself included) tried to talk to him about it and figure out why, and he eventually told us that he was deleting them because Memory Alpha doesn't link back to Misplaced Pages. I appreciate WP:BOLD, but a change of this scale should really have some consensus, and Spinboy ignored a previous consensus to keep the links. I have a concern about what he may do with admin powers if he is similarly "energized" by an issue. That has been my only big interaction with him to date, and I've tracked his progress since. I would be willing to sign as a support if the candidate could state that he would seek consensus before making large scale changes, as that's the only thing I'm really worried about. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I appreciated your comments at the time, and after consideration, I decieded it was best to leave them. I am willing to seek a consensus when making large scale changes, it is important to the overall quality of the article for all concerned. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 18:51, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

A. I already work on reverting vandalizm, so I have no problem with that, I'd also be willing to help enforce the 3RR, and of course, the other policies associated with Misplaced Pages.

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

A. I really enjoyed working on Athabasca University, while not a feature article, I think it's pretty well written.

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 recently got some stress over being called names over a new user who was trying to defend his point of view. After trying to reasonably work with him, I decided to ignore the user and talk it over with another wikipedian who was able to help me work though it.

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

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

Tony1

Final (39/25/7) ending 23:16 October 31, 2005 (UTC)

Tony1 (talk · contribs · count) – Tony1 has been here since July 14, 2005. Three month threshold? Check. He has 2100 edits, so you editcountitus sufferers should be happy. He has 842 article edits, making him an asset to the wiki. He has 433 Talk: and 230 User talk: edits, so we know he interacts a lot, and he has 430 Misplaced Pages edits, so he's on the admin side of things too. He's always friendly and asks for help when he needs it, and will be bold when he knows what he's doing. I'll bet my reputation he'll make a great admin :) Redwolf24 (talk) 23:16, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I accept. Tony 02:52, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Extreme How-Dare-You vote before the nominator support. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Super strong omgwtfbbq lollergazm support. Absolutely. Linuxbeak | Talk 02:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Support: Genuinely attempts to improve WP articles, and I like his attitude of attaining "featured article" status as his goal. Ramallite 03:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Support! Kirill Lokshin 03:32, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Support -- Essjay · Talk 03:39, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Support, Christopher Parham (talk) 05:41, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

   Support, he is a professional editor, and his contributions on FAC are indispensable. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

7. Support --Kefalonia 08:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
8. Support. Though it seems a bit more edit summaries would be nice. The Minister of War 10:04, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
9. Not fair! Not fair! Redwolf... arrrgh!!! I wanted to nominate Tony myself. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:44, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

   Sorry, I welcomed him, and I knew I was gonna nominate him around the time he got his 1000th edit :P So I saw him first =P Redwolf24 (talk) 22:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

10. Support -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} 11:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
11. Support. I have been impressed by Tony's handling of a dispute at United States. I think he would make a fine admin. android79 12:36, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
12. Support A good lad, he'll go far--Xiphon 16:48, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

    Support. Impressive contributions, and one of the most capable copyeditors on the site. He's likely to be an excellent admin. Antandrus (talk) 16:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC) No longer support. Oh well, I was wrong. 23:56, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

13. Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 17:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
14. Support. FAC work indicates a commitment to the improvement of Misplaced Pages as a whole. Chick Bowen 18:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

    Support. Impressed with work at WP:FAC. Jkelly 19:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

15. Support, I have no reservations. Titoxd 21:39, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
16. Oran e (t) (c) (@) 02:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

    Support, without a doubt. Tony´s a hard working and talented user, well rounded and serious. I'm positive we will all benefit by handing him the mop. Shauri smile! 09:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC) I'm truly sorry, but I must change my vote in the light of the latest events (see below)

17. Support Wiki needs more comma's. Dlyons493 Talk 10:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

    Support Although I wouldn't usually support a candidate with less than 6 months on the Wiki, I know Tony to be a trustworthy contributor. And I must say, I am very impressed with his efforts to improve article quality, and, in particular, his work at FAC. I had been intending to commend him privately, but I'll take the opportunity to do so now. So, good work! --Cyberjunkie | Talk 12:01, 26 October 2005 (UTC) Now neutral.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 09:25, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

18. Most certainly yes. Tony1 truly deserves being called an 'editor'; I've been impressed ever since he helped the wikidocs get Asthma featured. Does fabulous work—this guy is one of Wp's best copyeditors, and I think he saves a lot of our work from being painful embarrassments. Very good manner, good dispute resolution skills; X factor. Furthermore, in David Gerard's immortal words, "is not stupid or insane"; I'm sure that he'll take the trouble to learn up on those areas he's not currently familiar with before using any special buttons. Gets my strong support. encephalon 14:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
19. Support Johann Wolfgang 15:24, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
20. Support Molotov (talk) 15:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
21. FireFox 17:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
22. Support Sounds like a guy who does fabulous work :) --a.n.o.n.y.m 19:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
23. Strong support for the Featured Guy! -- Svest 20:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC)  

    Support, always seems very helpful about the place. I would like to know: when you replied to jossi below, you were smiling, right? --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 22:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC) (Changed to neutral --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 18:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC))

    Strong Support. Tony's absolutely invaluable at FAC, and therefore (in my opinion at least) to Misplaced Pages as a whole. He has also shown real calm-headedness in the face of some ugly disagreements. Updated 03:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC): Still support, but Tony's difficult-to-understand response to Bishonen's questions in the comments section has given me some pause. I was a participant in the Sicilian Baroque FAC debate, and agreed 100% with Tony regarding what he said there, so that didn't worry me, but I expected a clearer response in the face of the question. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:30, 26 October 2005 (UTC)I have to oppose now. I wish I didn't. See Comments in oppose section. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

    Support. El_C 03:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC) — Withdrawn until I can review a response to the concerns voiced by the opposition El_C 05:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

24. Just Came Back from Hurricane Wilma Support Sure --JAranda | watz sup 06:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
25. Support of course. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
26. Support Good contrib's across namespaces, as nominator notes. No problems with this user. Marskell 14:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
27. Support--User:AYArktos | Talk 19:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
28. Support--nixie 23:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
29. Support --Allen3  23:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

    Musician?? Well, support of course! :) Really, everything looks good for this editor. Bratsche 03:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC) No vote. Bratsche 15:37, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

30. Support. The more prose-watchers we have on pedestals, the better WP becomes. PacknCanes | say something! 04:50, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
31. Support — Wackymacs 07:10, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
32. Support -- Tony has been helpful and courteous, and has a valuable contribution to make --dave souza 13:19, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
33. Support. On articles I've worked at the same time as Tony, he has always explained his changes in edit comments and consulted on talk pages before making significant changes. Both important aspects many editors seem to ignore. (voting late to redress an earlier deliberate abstain - Tony doesn't deserve the dumping he's getting further down this page). --Scott Davis 14:16, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
34. Support. No brainer. His work on FAC has been indispensable, and I really like the fact that he explains even minor copy edits, often without being asked. We can all learn something from this user. Give the man those admin buttons. --BrianSmithson 14:52, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
35. Support. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-29 20:00
36. Support; Tony is excellent at what he does, and therefore asserts himself with confidence, which others can construe as impertinence or aggresion. A little more forebearance on his part might be beneficial, but this is a good editor with the project's best interests in mind. --Spangineer (háblame) 00:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
37. Support Seems like a nice & capable editor... So I'll support. Spawn Man 01:14, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
38. Strong Support, and through this support express my STRONG OPPOSITION to the Trial by ordeal the Rfa process seems to be degenerating into. This is how we lose so many excellent, talented and thoughtful contributors. Are none of us entitled to express our strong opinions without running the risk of incurring a personal, political pile on?! Do we not have the right to defend ourselves when we feel we are under unfair attack?! Can we not even be bothered to FORGIVE some percieved slight?! Or to extend to our colleagues the benefit of the doubt rather than to doubt their benefits?! If one of my dear friends were to nominate me today, I would DECLINE rather than face running such a disgraceful gauntlet as that which unfolds below. I wonder how many of YOU would fare facing such a barrage of negativity. Would you be able to sit quietly and smile, while your honor, your integrity, your personal charachter is being smeared in the mud? I think those who would DO NOT deserve to be admins. Those are the very ones who merely want some small crumb of status/reward/power/influence. Who will use their position as a personal TOY rather than a TOOL to make our encycleopedia and community better. Tony, you may not win the vote this time, but you've kept your honor though you may have lost your temper, and you have my respect, Sir!--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 18:39, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

    Unfortunetely, it is very easy to troll around RfA's giving no votes with slanderous/innacurate statements/no explaination expecting the candidate to get irritated and defend him/herself and then get more oppose votes for his/her response. Still though, it a test of maturity.

    Speaking of "slanderous/innacurate statements/no explaination", on my RfA, one user said that I only made minor edits to a few article, even though I made major edits to (and created a few) dozens of articles, and other notable edits to another 230, and random minor edits(spelling/syntax to more articles). I made a very civil, neutral reponse, and he off course did not respond, but at least I didn't get angry. I did get 2 oppose votes for talking about Boothy443 on two user pages, so apparently I was not calm enough about that though.Voice of All 19:12, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

    Yeah, it's a medieval trial without any of the basic protection that all participants would receive in a modern court of law. I knew nothing about this process of personal attack beforehand, and Jimbo's 'no big deal' now looks plain wrong. It's turned me from loyal and hard-working to hating. And it's made me so ill that I can't work. It's SO at odds with the NPOV policy. Tony 20:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

39. Support. Tony is a great copyeditor who has helped me with several articles that I have been working on. From my personal experience, I have not had any unpleasant interactions with him. Pentawing 20:31, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeak Oppose, just doesn't seem right to me. I don't know, I just feel as though this person isn't ready, more time I feel is needed. Atleast another month or so. Private Butcher 20:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Weee...eeak Oppose II. Try again in a few months and you'll pass by a landslide. (vote by User:Kookykman)

   Thanks for the thought, but I think it's very plain from what I've written elsewhere here that I'm not at all interested. Tony 21:05, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

3. Oppose. Can be quite difficult to work with on occasion and shows a general unfamiliarity with some elements of policy. I can see him making a good admin in the future, but he's just not ready yet; see below for some reasons why. Ambi 01:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Oppose. At first I couched my doubts about Tony's readiness for adminship as a comment rather than an oppose, see below, to give him a chance to modify or distance himself from the tantrum I linked to, but he emphasizes that he stands by every word. OK. Other things too about his response make me dubious about adminship at the present time. I'm sorry, I've never opposed an RFA before (that I can remember), but the way Tony dismisses my concern and refuses the information I ask for makes me wonder how he'll treat people who challenge him when/if he's an admin. I may well support at a later date, but I'd just like to see a little more absorption of the best sides of wikiculture first. Bishonen | talk 03:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

   You have opposed adminship at least twice before, Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Harro5 and Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Kappa. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

   You actually went through and researched her oppose votes? What's the interest? Mike H (Talking is hot) 17:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

   Not really, I just remember some of the failed RFAs which I supported, and some of the people who opposed them. Apart from me disagreeing with the two opposes, I don't think there was anything wrong with either of them. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

5. Oppose: Possibly by Tony's supporters I am seen as the villain of the piece, which is why I have hesitated before voting. Let it be quite clear I do not oppose because his wild threats here have been acted on anonymously here I'm sure he would not be so stupid as to act anonymously, even if his behaviour inspires such actions in others. However, his behaviour does concern me. I was not too lazy, as he suggests, to integrate his changes, I had just spent nearly a full day attempting to do so, before deciding I just didn't like them. This is the crux of my objection oppose his views and see what happens. At best, it seems to me, his behaviour generally borders on the bombastic. Doubtless he has talents, but at the moment I feel it would not be wise for him to have powers, which could possibly be misused if he is crossed. Besides which he seems to attempt to run the FA page quite well without them. Giano | talk 09:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

   Does his "bombastic" behaviour extend beyond just this one situation in which grudges were formed? If so, I would reconsider my own vote. I've had my own quibbles with Tony in the past over style, but I am very confident that he would never misuse admin capabilities.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 09:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

   I only speak of my own experience and that which is on the FAC page. In his reply to question 3 he lists two cases both unresolved which seem to have similarities to my experience, an editor walks out (I did that), and another accuses him of introducing inaccuracies, but that was medical, so architecture is less important, no one is going to die from confusing a staircase with a wall (well I suppose the could), but I felt he wanted to alter the balance, quality, and emphasis,of the page so perhaps there are similarities there. You must decide that for yourself. I have not stalked his edits, so really you'll have to form your own opinion, as to if he is bombastic, I certainly felt he was. Giano | talk 10:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

   I hope you didn't feel I was attacking your vote. I respect your opinion. I was just hoping you might have been able to offer more information on the behaviour you think is inappropriate for an admin. I know Tony is fairly adament in his views on style (as am I, I suppose), but I haven't personally witnessed anything that might be described as "bombastic". I asked only because the objections have made me feel uncomfortable with my support, and I'm now leaning more towards neutrality - even though I congratulate Tony's efforts. I wanted to know, basically, if you think he is persistently "bombastic". Thank you anyway, --Cyberjunkie | Talk 10:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

   Side note: the FARC in question has been speedy-removed. -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

6. Yeah, I can't say I'm so confident that he won't throw a tantrum again while the editing is hot. Can't trust the admin powers to him; sorry. Mike H (Talking is hot) 17:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
7. Errrr. This really doesn't feel good - my gut says to vote yes, because he's a good editor, but my brain says to vote oppose, because he has a bit too much trouble with other editors. And my brain is the one that votes. Maybe if he can get through another three months without substantial conflict? DS 17:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
8. Oppose. I am not happy with what I see here. Editors who cannot handle conflict well are not admin candidates, and I am not even pleased with the way that Tony has handled the conflict of this RfA itself, let alone the conflicts he's been in over on FAC/FARC. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
9. Oppose without prejudice. Tony1 is a good editor and a valuable part of FAC, but I'm concerned about 1) time on project and edits in multiple spots so that we can see how he handles those who disagree, 2) a passion for correcting things that might override the need to be courteous and considerate. Much of the time, Tony1's criticisms of mistakes are legitimate, and some of the time they are preferences; such is the case with all of us. What worries me is that he doesn't allow enough for differences of opinion, for the legitimacy of others' views. None of this is to cast any doubts whatever about Tony1's value to the project. He's a first class contributor and editor, but I'm concerned that we don't yet know enough to assess what he'd do in a case of belligerant edits and serious differences of opinion. Geogre 18:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
10. I realize that both this and the featured article process can be stressful, but tantrums are not acceptable. With some more time and an opportunity to cool off, I trust that Tony1 will be able to earn my trust in the future. --Michael Snow 21:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

    Response: My response to Kelly Martin and others is that I do handle conflict well (and more broadly, personal politics), and avoid bothas far as possible. However, when I come under sustained attack that I think is unfair, by numerous people, I will defend myself.

    This process is the first time that has happened to me on WP, and I haven't been able to withdraw, as would be my first instinctive reaction elsewhere; here, I've had to stay and either endure attacks silently or respond to them; I've chosen the latter. Again, I must emphasise that, apart from the three instances that I originally listed below, I'm not known for being combative on WP; there doesn't seem to be any point to that stance in the normal run of things. So, Michael, it's not a matter of 'cooling off', although I'll be very grateful when this process has finished.

    I note that on this page, the strong personal language has emanated from other people, not from me, although I have asked once for the abusive language to stop. I'm only interested in critiquing articles and raising standards. I'm sorry if Kelly Martin regards my critiqueing on the FAC and FARC pages as tantrums; it's a surprising word to choose, which might have been picked up from an earlier critic here. I wonder how else the standard of FACs might be improved; some kind of oh-so-polite, passive technique, or the short, unsupported, laudatory statements I see continually on the FAC page will not do that. If putting my own case, and if delivering a strong critique of an article, are 'outbursts of petulance', then the cause of WP is utterly lost - it will languish in mediocrity, and we're kidding ourselves. I ask reviewers themselves to see the issue in the cold light of day, and consider the comments of the supporters above with respect to my handling of tension on WP. They saw me function in situations where I was not under sustained group attack. (I note at least one instance in which Giano has been issuing congratulations on the talk page of an oppose vote: 'brilliant', I think the word was. He is clearly very upset at having his writing criticised. I'm sorry about that; I was trying to make his writing good, and the benefit would have been his. As it is, the FA is an embarrassment.) Tony 00:22, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

    Tony1, you're not helping yourself with this. You may not be the only one at fault here, but you are the only one up for adminship. As for strong personal language, calling Giano lazy and now making comments about "huge egos" and "character assassination" might well qualify. -- Michael Snow 02:03, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

    I'd like to point out that I did not use the word "tantrum" in my opposition. I don't know who that was, but I would consider the use of such language an inappropriate personal attack. I would encourage Tony1 to be more careful about the accusation he bandies about; this "error" reinforces my opposition to his candidacy. Admins should be careful and slow to act, and should avoid careless errors whenever possible. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:03, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

    Dear Kelly:

    (1) please accept my apologies - my mistake;

    (2) Sorry to be brusque, but I just don't care about your opposition, not one smidgeon, nor anyone else's - the idea of banning people, deleting pages and patrolling for vandalism is most unappealling to me, and always has been. You see, I just abhor that kind of personal conflict; I only care about language. It was my unfamiliarity with the issues surrounding sysops' role and status that led to my accepting the kind nomination (and JW's 'it's no big deal' statement). Frankly, I'd be a poor sysop because I'm just not interested in that side. I couldn't care less about the vote; what concerns me now is the unfettered personal attacks and inappropriate judgements, and what I see as a flawed process. So, seeing the 'no' votes grow is kind of ... comforting, and is not the cause of my grief. OK?

    (3) Thanks for pointing out that 'tantrum', as used by quite a number of contributors here, is an 'inappropriate personal attack'.

    BTW, Redwolf probably feels awkward about this mess, but he shouldn't: he's a superb WPian, in my view, and was acting in good faith in nominating me. ... added at 04:22/04:38, 30 October 2005 by Tony1

11. Oppose. Would like to see activity in vandalfighting, dispute resolution or other admin-related areas before supporting. If Tony1 wants to stick to editing and FACs - which is certainly valuable! - he doesn't need the mop & bucket. Also, being an admin makes it more likely that one will be "attacked" in various ways, which seems like a problem. Finally, I don't understand Tony1's explanation of why he cannot provide diffs or even article names for the conflicts he mentions in Question 3. Everything in Misplaced Pages is public, so there is no privacy issue, but if we don't know what article we're looking for, combing through months of his contribs is pointless. FreplySpang (talk) 01:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

    Err.. Those who "edit and and help in FAC process" are doing a job as valuable as vandal fighting. Once you gain adminship, you get a whole lot of new tools. That does not mean that you have to necessarily track and hunt down vandals all the time. For instance, an editor seeking adminship can also access main page sections, a privilege that may be useless to a person on vandalism patrol. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:01, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

    Yes, that's why I said that editing and FACs are valuable. No, of course becoming an admin doesn't commit you to constant RC patrol. But in Q1, Tony basically said that he intends to keep doing the same valuable things that he has been doing without admin powers. FreplySpang (talk) 14:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

12. Week oppose. per many of the reasons above. Still needs a little more time and more edits. BlankVerse ∅ 03:11, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
13. Oppose and ask that you reconsider quitting the project when this RfA closes. I believe your contributions to FAC are valuable, just adminship isn't right for you right now. Borisblue 08:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

    Now that's a funny one: "oppose and, oh, please don't go, we need you". You've got a nerve, man, asking me to stay after this appalling process; why would I continue to be extremely generous with my time and skills in a system that puts my perceived character, maturity, and personality on trial, very publicly? This is a hopelessly flawed process that allows people to subsequently change their vote on the basis of other people's POV, and that has no guidelines on the scope and tone of comments. Tittle-tattle, POV, measured comments all in the wash, with or without justification. It's so contrary to the ethic of Misplaced Pages articles. All to receive a bucket and mop? It's way out of proportion, and here, has ended up being just plain destructive. Tony 09:04, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

    "Why would I continue to be extremely generous with my time and skills....". Because, Tony, adminship is no big deal. You don't to be an admin to edit, and to leave because you don't become one would extend credence to your critics. You do great work, but you're not quite experienced enough for the responsibilities of an admin. Admittedly, there has been much un-necessary exaggeration here. -- Cyberjunkie | Talk 09:20, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

    At this stage, Cyberjunkie, changes of vote - this herd mentality in response to other POVs - are feeling like additional insults to the 'much unnecessary exaggeration'; don't you think it's just a little petty to change your vote at this stage? I'm really surprised that you'd bother. I haven't cared for some days about becoming an admin; it's become more personal than that. I've just sat back and watched this medieval trial process unfold without any mechanism for protecting me against distortion, misrepresentation and slander. And I've watched the herd instinct in action. I was totally unprepared for the character assassination, and had known that this would happen, there's no way I'd have agreed to the nomination.

    Before I leave, I'll be making a strongly worded official complaint about the RfA process. Maybe it's often OK, but here it has gone VERY wrong, and has, IMV, seriously failed to produce a balanced view. The irony is that without this trial, I'd be happily beavering away helping to improve articles and enjoying interacting with other Wikipedians, probably for the long term. But in just a few days, WP has turned from highly productive fun to utter misery for me; this process has succeeded in destroying a valuable Wikipedian. No doubt, Giano, Hoary and Bishonin, whatever she calls herself, will take delight at this; but it's very bad for WP. Having been very loyal, I now hate WP with a vengeance. It's all very sad. Tony 10:15, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

    You have been welcome to withdraw your acceptance of this nomination at all times, and given your feelings, you should perhaps do so. I am sorry you felt insulted by my change to neutral - I did not mean to offend. I still hold you in high regard, but found your comments quite un-becoming for a potential administrator. I put this down to a general lack of experience, which is fine, given your short time here. After few more months, I would be more inclined to support. As for your disgruntlements about the RfA process, you are welcome to comment and make suggestions on the process at the talk page. I hope you don't decide to leave us, but that is a decision entirely for yourself. However, a good WikiBreak goes a long way to put things in perspective, so you might like to consider that instead. -- Cyberjunkie | Talk 10:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

14. Oppose not ready quite yet, Tony please dont take everything as a personal attack. Hell i've failed 2 RFA's myself.  ALKIVAR™ 10:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

    Yeah, I am offended, Cyberjunkie; it would have been better not to have voted in the first place if there was any chance of your being swayed by the goings on here. Wasn't your initial judgement good enough? Under the circumstances, injecting yet more negativity when I'm clearly at the end of the line ... despite your kind words, is just another dig. Alkivar, thanks too for your supporting words, but the vote changing is not appreciated.

    These comments that include 'not quite there yet' appear to assume that I'd hang around and put myself through another round of abuse. If you care at all, in my memory, why don't you lobby to do something about this appalling process. For a start, the herd mentality needs to be eliminated: it has the advantage of being transparent, but in its current unfettered form, carries too many dangers of snowballing, distortion, and offence. I do not appreciate attacks en masse. The first vote should be properly researched and fixed for good. Second, I think there's a need for more confidentiality to safeguard the privacy of the nominee and the reviewers. Thus, a greater role is required for a bureaucrat in sifting through the confidential information. Casting all opinions into the main square is a frightful way to do it. If Alkivar has had two traumatic experiences already, that's suggesting a change is urgently needed.

    I am so traumatised by this experience that I never want to have anything to do with Misplaced Pages again. Now I just need to find someone who'll trash my user page and image, which I regard as private, especially now. This is proving difficult. Tony 13:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

    vote changing? I had not yet decided to vote, I posted on your talk page then RE-READ the posts here before deciding where to stand on this RFA.  ALKIVAR™ 14:02, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

    You are taking this waay too hard. Not being elected admin doesn't mean that the community or the project hates you. Are you sure you want to be one then, if you can't deal with the stress here? Some admins get their user pages vandalized God-knows-how-many-times by POV warriors. Borisblue 14:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

    My god man, quit reacting and read some of the criticism posted here with an open mind. No one is saying you are incapable of becoming an admin, merely that your taking criticism of your past actions way to seriously.  ALKIVAR™ 14:02, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

    Maybe I don't quite understand the process of RfA, but what is the problem? There are 38 votes for support, and only 13 for oppose. Doesn't this mean that you will become an administrator? — Wackymacs 14:16, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

    Wacky it generally requires a 70% or better percentage for approval... 13/38 = ~34% oppose. If he recieves no further oppose votes he still needs to gain 5 more supports to pass the minimum. (Assuming my math is correct)  ALKIVAR™ 14:22, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

    I see, thanks for clarifying that for me. I am sure he will get a lot more support votes, its already climbed to 39 since I posted my question here. The RfA also has two more days to go, I'm sure he'll make it easily. By any chance he should, Tony deserves it. — Wackymacs 14:25, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

    Leaving aside my own vote, and your feelings about it, I'll re-iterate what I said above: If this process is insufferable for you, then you should consider withdrawing. If you intend to leave regardless of the result, then there is no point in allowing it to continue. -- Cyberjunkie | Talk 14:34, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

15. Reluctant oppose. From the endorsements above and what I've seen personally, Tony's clearly a great editor, and normally would be exactly the kind of person we need on the project. At the same time, I feel I have to vote oppose to anyone adds to their RfA that "I now hate WP with a vengeance." This statement's understandable; the candidate's been provoked and feels under serious pressure. At the same time, though, can we really give the admin buttons to somebody who currently hates the project? I'd join Cyberjunkie in urging Tony to withdraw his nomination until he's feeling better about things. He's clearly future admin material, just needs a little cooling off and a few cold ones. -- Dvyost 15:15, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
16. Oppose - in complete agreement with Dvyost. I'm also afraid that Tony's little display here does indicate that he's not ready for adminship either. "Admins should be courteous and should exercise good judgment and patience in dealing with others"... Kel-nage 15:23, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
17. Reluctantly oppose: nothing personal, and I certainly do not want him to leave the project, but the above interactions show this user is not ready at this time. Jonathunder 16:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
18. Strongly oppose. The outbursts in green above are thoroughly unbecoming of an admin, and the sentence somewhere below about "I hate conflict" just isn't going to make things work when the vandals and so on descend upon you. Then, when you face your first disagreement on AN/I, things will spiral out of control quickly. Anyone who threatens to leave WP over the outcome of an RfA simply isn't level-headed and cool-enough under fire to be an admin. Try again in a few more months if you can round off the rough edges. - Splash 17:40, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
19. Oppose I am concerned with what he say in his answers in green. He sure seems to be a good contributor, but he must learn that good contribution alone(even though very important) is not the only skill that takes to be an Admin, and that those that opposes him do not put his perceived character, maturity, and personality on trial. Fadix 19:07, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

    'Try again'? 'Not quite ready?' Dudes, did you read what I said above??

    I'll post the message that this Giano person has just put on my page:

    I've so far ignored your comments and lies about me, but when I saw this comment of yours I laughed out loud, , you really are just a kid in a play ground, if that's how you control your own group, I pray you never get any control here. I'm pasting this comment here so I'm not accused of trying to sway the "herd" instinct, bit unfair that term - not a ploy recommended to win them round really is it?

    On a far more important note, I'm taking with me two beautiful, full-track recordings that I'd arranged copyright release for. More were on the way. The owner of the recording company, a friend of mine, has announced that he has withdrawn permission for their use, and will sue WP unless they are removed immediately; he is serious. So I'll remove them now from the article on JS Bach that I've been putting a lot of work into. Someone else can disentangle the text in which they were nicely embedded. Tony 20:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

    Comment: On the general view (I'm not going into this particular sound file), but once you release something to Misplaced Pages, isn't it licensed under the GFDL unless stated otherwise and cannot be retracted? Once permission is given to anything, can it then be retracted? Thanks. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 20:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

    A release under the GFDL is irrevocable. If they have already been released, then making legal threats is pointless since the lawyers wouldn't defend them. And of course, if Tony1 continues with such legal threats, he is likely to be blocked from editing until they are resolved. -Splash 21:22, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

    Before anybody worries too much, it may be a good idea to check with the owner of the recording company first, and check his views, presumably he has email. Giano | talk 21:37, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

    Ah, read my text properly please, Splash. You're misrepresenting me just as others have on this page all too frequently. So practise a little level-headedness and coolness yourself, and shave off some of your own rough edges. Again, these highly personal comments are offensive now.

    It's not my legal threat. The problem is that I have the original email, and the files were wrongly tagged in the first place on the basis of that text. So it's not a matter of releasing and subsequently not being able to withdraw. There's no proof of release. If you eventually work out how to contact him (pretty difficult, I'd say), you won't get a very good hearing, I'm afraid. Just remember that these are taken from commercial CDs that are currently on sale. And as for blocking me, well, do you really think I care? The nasty drubbing that I'll be giving WP on the net, with my insider knowledge, will just start a few days earlier. Tony 23:58, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

20. Oppose. This is painful. If we could go back in time and never nominate Tony1, we'd all be a lot better off. If we had something else we could nominate him for, like "outstanding and important contributer", we should have. Unfortunately, this RFA still has to be dealt with. And I have to change my vote based entirely on Tony1's edits to this RFA. This isn't "petty", it's responding to new data. Tony is showing a compliete inability to deal calmly with controversy, but worse, is interpreting virtually every negative comment as a personal attack. Viewing anybody's comments here as a personal attack seems like a heck of a stretch to me. This isn't admin temperment. — Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

    specifically which comment? I merely saw this side before the rest of you, or was at least the first to mention ii publicly. Giano | talk 21:52, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

    Bunchofgrapes, yes, it's a fiasco, isn't it. I'm quite capable of taking on any demeanour that is required. But it's gone past that. At this stage, comments about my temperament are offensive to me, intrusive, and a violation of my privacy. It would have been better just to have changed your vote. A procedure that encourages unmoderated public comments of a personal nature is badly flawed.

    However, I appreciate the good intentions behind much of your statement; thank you for that. Tony 23:26, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

21. Oppose would have been willing to support but for Tony's behaviour on this RfA ♥♥purplefeltangel♥♥ 23:41, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
22. Oppose. A look through his list of contributions shows that Tony has been an excellent editor. Admin status is self-evidently not required for this. It is required for such matters as the dispassionate application of rules. And for that, you need to demonstrate a certain coolness (perhaps even humor) when under stress, in addition of course to a pretty good understanding of what the rules are or at least an awareness that the rules might not be obvious and might need looking up. I don't see this demonstrated in the green text above. I don't think it's necessary to show this with examples, but if Tony insists, I'll reluctantly do this. However, two things that Tony writes in one of his edits (which, as I write, still stands) merit quick and simple response. He says: But in just a few days, WP has turned from highly productive fun to utter misery for me; this process has succeeded in destroying a valuable Wikipedian. No doubt, Giano, Hoary and Bishonin, whatever she calls herself, will take delight at this; but it's very bad for WP. Having been very loyal, I now hate WP with a vengeance. (1) No, I take no delight in any aspect of this RfA or Tony's described or promised reactions to it. (2) I'm not going to entrust the administrative mop, broom and kryptonite to anybody who says he or she "hate WP with a vengeance". And lastly, I second Cyberjunkie's suggestion above, and hope that Tony rereads it and reconsiders it. -- Hoary 02:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
23. Oppose, after viewing edits here at this RfA. Frustration over Sicilian baroque seemed entirely appropriate to me. The above doesn't. Jkelly 02:49, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
24. Changing again, per: "The nasty drubbing that I'll be giving WP on the net, with my insider knowledge, will just start a few days earlier," along with the other complete overeactions exhibited. Sorry, Oppose. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

    You think I care, Jeffrey? Tony 04:22, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

25. It is with regret that I oppose this nomination. I'm very sorry Tony but your comments on this very RfA are not up to admin standard. I do hope that you continue with this great project and I can support your nomination at a later stage. - Ianblair23 (talk) 08:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

    You are kidding if you think I'd submit to this abuse again. And try to think of a less offensive way of justifying your decision that just 'not up to standard'. I have very high standards. I find the apology patronising. Tony 09:14, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral for now. I would want to know more about what sysop chores Tony1 will be inclined to contribute to. To correct prose, one does not need to be a sysop. Question: Is Tony1 willing to pick up the mop and bucket, or not? ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 23:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

   I answer your question with this one: Will having another potential janitor on staff harm the wiki, if he's proved he's to be trusted? I'm sure I'm not the only one who never expected to get too deeply into adminship, but proved himself wrong. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

   Jossi: Did you see the last sentence in my response to the first question? :-) Tony 01:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

2. Neutral withdrawing my support, but still enough goodwill left over to prevent me voting oppose. Tony's little tantrum on that linked FAC, and his reaction to the opinions proferred by User:Bishonen and User:Giano on this very RfA, do not inspire confidence. I'm aware that Giano threw his tantrum first, but it's my understanding that admins have to deal with that sort of thing a lot, and I'm no longer sure that Tony will deal with it properly when it happens. -- fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 18:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Neutral. Tony does fine work as an editor, but I can't support for adminship, on a closer look at the below comments. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Neutral: I stand by my earlier comments, but I can no longer support. It's clear that Tony isn't quite ready for adminship - three months is too short an experience, it would seem. I would support in a few months.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 09:20, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Neutral Your responses on this very RFA do not inspire confidence. Perhaps you should have a few more months of experience to redeem yourself. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:34, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

   Vote changed to Neutral based on this RfA. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:34, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

6. Changed to Neutral. I am extremely sorry that it has come to this, Tony. I really apreciatte your work, and we've had the chance to collaborate in a highly constructive way in the past, which makes all this the more painful. Just like you, I had a rough time at my own RfA, so I understand the Wikistress you must be going through right now. However, this has gone too far, and I saddens me a lot to see you in this state of mind, understandable as it may be. I am very disheartened by your last phrase, "the nasty drubbing that I'll be giving WP on the net, with my insider knowledge, will just start a few days earlier". I hope you stay with us and reapply in a while, and rest assured you'll eventually get to admin; but these outbursts and threats are more than I can take from anyone, Tony. This is truly difficult and painful, and I'm sorry, but for now, I cannot support you anymore. Shauri smile! 04:40, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

   Well, as I've said above, I couldn't care less about no votes; that was a concern at the start of this hideous process, but now the noes are comforting. Someone find Cyberjunkie and tell him to change his 'neutral' to a 'no'. Sorry that it causes you difficulty and pain. ... added at 05:00, 30 October 2005 by Tony1

7. Strong Decline. Your attitude is not up to admin standards. Unfortunately, your over-sensitivity to oppose votes is not something I would look for from someone who is looking for the power to delete pages and ban users at will. - Kookykman (talk • contribs)

Comments

1. In your answer to the first of the generic questions for the candidate, you cite a particular Guardian article as support for your view that the quality of its prose is WP's weakest aspect. The comment within that Guardian article about Bob Dylan (as it then was) does indeed support you. As a whole, however, I don't think the articles says what you appear to claim it says: the contributors seem more worried about inaccuracies, glaring omissions, etc. Are you confusing this Guardian article with another? -- Hoary 05:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

   Response: That was the intended citation. Of the six WP articles briefly reviewed, problems that clearly fall within the ambit of copyediting were at issue in five.

   Dylan (“some of the writing might piss people off”).

   Steve Reich, from which a real bomb of a sentence was quoted: “’Reich is popularly regarded as repetitive and minimalist, but in some works deviates from a purely minimalist style, which shows some connection to Minimalism and the work of Reich's visual artist friends such as Sol Lewitt and Richard Serra.' Run that past me again?”

   Haute cuisine (“inaccurate and unclear”).

   Samuel Pepys, (prominent name misspelt, and lame conclusion).

   And

   Encyclopedia, from which these years were quoted: “175 to 1772”. I've had a look at these articles, and they need from light to heavy editing.

   Thanks for raising this issue. One of our valued contributors to the Composer's Project has already volunteered to rewrite the article on Reich. Tony 10:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

   Judgements in the Guardian article of . . . Bob Dylan: I conceded at the start that you were right about that. Steve Reich: partial and inadequate as well as poorly written. Haute couture: the lack of clarity seems to be less a matter of style than of content. Samuel Pepys: inaccuracies and omissions rather than misspellings (the misspelling is something that would only be caught by a historian or particularly diligent copyeditor). Lame ending, yes: it could be improved as a matter of style. (An interesting allegation is And it is poor on the diary itself. There is no appreciation of its literary merits. is hardly a worthy summary of the literary merits of one of our great literary works. Unfortunately or otherwise, any attempt to fix that would risk the charge of inserting PoV.) But look, this is a minor issue in the article, whose very title is "Can you trust Misplaced Pages?" and in which -- as I read it -- reliability is the main issue. You are of course free to argue that its prose is WP's weakest aspect, and you're right to say that poor prose is discussed in the Guardian article. However, if you were suggesting that the article agreed with you that prose is WP's weakest aspect, I must disagree with you. Further, I'd say that in potential conflicts between a desire for accuracy and a desire for readability, accuracy should be given priority: near-incomprehensibility can be dealt with by a reader (if only by rejection of the article and recourse to Britannica or whatever), while well-intentioned but mistaken "correction" of rocky prose can be harder to detect. -- Hoary 03:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

   Sure, accuracy is more important than readability, and you're right, their title suggests that accuracy was their point of departure and main overall concern was accuracy. However, prose is a much bigger problem in the sense that it occupies more space than the inaccuracies within it; I guess that looms large to me, as someone who passionately believes that WP should be accurate and that its prose should be smooth, easy, seemless (even beautiful, sometimes) to read. It's a jungle out there on the Internet, and WP needs to have high standards with respect to both aspects if it's to be authoritative.

   I think we're basically in agreement, don't you? Tony 05:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

   Yes. I agree completely with much of your last comment, and what I don't completely agree with seems very reasonable. Thank you. -- Hoary 10:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

• • Your snide comment utterly rejected. Tony 19:57, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

1. Tony, could you please supply some diffs for the interactions you mention in your response to question 3, so we can see them more directly? (Diffs, please, as opposed to subsection links of the kind you provide elsewhere, since those don't work. If you right-click on a "last" button in the History tab and select "Copy this link location", you get a diff = a unique and durable link to a post.) In the recent Sicilian Baroque disagreement between you and Giano on FAC, you're IMO rather quick to be territorial about your stylistic edits, and to attack. In this retort—posted in installments—there's even a pre-emptive threat to list the article on FARC—Featured article removal canditates—if it should become Featured without your assistance, and several other statements that I think short on civility and forbearance. Even under some provocation, an admin should treat other contributors respectfully, and try to see their side of things. (Here's the post from Giano you were responding to). But I should disclose that I have a bias here, as the nominator of the article, so perhaps I'm blowing a single instance out of proportion; I hope others will take a look for themselves. I can tell from the Support votes above that you're a very fine editor and much appreciated by the community, especially for your FAC work; this is not about that, but a query about your demeanour in disagreement. Bishonen | talk 17:41, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

   I think it's inappropriate to respond fully to your 'biased' query, as you put it, and yes, you may be blowing it 'out of proportion'. I stand by my reponse, linked above, unfairly I think, as 'retort'; I stand by every word I said there, and I think that you've misrepresented my stance ('without your assistance' - that's not what I said; my concern is the quality of the product, paraded as one of WP's best). With respect to 'diffing', there's a privacy issue involved with one person (the last-mentioned), and the second-mentioned is above in the list of supporters; in any case, everything I do is recoverable from my 'contributions'. If 'taking the mop' involves being taken advantage of in these circumstances, as I think you are doing, it's not worth it. I note that 'Hoary', who wrote the first query above, did not announce the fact that he cowrote the article in question. BTW, thanks for pointing out the diffing process, and the fact that the section links may be problem (they work on my computer) - I'll look into it. Tony 23:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

   (Edit conflict, you sure do edit incrementally) I'm not sure I understand. You invite me to "recover" an interchange about an unnamed medical article, some time in the past three months, from your contributions? Is that it? Bishonen | talk 00:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

   You say: I note that 'Hoary', who wrote the first query above, did not announce the fact that he cowrote the article in question. I'm puzzled. My query was about your answer to the first "generic" question below, and more specifically about your characterization of an article in the (London/Manchester) Guardian. I didn't write any part of either that or Bob Dylan, which I mentioned. I have been making very small contributions to Sicilian Baroque, which Bishonen refers to, but I didn't mention that article, whose relevance to my question was only tangential. -- Hoary 00:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

   Fair enough Tony 01:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

   That was it for me, then? OK, I'm afraid I'm ready to oppose. Bishonen | talk 03:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC

   Yep, that's it for you. Tony 14:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC))

   This series of comments and Bishonen's diff have left me somewhat non-plussed. Disagreements—strong ones, stated strongly—are regrettable; they are especially painful to see when they occur among colleagues liked and admired. My appreciation and regard for Tony are clear; no less, I've often felt that Giano, Bishonen, Geogre, Filioct and some other editors who do a lot of work on literary and classical themes are, very simply, a gift to WP, so beautiful are their creations.

   Looking at the Sicilian Baroque FAC page, it appears that in the heat of the intense editing that so often accompanies FA candidacies, tempers were frayed and patience lost. Giano felt that the copy-editing had altered "the essence of the page", and reverted to the pre-FAC version. As this occured after a lot of editing by FAC page regulars, they understandably felt some frustration. However, while Giano could probably have been more constructive in pointing out which edits in particular were problematic, your reply, Tony, was not, in my very humble opinion, helpful. A more constructive approach might have been to determine what precisely were the problems, and move from there. Figure out why the other guy is upset first; don't say anything before that is understood—most especially if you're the admin. The expert is often able to see subtleties in meaning that are not immediately apparent to the non-expert; equally, the expert virtually always improves from input from those outside his field. Their collaboration improves articles, but will not occur in the face of angry remarks.

   I'm not going to change my vote, Tony, as I'm confident you'll make a sound admin—everything I've seen of you suggests this was a rare intemperance. However, I do hope you might reconsider Bishonen's question in #2. encephalon 04:46, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

NEW STATEMENT BY TONY:

Encephalon, thanks for your support, and you're right, cool and calm is best; I hate conflict. However, since this process appears to have turned into a fiasco of snide attacks - even public character assassination - by users associated with the article Sicilian Baroque, I feel I must defend myself in relation to that article. Amazingly, it was promoted to FA status only a few days ago, with several comments about prose outstanding, among them, mine. No, I wasn’t the person to post it on FARC, since I know that can’t be done so soon, as Giano snidely acknowledges above (‘not so stupid as to’). I'd appreciate it if those people refrained from snide and insulting language, and, in the case of Bishonen, also misrepresenting what I have said.

I had written several flattering comments about the article on the FAC page, and because I wanted to see it promoted, I put considerable time and effort into fixing up what was appalling prose, inserting inline queries where I felt there were problems in the logical flow, and pointing out other problems that went beyond mere copyediting. I had worked on the first third, intending, slightly reluctantly given the size of the job at hand, to return to do the rest. Giano and I had a not unpleasant exchange on our talk pages, and it was clear that my efforts had triggered a flurry of activity on his part. The next day, I was gobsmacked to see that he had reverted my work with no specific explanation as to why, beyond that I had 'altered the essence' of the text. I seriously doubt that: almost all of my changes and comments were at the clause level. The first third IS now better than it was originally, despite the reversion, but still needs work to satisfy several FA criteria. The last two-thirds remains a significant problem.

Maybe my response was intemperate, but I was offended. I don't resile from my comment about FARC. Here are some examples of why this article should not be paraded as ‘exemplifying our very best work' (Criterion 1). Please note that they are merely a small sample, selected at random. Nearly every sentence in the article needs at least one change, and many need major surgery.

First, there’s POV (Criterion 2d). It’s clear that Giano is passionate about the subject, and a notable expert, but he gets carried away in places that diminish the authority of the article:

'However, much of the decay and ruinous state of preservation of so many palazzi must fall not just on owners unwilling to accept change, but the pollical agendas of successive socialist governments.'

The same goes for:

‘Any visiting foreigner, especially an Englishman, was regarded as a special trophy and added social prestige.’

Numerous statements are within his area of expertise, but make me a little uncomfortable for their sweeping assumptions. Here’s one:

'Church interiors, which until this date had been slightly pedestrian …'

I’m sure he can justify this, but while the statement might be OK in the context of an audio/visual presentation with supporting evidence, here it assumes too much. Another sentence exemplifying or detailing this assertion is required for the sake of credibility. As is, it's POV, and probably also fails Criterion 2c ('the supporting of facts with specific evidence and external citations').

Some statements are way out of line with an encyclopedic register, although they might be alright as a push in WikiTravel, e.g.,:

‘… today long shrouded salons and ballrooms are hosting corporate and public events. Some palazzi are offering a bed and breakfast service to paying guests, in this way once again providing impressive hospitality to visitors to Sicily,..’

‘The remaining members of the Sicilian aristocracy who still inhabit their ancestral palazzi have refrained from filling their gardens with wild animals to lure in the masses to view their homes (ironically unlike their English counterparts, who spurned Baroque as vulgar excess).’ Huh?

And here’s an odd mixture of hype and tourist brochure:

‘… its Corinthian columns supporting balconies of amazing wrought iron work, while supports of grotesques mock, shock or amuse the passer-by.’

The article fails miserably in terms of Criterion 2a (prose that is 'compelling, even brilliant'). There are conflicts of tense:

‘However, when a few years later the upper floor was added, the neoclassical French influence is very pronounced.’

And conflicts of number:

‘by the time they were completed Baroque has passed from fashion’

There are bumpety-bump commas that make the poor reader backtrack (I had to read it three times before I got it):

‘Revolts against the Bourbons in 1821, and 1848 divided the nobility, and liberalism was in the air.’

And no, we’re not talking about Bach’s Mass in B minor (I had provided a reasonable defining phrase for ‘Chiaroscuro’ at the top, but it now it’s mangled):

‘… providing Baroque masses of light and shade, or Chiaroscuro …’

Isn’t the style usually referred to as the Baroque, a key termin this topic?

‘As with all architectural styles, people eventually tired of Baroque. In some parts of Europe it metamorphosed into the rococo,’

Here’s a logical problem: why is an unbroken skyline unbaroque, or antithetical to the use of giant pilasters? It’s hard to work out the intended meaning:

‘The main facade, punctuated by giant pilasters, also had Baroque features, but the skyline was unbroken.’

The grammar is garbled:

‘Furniture … … frequently with marble used for table tops … … was transient within the house, frequently moved between rooms as required, while leaving other rooms unfurnished.

There are some long snakes that make the reader work very hard:

‘Vaccarini also exploited the local black lava stone as a decorative feature, rather than a general building material, using it intermittently with other materials, and spectacularly for an obelisk supported on the back of the Catanian heraldic elephant, for a fountain in the style of Bernini in front of the new Town hall.’

Yet amid this, the article contains just two or three beautiful sentences, such as:

‘Above the doorways and window apertures, pediments scroll and curve with a sense of freedom and movement which would have been unthinkable to those earlier architects inspired by Bernini and Borromini.’ Oh, give me more of that.

The article was unstable before, and has been since ('major chunk' I see in an edit summary today), which may touch on Criterion 2e (stability), and suggests that the promotion was hasty. I think Raul654 does a really good job, BTW, but on this occasion, I have to question his action.

Perhaps reviewers might now understand the intensity of work that I had put in, and was willing to continue investing to bring the article to FA standard, and (2) why the article should NOT have been promoted, and should eventually be listed as a FARC. I hope this puts into perspective some of the comments that have been bandied about on this page. Tony 14:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps others will now realise the weight of Tony's opinion bombing which befalls those who do not agree with it. This is the first time an article is promoted without Tony's input, whatever will happen when he has magical powers and it happens again, or will it never happen again? Even here any one who dares to express an opinion contrary to his own is making a " fiasco of snide attacks - even public character assassination" . I don't think there's much more I can say on the subject, people must form their own opinions. Giano | talk 15:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

A few observations on the Sicilian Baroque debate, from someone who is also probably one of the harder nuts to crack over featured articles. Material written by experts sometimes appears superficially non-neutral, because they take for granted knowledge that the layperson lacks. In the arts especially, providing a critical perspective of various works is actually essential to understanding them and their context. Generally, asking for references is better than rewriting in such cases. And in reality, I think many of the points here should ultimately be resolved by referring the reader to other Misplaced Pages articles to understand where these insights come from. At present, however, those other articles are likely inadequate to the task. In any case, considerable damage to the insights in the text can result if people with insufficient knowledge try to bluntly "NPOV" everything. At some point, a little forbearance may be necessary for the fact that not all of Misplaced Pages is likely to be feature-quality simultaneously. --Michael Snow 21:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Although I don't vote often, I read this page regularly. This particular request for administraton reminds me of a couple of others which have failed in the past; I believe one of them was Private Butcher, the other a chap called Gordon Watts. In both cases the barrage of negative votes had a detrimental effect on the sum total of human happiness, although in the latter case it seemed as if the rest of us suffered more than Watts. But still. Is there a better way? I understand that adminship is supposed to be no big deal, but the process of applying for administrator status reminds me of the process of selecting the Mercury Seven; your edit history, your edit frequency, your liver, your seed, everything about you is laid bare, examined, personal grievances are brought to the fore, rection, betrayal etc. It feels bad to lose. Either there needs to be a much stronger disclaimer somewhere - "Be warned that your edit history will be subject to intense scrutiny, and rejection may cause offence - or perhaps a secret panel of trusted people could vote, in secret, behind closed doors, like a Golf club, although I understand <deadpan>that this solution may not be entirely compatible with Misplaced Pages's aims</deadpan>. As a postscript, I am sure that Tony1 will recover and return to Misplaced Pages, but all of the comments above will be used against him in the future unless he is appropriately penitent. -Ashley Pomeroy 15:03, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Durin has proposed writing a guide to warn potential nominees about the dangers of RfA, to be mandatorily read before they accept the nom. It can be found in WP:GRFA. Borisblue 15:15, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

• • • At the end of this process, I'd like to offer just a little more evidence of how damaging it is to WP. In replying to one of the contributors here, I discovered on his/her talkpage the following two messages from antagonists on this page, who had clearly been perusing my own talkpage. It's sad to see that the bad blood over this process now reaches beyond this page to embroil third parties who are Wikifriends—yet more reason that dramatic reform of RfA is required. No one, incuding me, wants to see working relationships damaged because of RfA. I've removed references to the recipient; people can easily find who it is, if they can be bothered, but her/his identity doesn't seem to matter here. Tony 20:47, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

==Civility or lack thereof==

Hi. Is there any particular point where you think me lacking in civility and walking away]? Bishonen | talk 16:49, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

== Wikilove? ==

We've been friends since I fist came here, so I have to say I was surprised and a little hurt by your comments. I have been completely vilified by that man, and a good few people on that RFA page to, and for what, realising Tony was not quite as nice as those who recommended him for FA thought he was. He has threatened Misplaced Pages with legal threats, thrown another of his former supporters out of some club/group he runs, taken back copyright music he uploaded, generally been completely foul to anyone who had the guts to oppose him. And now threatens to rubbish the whole project on the internet. You talk about Wikilove and walking away, where would we all be if Bishonen and I had walked away? - on the eve of Tony becoming an administrator that's where. Perhaps the next person he would have crossed would have been less able to defend themselves than me, where would your Wikilove be then. Yes you just think on that.

I have deliberately only mentioned this business on pages I regularly go and to people who know of the subject, as yet he has wrongly accused me, and Bishonen of whipping up opposition on other people's talk pages, You go through my recent edits and find one instance; and then check his. I only mention this to you now as you seem to be familiar, if in my opinion misinformed, on the subject.

While in spite of his disgraceful behaviour he has received numerous messages of support and pleas to stay. Bishonen and I have received no support from anyone. Let us not fall out, but please do try to be a little more considerate of other feelings. Giano | talk 17:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC) ::PS Hoary though has been very nice indeed. Giano | talk 17:53, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

• Yes I wrote that, and I wrote it here and I stand by every single word of it.

However, this page has not been Misplaced Pages's finest moment. I think we probably all agree on that. Would the correct decision have been determined if a few admins had met secretly in the earliest days of the application? I'm sure a different outcome would have arisen. But... would it have been the correct decision for Misplaced Pages?

I keep noting Tony's further and, sadly, increasingly more erratic comments. It seems now that everyone is being attacked on all quarters by him. I think the kindliest thing is for us all to keep silent from this point on. I'm sure after a period of quiet reflection Tony will come to see the wise, and well meaning advice that has been offered to him here, and on his talk page. My shoulders are broad to these attacks, as are I'm sure are those of the many others he has attacked. Many stressful things have been said here, many of them by Tony, who I'm sure is already regretting them. So for Tony's sake let us say no more. If Tony chooses to act on his threats to rubbish Misplaced Pages on the internet, where, incidentally, he has to find an audience that would be a pity. As the father of four children (yes four! but I've found the cause now) all of whom use the Wiki for their home-work and assignments (it's just what google flashes up, no input from me) , I know, his attacks and words will not damage us, perhaps him, but not us. We have a great project here. So lets congratulate ourselves on that, and also wish Tony well wherever his future is destined to be. Giano | talk 21:03, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't regret my statements one bit. I would have a huge audience on the net, if I chose that course of action. I think people are probably wishing that you would say no more, for your own sake as well as ours. Tony 21:20, 30 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 have to admit that patrolling to identify and revert vandalism is not my strongest point—others usually get there first, although I do it whenever I encounter vandalism. I'm just too taken up with reviewing FACs and helping contributors to bring them up to standard before and during nomination. Much of this task involves improving what I think is WP's weakest aspect, the quality of its prose (see the recent review in the UK publication The Guardian ()—ouch); it's a bottomless pit that keeps me from working on my own articles. However, I'm not averse to performing any admin task that is required of me.

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

A. I've a list of articles that I'm trying to bring up to FAC standard, as my own projects, including those on JS Bach and iMac. I've written six shortish articles, including Geoffrey Miller (evolutionary psychologist), and, more importantly, I've helped numerous articles to achieve FA status. I've rewritten the criteria for FACs (User:Raul654 pulled me up on only one point) and I added a sixth point to the PR instructions to try to make the process more effective.

I'd like to see a greater use of WP's potential for lavishly and cogently illustrating musical topics with short musical excerpts; and I want composer articles to include more information on musical style, rather than being mainly biographical. To assist in these purposes, on the Wikiproject Composers page I've written guidelines for the use and copyright tagging of sound excerpts (Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Composers#Guidelines for using sound excerpts) and suggested points to be covered in the style section of composer articles (Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Composers#Suggested points to be covered in the style section of composer articles). I've changed the wording on the copyright tag Template:Music sample so that it's easier to read, specifies an important point raised by Carmildo concerning the avoidance of multiple excerpts from the same track on WP, and now states correctly the duration of 'the track' rather than 'the work'.

I like the teamwork and community aspects of WP.

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. The main contributor to a highly technical medical article on the PR list accused me of introducing factual errors, and was overall rather aggressive towards me. I thought this was unfair and unproductive, since I'd significantly improved what had been seriously inadequate prose in the expectation that the contributors would check through for such errors, as usual. So we had a little stouch about that. I'm the one who called User:Cyberjunkie 'bossy' <blush> (see here). A contributor walked out of an article in which I'd delinked the low-value chronological items (as per WP policy). That upset me, and I tried to persuade her otherwise, unsuccessfully; very unfortunate. I usually have no problem with other contributors; in retrospect, it would have been better not to react to any of these three incidents. Tony 02:32, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

PS The edit count is inflated by my regrettable habit of saving the page, then identifying further improvements; on the other hand, sometimes I do massive edits in one go.

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.

Bushytails

Final (34/17/3) ended 20:30 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Bushytails (talk · contribs) – Bushytails is a great vandal fighter. It's his fault I'm on Misplaced Pages, not sure if that's a good thing though... :) He's always complaining about not having rollback, non-admin reverts taking forever, etc. I think he'd wield the mop well, and use it often. He's also written several nice articles. For full disclosure, he has 1404 edits, and has been editing since 2004-12-30, but I do not feel edit counts mean anything on RFA... --Phroziac 18:21, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Meep! I gratefully accept.  :) Bushytails 20:15, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Support - Let me be the first to support this fine editor. -- Francs2000 20:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Support - Bushytails would make a great addition to the Wiki team -- gxti 21:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
3. --JAranda | watz sup 21:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Support. El_C 21:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Support. I don't believe this user would abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Support If Phroziac nominated, that's already a huge plus, she's a well respected editor. That plus a quick scan of your contribs (alot of vandal reverts and edit summaries, ol' Durin would be proud), and I think Bushy definately deserves the mop. Edits be damned. Karmafist 22:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

   Thanks. *hug* --Phroziac 22:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

7. Oran e (t) (c) (@) 22:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
8. Redwolf24 (talk) 22:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
9. Support Lots of good work, level-headed. Luigizanasi 23:36, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
10. Support vandal-whackers. Titoxd 23:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
11. Support Fantastic fellow. Can't think of a better admin candidate. Personally, there aren't nearly enough dildos on the main page..:).--Sean Black 23:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
12. Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 02:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
13. Support Should make a good admin, level headed, cool under fire and with a lot of good edits/contributions. — Graibeard 02:41, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
14. Support worked with this kind and diligent user before. Molotov (talk) 02:50, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
15. Support --Kefalonia 08:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
16. Support - per my standards. --Celestianpower 14:51, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
17. Extreme Strap-on Dildo Support!.  Grue  16:33, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
18. Support nice name --Gamer28 18:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
19. Support per nom. Jkelly 19:43, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
20. Support per nomination. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 01:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
21. Support User would make a fine admin ;] In reference to Kirill Lokshin's comment, I don't see anything wrong with the comment made on that talk page... --VileRage (Talk|Cont) 07:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
22. Support. WP:NOT censored for the protection of minors. Ral315 (talk) 07:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
23. Support. Johann Wolfgang 15:20, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
24. FireFox 17:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
25. Enthusiastic Support, Bushytails is one of the best things about Misplaced Pages. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:26, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
26. Support, what another dildo among friends? Seriously folks, tackling a subject like that is decidedly not easy and deserves some recognition. Beyond that, sometimes it seems we're entirely too hard on people. Tedernst 21:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
27. Support. What's wrong with strap-on dildos? Kaldari 06:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
28. Support, will make a good admin. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 12:50, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
29. Support, lots of good quality writing and reasoned responses to the arguments against that DYK entry. Would make a good admin IMO. Leithp 07:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
30. Support. What's wrong with dildoes? — JIP | Talk 09:16, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
31. BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-31 12:28
32. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:54, 31 October 2005 (UTC) Nothing wrong with a good dildo. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:54, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
33. Support. Don't really understand the Oppose votes. I can't see how any of this makes him unlikely to be a good admin. The Land 17:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
34. Support. To some of the oppose voters: Please stop treating adminship as some prize to hand out to people you like. It's about whether the candidate is willing and able to use administrative privileges. If you disagree with Bushytails on whether the Misplaced Pages Main Page should be "family-friendly" or not, discuss it with him. An adminship nomination is not the place for that discussion. The concerns that the user may abuse their privileges based on this incident are far-fetched at best, and in any case, almost any damage is easily undone. Expressing a controversial opinion should not be grounds for denying a user adminship; indeed, courageously and honestly speaking one's mind (while making an effort not to be hurtful) should be rewarded.--Eloquence* 03:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose In regard to the strap on dildo comment - I question the maturity of this user. freestylefrappe 01:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Oppose — this comment suggests that the user doesn't appreciate the need for "sound editorial judgement" in some matters. Kirill Lokshin 03:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

   I don't agree with putting that on the main page, but, I really do not feel that his editorial judgement should affect his adminship. It's not like he's going to replace the main page with goatse. Just my $0.02/₁₀ --Phroziac 06:28, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

3. Oppose. --Sn0wflake 06:20, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Weak Oppose. Although I largely agree with him on the substance of the Dildo discussion (and find the article itself rather good though more detailed than i can bear), I think he has dealt with the controversy in a rather undiplomatic way. Reactions to the criticism with comments such as "this really made me laugh out loud", and then ignoring the content of the criticism, does not make one level headed or cool. Instead, it makes you look arrogant and only serves to enrage others more. Remember, dont be a Cock ;-) The Minister of War 10:51, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

   I'm not sure I'd call his comments "criticism" (more like personal attacks if you read all of them, and this was after threats of legal action), and with him spamming admins' talk pages trying to get me blocked for using the word "cock" in an external link (and hints of 3rr even though I only reverted it once the entire dispute; his changes were in place the entire time of that discussion, as I left them in), his comment of "Neutral means that there should be no foul language" finally just made me laugh... and remember that dont be a cock has to be countered by don't feed the trolls.  :) Thanks, Bushytails 18:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC).

   Spawn Man is hardly a troll though. If you've had 30 reactions to the article being on the main page, perhaps you should consider not putting it on the main page. If anything, this RfA is demonstrating many more people feel like he does. Agreed, WP shouldnt be censored, but we shouldnt want to push to make it controversial either. The Minister of War 09:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

   Thanks for sticking up for me MOW. As I've said before, I was not threatening legal action, I was stating that in some cases, people may find this offensive & it seemed to be under law. Also, I never spammed admins trying to get you blocked, I was asking reliable users, some of which are close friends, (eg: This user), what the next course of action was, & if was that they would block you. Not asking that, just seeing if it would lead to that. I've made my vote in the appropriate section, (Oppose), & that's that I'm afraid. Spawn Man 01:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC) P.S. I agree I'm not a troll, a nice one if I am....

5. Oppose: agree with Snowflake. CDThieme 17:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Oppose, per Kirill Lokshin. I edit from work, and I know many others do as well. I have concerns about this editor's judgement.--Scimitar 22:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
   • Strong Oppose: I just found out that Bushytails is up for adminship a few moments ago. I am what used to be 71.132.159.145. Bushytails decided to post an accusation of sockpupetting a "Biggie.P" on my user talk page. No only is such a false accusation slanderous, but it also hurts my ability to make meaningful Misplaced Pages edits. When people see that on my user talk page, they will be tempted to dismiss my credibility. Because Bushytails made this horrendous assumption, I question his ability to make good decisions as a Misplaced Pages administrator. --JJ.Johnson 00:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
   • This was this user's first edit(see contribs.)Karmafist 16:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
7. Oppose, unfortunately; seems like a nice guy. Strap-on dildo reads like a how-to (indeed Bushytails refers to it as a "guide") and is a bad example of non-NPOV. It's not a bad place for an article to start but I'd like an admin to be a little more familiar with applying those policies. Demi /_C 04:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
8. Weak Oppose per Scimitar. I think Bushytails is a fine contributor, but I am sensitive to others' concerns. This is really a "better-safe-than-sorry" vote; I'd like more of a record to evaluate his judgment, in light of the concerns raised here. Xoloz 05:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
   • Oppose Bushytails knows how to use a dildo and probably has used one. While masturbating is natural and ok, Misplaced Pages is about community relationships, not self-sufficiency. IHOP.yummy 07:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
   • This account has precisely one edit, the masterpiece seen above.--Scimitar 15:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
   • Someone always has to ruin it don't they? Spawn Man 03:26, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
   • I wonder why the use of dildoes would make him a bad admin... --Phroziac 20:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
9. Oppose per antidildoism above, and 1400 edits isn't that many. It would have been if the candidate is able to appear level headed and sensible, but the dildo stuff makes me think that this is not the case. Proto t c 11:39, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

   Hi there, could you clarify what aspect of the "dildo stuff" is problematic? If there's a list of forbidden subjects, I'd love to review it so I can avoid an inadvertent transgression. Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:44, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

10. Oppose it is not a "fallacy" to express the view that the main page should be work-safe, it's an understandable concern. Jonathunder 19:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
11. Oppose due to maturity concerns and a very low edit count. Silensor 20:45, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
12. Oppose Per the many reasons already given. Sorry. Private Butcher 20:19, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
13. Oppose, also stemming from the DYK Strap-on incident. See below under Comments. --squirrel 15:05, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
14. Oppose insufficent edits, insufficent experience, no understanding of WP:NOT. Agriculture 01:58, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
15. EXTREME OPPOSE Extremely immature, oppiniated-to-the-point-of-neglecting-everyone-else's-opinion, defensive, agumentative, mean, makes personal attacks, allows swearing on his articles & allows gross links too. Will never change my opinion. Thanks,.... Spawn Man 01:20, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

    Howdy! Could you please cite the specific[REDACTED] rules that forbid swearing and "gross links"? Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:44, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

    For Spawn Man: WP:NOT censored for the protection of minors.--Sean Black | Talk 04:48, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

16. Analytically opposed After reviewing a few edits and his profile, I find his maturity and objectivity absolutely in question. Not to mention his odd animal fetish seems borderline pathological. Ereinion 02:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

    m:Don't be a dick --Phroziac 02:31, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

    And don't oppose based upon someone's sexual preferences.--Sean Black | Talk 04:48, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

    The corrupt bias of the nominator aside, there's a whole first sentence there about why I opposed, I know you can see it. And secondly, such a "preference" obviously affects his mental and/or emotional state, which makes it very relevent for this kind of forum. Ereinion 07:11, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

    "Corrupt bias"? That sounds rather inflammatory. And, why does being Furry "affect his emotional and/or mental state", anymore than living any sort of lifestyle does?--Sean Black | Talk 21:01, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

    #Object. I object to Bushy tail being elected. Market Man 03:11, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

    user has 12 edits Karmafist 16:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

17. Object I don't think he demonstrates enough tact to be an admin. Borisblue 03:58, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral. User seems like a good, level headed editor. I have two things I want to comment about. First, I can't really decide how I feel about the discussion of strap-on dildo being featured on DYK. Second, you commented in this AfD (which I happened to close) "Delete. And remind people that keep votes from no-contribution anons should be deleted as well.". Do you feel that anonymous keep votes should be deleted from the discussion, or simply tagged as unsigned anonymous votes? Ëvilphoenix 23:19, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

   I feel that they should be tagged as unsigned comments, and given very little or no weight in deciding consensus for the afd; delete was merely an alliteration to the first part. For that afd, it very strongly looked like the anon keep votes were sockpuppets and/or "meatpuppets," directed by the creator of the article, and should not have any weight on the outcome. Reminding that they wouldn't be counted was to hopefully hint to their master that there was no point in keeping using them.  :) Thanks, Bushytails 23:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC).

   • Why just the keep votes? Demi /_C 04:50, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

   When I commented on the AFD in question, the vast majority of keep votes (under titles such as "don't delete", "do not delete", etc) appeared to be fraudulent, while the delete ones did not... hence the use of keep in my description. Thanks, Bushytails 04:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC).

2. Neutral Looks like a good editor to me, and I know edit counts are not that important, but user has been making edits since 2004-12-30 and only has 1404. That tells me he might not be active enough to be a admin KnowledgeOfSelf | talk. 05:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Neutral. I honestly don't know what to vote on this one, so I'm going to give one of my rare neutral supports. I want to make this clear: while I admit that the entire furry "thing" is a little... well, odd... it plays no part in this RFA. I certainly hope that isn't the case with the oppose votes... Linuxbeak | Talk 22:10, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• A chart showing this user's edits along with a total # of edits line and average edits per day line is available here: Image:Bushytails-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 21:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Use of edit summaries is 95%, 98% over the last 500 edits. Average edits per day is ~4.5 per day, 18.5 per day over last 30 days. --Durin 21:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

• On re-reading his responses on the dildo dicussion, it is pretty eveident that Bushytails is cool under fire and able to get his (valid) point across in a reasonable manner without getting hostile despite the POV attacks he faced. A good quality in an admin, whatever one might think of dildos and whether they belon on the main page. Luigizanasi 07:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• I Agree with the commenter above. I think Bushytails behaved quite well in the face of much provocation and the descriptions of the incident here show him in a much worse light than warranted. Also, it is good to see somebody who is not afraid to write seriously about sexual practises without moralising or perving.--Martin Wisse 20:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• I have to disagree with the above two comments. His energic defense of his own article's main page status was a clear conflict of interest and only served to fan the flamewar. His complete rejection of every disagreeing point made does not speak well to his ability to work for consensus. He also repeatedly expresses dislike of cultural decency standards, a view that I can't resolve with Misplaced Pages's own standards on profanity and graphic images. Sorry Bushytails, you seem to be a good guy, I just don't think you'd make a good admin. --squirrel 15:05, 28 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 have been doing a lot of RC patrol lately (mostly since I've been noticing quite a bit of vandalism slipping through), but as Phroziac mentioned, finding it especially painful trying to revert by hand. I plan to continue doing RC patrol, and hope having the additional abilities of an admin will make this easier, allowing me to directly deal with vandals instead of only (slowly) reverting their edits (or adding appropriate speedy tags) and referring them to an admin if a block is needed. I also hope to help clear out some of the pages with backlogs, such as WP:CV still having pages on it listed as copyvios from over 3 weeks ago. Plus, of course, the general random admin tasks of deleting redirects for moves, protecting/unprotecting pages, fixing copy+paste moves, fixing a typo in the DYK template or two, and so forth, perhaps performing more complex tasks when I gain a bit more experience with my new tasks.

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

A. Well, Strap-on dildo would have to be the article I'm most proud of (taking about two weeks and 450 photos to create), but Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Metalworking would have to be my contribution I'm most pleased with. I was browsing for articles on CNC mills, and found the entire metalworking section was pretty disorganized, lacked many important articles, had no introduction page, and generally was in need of quite a bit of work. I asked some editors I had seen making contributions to the articles about a wikiproject, and all were in favor, so I wrote up a quick project page and started a big list of articles. Since then the wikiproject has gathered a number of active contributors, started developing ties with some other wikiprojects (most notably one for woodworking, created to go with our metalworking one), and made many improvements to metalworking on wikipedia. While our work is by no means finished, with many pages not having proper navigation boxes, the main introduction only partly written, and plenty of articles still on the "improvement needed" list, we have made quite a bit of progress, and I'm very pleased with how it is progressing and what has been accomplished so far.

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. That would have to be the various conflicts over Strap-on dildo being listed on DYK, which is probably the only thing really counting as a conflict I've been in. In the 12 hours or so it was on the main page, somewhere around 30 people asked for it to be removed (and about an equal number defending it), raising issues of whether popular cultural POVs should censor the main page, whether words considered vulgar in certain cultures are acceptable in an article, and other issues about just about everything other than the article itself. I was prepared for a day spent reverting vandalism, but the page wasn't even vandalized once, and instead I spent the day replying to everyone who had criticism or questions about the "appropriateness" of the article. I don't tend to be prone to stress, and certainly didn't feel much of it during that conflict (and certain people's edits provided comedy relief), although people repeating the exact same arguments (with the exact same fallacies) (and my having to type the same responses) began to get a tad annoying after doing it all day. As to dealing with stress if I were to encounter it in the future, generally just finding something else to do for a while is plenty to give a fresh outlook on the situation. And, of course, remembering that this is all supposed to be fun and help people.  :)

4. There is no #4 yet, but if you have any questions, please ask them! Bushytails 20:15, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Don't ask youself extra questions - it didn't work for me. Alphax  10:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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 request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Anonymous editor

Final (60/36/5) ending 16:34 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous editor (talk · contribs) – Anonymous editor has been editing since May 2005 and has made over 3,500 edits, with a good balance of edits to articles and talk pages. He's an important contributor to Islam-related articles and is active in fighting vandalism and sockpuppetry on those pages. He's mature and level-headed, is willing to seek compromise, cares about our policies, is courteous, and gets along well with editors regardless of their POV. I think he'll make an excellent admin, and it's my privilege to nominate him. SlimVirgin 00:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I am honored to accept this nomination. :) --a.n.o.n.y.m 00:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Withdrawal: I've decided to withdraw from my adminship because I've been advised that a very large number of support votes would be needed now to overcome the oppose votes. I want to thank SlimVirgin for her trust in me and all her help and a BIG thanks to all my supporters. I feel I've made many good friends through this Rfa. To most of those who opposed, I thank you too for your thoughtful comments and advice, which I will take seriously to help myself become an editor better suited to your needs. I expect to run again for adminship in the near future, perhaps in a few months. Thank you.--a.n.o.n.y.m 16:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. My pleasure. SlimVirgin 00:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Rkgerzr yrfovna fhccbeg! ~~ N (t/c) 01:11, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Support --> shifted to Strong support as I am not convinced by some opposition votes (see my reply to Klonimus vote No 1, down there) - It's time to become an anonymous admin! -- Svest 01:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)  
4. Strong Support Trust the nominator and the nominee ;-) Redwolf24 (talk) 01:21, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Support good editor --JAranda | watz sup 01:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
6. SupportHell yeah V/M !
   01:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
7. Support, every encounter with this user has left me with a good impression. Titoxd 01:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
8. Support Awesome guy to work with. He has helped me in every dispute I have ever been in. Madhev0 01:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
9. Support I just met him, but even I think he's great. --JadeManiac 01:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
10. Support --Rogerd 02:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
11. Support freestylefrappe 02:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
12. Support. Kirill Lokshin 02:45, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
13. Support Strong Support, even though we may disagree in some issues, he is still an excellent Wikipedian. Eagle 04:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
14. EXTREME SUPPORT SUPPORT. Need I say, as per above.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 05:15, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
15. Support and RFA cliche #1. Dmcdevit·t 05:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
16. Support 172 | Talk 06:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
17. Support. The Minister of War 07:19, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
18. Strong Support - Has evolved into an editer of impecible standards with an eye on copyediting and all that other boring stuff! We need more admins like this. --Irishpunktom\ 13:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
19. Support Yuber 15:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
20. Strong Support -- Levelheaded and fair. Will make a great admin. BrandonYusufToropov 18:42, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
21. Strong Support as per BYT. F.a.y. 19:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
22. SupportThank you. Your answer was exactly what I was looking for. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
23. Support on condition that the user has agreed to change their username. -- Francs2000 20:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
24. Strong support. A good editor, fair and pretty cool-headed, standing up for NPoV — disliked by trolls and PoV warriors and their defenders, so is clearly doing something right. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:29, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
25. Oppose Islamophobic tendencies; support Anonymous editor. El_C 21:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

    This should NOT be a case of islamic vs. islamophobic. Unfortunately many voters on both sides seem to completely forget this. I just don't think that pov warriors should be admins - but maybe that's just me. I'm just funny that way I guess. I'm sorry for my stupid bias against pov warriors, and also vandals and the like. --Kefalonia 07:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

26. Saw his nice edits to a subject I was interested in, so Support.--The Mann 22:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
27. Support. Yeah this is a total reversal, but we had a long and civil talk over the matter, I am convinced that he has become a mature and serious editor and vandal fighter. Hopefully, he will do more of Misplaced Pages's custodial tasks though ;).Voice of All 23:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
28. Support: The thing I probably dislike the most at Misplaced Pages is sockpuppetry, but #2 would have to be POV editors with axes to grind against others, and it looks like there several axes waiting in the Oppose column, which says to me that this guy is not afraid to get knee deep in the tough situations, which Misplaced Pages desperately needs in administrators. However, deleting things off talk pages and the name(anonymous sounds a bit sneaky) kind of worry me, but definately not enough to withdraw support. Karmafist 23:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
29. Support. Articles about Islam get way too contentious for me, but Anon always plays it cool. Keep up the good work. --Sean Black 03:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
30. Support - overall, I see no convincing reason not to trust him with admin powers. I've noticed this editor's contributions, they seem level-headed. I am also very uncomfortable with what I see on the oppose side - if I hadn't come here planning to support I would have been tempted just on the basis of some of the bad faith on the oppose side. Guettarda 03:49, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
31. Strong Support - With opposition like that... FeloniousMonk 06:16, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
32. Support cool name choice man. --Gamer28 18:50, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
33. Support per nom. Jkelly 19:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
34. Support. The oppose votes below have, if anything, proven that this editor is capable of editing potentally incendiary topics without bias; if Anonymous editor showed even a hint of bias in their edits, then the opposes would certainly have been accompanied by a mountain of diffs as evidence. If the best they can come up with by going through months of edits in controversal articles is a handful of reverts, then this is a level-headed editor indeed. --Aquillion 20:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

    Some diffs regarding AE's disputed behavior, has been made available for your consideration here: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Anonymous_editor#Evidence -- Karl Meier 09:37, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

35. Support - Editors should not be penalized for having strong opinions and for participating in controversial articles. Will this person be a good admin. I surely think so. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 23:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
36. Support. I am not convinced by the arguments against this editor below. They refer mostly to POV edits on talk pages, which is exactly where POV edits belong. The editor is good at distinguishing between his own point of view and editorital necessity, and would certainly not abuse the rollback button. Chick Bowen 04:46, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
37. support. It appears that any user daring deal with the mess the Islam articles are in is giving up any chance for adminship. The oppose votes below are an embarassing showcase of the gang of Islam-bashing editors that has emerged in the community (of course there are 'non-partisan' oppose votes too, there is no guilt by association here). Without people like Anonymous editor, WP would long ago have become redneck-pedia. Baad 06:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
38. Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 08:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
39. Support--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 13:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
40. support. Support and respect for this as a nomination. Unbehagen 13:42, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
41. Strongly support --JuanMuslim 15:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
42. Support. I'm damned proud to be American, conservative, having voted twice for George Bush, would do it a third time if I could and I fully support the war on terror. That being said, an editor versed in Islam who is willing to make sure that articles on one of the world's great religions don't get trashed by bozos who view the actions of a relative few as representative of the entire body of worshippers is a true gift to this project. - Lucky 6.9 16:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
43. Support Johann Wolfgang 17:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
44. Support Ok, I've turned around. Banes 18:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
45. Support. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:32, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
46. Support. --Randy 20:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
47. support. --Zereshk 21:20, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
48. Gentle support. In my short time here, I've found Anon to be very agreeable and not looking for trouble (unless he's looking to CLEAR IT UP!), and IMO this personal qualifies him for the role. TheProphetess 00:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
49. Support Seems level-headed and able to distinguish between talk and article pages. Finding it hard to understand some of the impassioned arguments in the oppose camp. A good addition to Misplaced Pages. For those so worried about the wielding of his new powers, keep an eye on him: this is not a irreversible decision. Turnstep 00:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
50. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC) Much of the opposition is remarkably wrong-headed. My sense is that adminship will be advantageous both for the candidate and for Misplaced Pages.
51. Support. I trust him. In spite of the presence of some names I respect on the oppose list, I'm inclined to believe he'd be a good admin. Anyone who can edit Islam-related articles and remain cool-headed is fine admin material. Antandrus (talk) 01:19, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
52. Support. Calm, knowledgable, and not afraid to wade into the fire. Looking forward to the bureaucrat's decision. - brenneman 01:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
53. Support, I've always had good relations with anon, even when we have POV disagreements we work them out. I trust that he'd use his powers well even if I think maybe the nomination should have come a little bit later. I also want to say that he should just be careful about all of the criticism below, one can always improve themselves. gren グレン 02:08, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
54. Support, because of ability to argue with hostile people yet craft thoughtful text.Cberlet 03:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
55. Support. Taking into account the contentiousness of the articles where AE typically contributes, I find him reasonable and level-headed. Editors on any side in these kinds of articles tend to get labeled POV warriors by others w/opposing POVs, but in reality we need articulate editors of various POVs to cooperate together, that's what produces the best articles. --MPerel 03:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
56. Support. Concerned about some POV in edits, but even more disturbed by the anti-Islam comments of a number of the Opposers. Jayjg 04:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
57. Support. I've seen this editor deal with controversial discussions in an even-handed manner. It is odd indeed that most of the "oppose" votes focus exclusively on AE's religion yet the only evidence of POV that they have are his reversions. Reversions alone are not evidence of incivility and religion certainly isn't - imagine the uproar if someone argued that a Jewish person should not be an administrator because of their religion. It is clear that AE has a different view of Islam than some of his interlocutors; it is a little unfair for them to attack him for not conforming to their rather stereotypical and condescending view of what Islam is about. (It's even more bizarre to see such people claim some kind of expertise on the topic when it's clear all they have read about it comes from the likes of Robert Spencer).-csloat 05:04, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
58. Support. utcursch | talk 05:41, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
59. Support --Pjacobi 12:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
60. Support. The obvious axe-grinding by the oppose voters certainly ain't helping. --Calton | Talk 13:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong Oppose one of the least cooperative editors on WP. I have very little confidence that Anonyme will not abuse his admin powers in realtionship to controversial articles involving Islam or the Arab Israeli conflict. Nothing personal, but I don't think Anonym has the personal maturity to separete his strongly held beleif's from his responsibilty as a sysop. Klonimus 05:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

   Although, I understand that you have a different point of view than I do, I still don't understand why you would be rallying people to vote against me, , ,. Your personal differences with me are fine, but these type of tactics are in bad faith. I also don't recall making any controversial edits to pages of the Arab-Israeli conflict. I would, however, like to thank you for voting. --a.n.o.n.y.m 11:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

   Anonym, most people don't follow RfA very closely, and there exists a tendancy to rubberstamp approve many candidates. Since there is no real mechanism for removing admins, the initial selection is extremely important and merit's scrutiny from all wikipedian's with a possible interest. The fact that 16 oppose votes can be rallied against your adminship in less than two days, is a sign that you have alienated many people in the[REDACTED] comunity. Many people considder you to be a high handed pro-islamist POV pusher. Klonimus 02:34, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

   Furthermore, you tend to have a very confrontational editing style, and at times seem to be on a mission to purge[REDACTED] of anything that reflects poorly on Islam or Muslims. You also have a very annoying habit shared by several other editors on WP (Yuber, Faisal, BYT, and others) of editing by revert (, and many other examples)rather than seeking concensus, as such, I and many others don't trust you with a rollback button. Klonimus 18:48, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

   Klonimus, I am not surprised by your extreme opposition to Anonymous editor considering your extreme hatred and fear of Islam and Muslims. You are the author of articles such as The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism, Islam and Terrorism: What the Quran Really Teaches About Christianity, Violence and the Goals of the Islamic Jihad, Islam and the Jews: The Unfinished Battle, Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives have Penetrated Washington, and The Everlasting Hatred: The Roots of Jihad. --JuanMuslim 12:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

   I'm guessing your list of me, Fayssal, BYT, and "others" is only based on edit style and nothing else. Yuber 21:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

   Sorry Yube, it has to do with the fact that as a class openly islamic[REDACTED] editors tend to engage in edit by revert rather than trying to seek compromise. You got off very lightly in your arbcom case, after in engaging in plenty of egregious behavior at Jizya.Klonimus 02:34, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

   Look, your reasons for voting against me are fine, but why are you trying to get others to also support this pov? --a.n.o.n.y.m 01:19, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

   As I have stated, I have only brought attention to your RfA to people who might be interested in it. Most people don't care about RfA in general. I personally don't care about RfA. I do care about people such as yourself, who are unsuited to being an admin, becoming an admin. You as a person have created a great amount of doubt as to your suitability to be an admin, nothing I could possibly say or do, could create the opposition to your RfA. It is only your actions, and nothing else, that have caused people to vote against you. Your claims that you are being persecuted by an "anti-Islam" cabal are themselves a sign that you are unsited to being an admin. Klonimus 02:34, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

   • Okay. I just want to clarify what's happening here from a variety of fronts. (What follows is not directed only at Klonimus, but at many people.)
   • Here's what happens. We hear some variation on ...
   • "Please understand -- I'm not voting against you because you're a Muslim, rather, I'm voting against you because you (have rickets, lack maturity, haven't had enough time on WP, are confrontational, probably are a carrier of avian flu, ).
   • Then someone says, "Gee, that's kind of weird, can you back that rickets thing up?", and then people who oppose this nomination start talking about how even posing the question is a sign of unfitness for the job. ("AHA! You see! He is so sensitive about the rickets accusation! The fact that you claim you are being persecuted on this point clearly demonstrates yada yada yada...")
   • Come on.
   • It should be quite obvious what's happening here. Those who imagine (and it is a delusion, friends) that every Muslim editor marches in lockstep with every other Muslim editor -- those folks are hoping to stoke as much paranoia as possible among like-minded Islamophobes, and thereby get enough votes to block this eminently qualified candidate. Why? Because he's a Muslim. There, I said it.
   • Here at WP, We will not attack a Christian as a potential admin, simply because he possesses knowledge about his religion and brings that knowledge to his work.
   • We will, however, attack a Muslim as a potential admin, simply because he possesses knowledge about his religion and brings that knowledge to his work.
   • We won't admit this outright, though. To attack him, we will accuse him of being all kinds of strange things.
   • So I've got an idea. If you think AE is biased, prone to worship of Lana Turner, emotionally unstable, prone to religious extremism, given to support legalization of cannibalism, whatever, please do us all a favor and stop rambling about it at length and just post the diffs that you believe prove your allegation. So that people who have not made up their minds about this person can evaluate your claims. For instance, if you write that you are "not convinced about the neutrality of his edits," offer evidence supporting this pattern. BrandonYusufToropov 16:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

   So my claims are false, Klonimus?. But links like these say otherwise -> , , . Look, voting against people because of their religious beliefs is not very good for your reputation, neither are making personal attacks against them. ;)--a.n.o.n.y.m 03:09, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

   Right back at you, I don't care about your religious beleifs, I care that you can seem to separate them from your relationships with article content and with other people on WP. I oppose your adminship because I don't think you would be a good admin not because you are a muslim. There would be exactly the same problem if you were a communist, or had any other other strong passion that caused you to engage in edit by reverts. Anyways the very desire for adminship shows that it would not be a good thing for you.Klonimus 06:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

   You claim, Klonimus, that you oppose his/her adminship because you don't think he/she would be a good admin not because he/she is a muslim. I try to believe in what you say but I can't as I read the following . IMO, your claims are not being honest. Cheers -- Svest 17:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)  

   Fayssal, You seem to confuse nouns and adjectives. Anonyme, is a partisan for Islamic causes. Nowhere have I said don't vote for Anoyme because he is a muslim. Again, I find this constant claiming that I have an anti islamic bias so annoying because it is untrue. (See also Type I error,big lie)Klonimus 08:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

2. Strong Oppose. Has a long history of pov-edits, text deletions, edit wars and similar. Please take a close look at his edit history. His edits in india-related articles show a sometimes extreme anti-india bias. One doesn't even need to know alot about these subjects to realize this and AE's edits repeatedly reveal his often very limited knowledge of the india-related articles he edits, which he has sometimes admitted himself. (Update: He should inform himself about the subjects before he edits, but that is one of the rather minor points.) Some of his pov edits can be seen on: Terrorism in Kashmir, Terrorism in Pakistan, Kargil War, and there have been relevant discussions on: Talk:Kargil War, Talk:Terrorism in Pakistan, , etc. I will add some details about his edits on these articles later. See talk page of this page. Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Anonymous_editor#Evidence Some other cases (here I haven't checked yet) may include: Lashkar-e-Toiba, Military of Pakistan, Genocides in history, etc. As for non-india articles, I didn't check these articles, but wouldn't be surprised if he would show similar edits there. I only give one example here: In this edit he deleted a comment made by another user which showed AE "removing the DMOZ directory of criticisms of Islam from the links". Now there was a very long controversy on that article wether or not to add a link to the "faithfreedom list of links page", and the main argument against adding that was that there is already this dmoz directory on that page. Removing this (as usual without any edit summary) was rather a bad faith edit. I'm not even objecting against remoing this, but against doing this without discussion, given the disput history on that page,and of removing other peoples talk. User:Purplefeltangel got many oppose votes for "only" one day of vandalism, while this user has been known for constant pov-editing and vandalism (I think constant pov-editing, pov deletions (sometimes with no edit summary and marked minor) and similar can be a form of vandalism.) If users like him become admins would just mean that there is no standard at all for becoming admins (apart from editcounts). --Kefalonia 08:28, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

   Just to address some of your concerns, I have never edited India-related articles because of these accusations being addressed on Pakistan-related and Kashmir-related (a disputed territory between India and Pakistan) articles by a couple of editors. I don't see how my edits were anti-India anyways, since I was simply rewording anti-Pakistani sentiment from those pages. Others might actually call that NPOV. Over time, one-sided editors have made it so that the page becomes very biased. I would also like to point out that all the arguments that I had with the two other users on the issue have been resolved including a mediation which I self-settled. In both cases, both I and the users that I had a conflict with were satisfied. As for Lashkar-e-Toiba, Military of Pakistan and Genocides in history, I would like editors concerned after reading this to actually visit those articles and check the edits I made. Recently in Genocides in History, I even settled an edit war between two other editors. I have also removed vandalism off those pages, like I do on all the pages of my watchlist. As for the link removal of the DMOZ directory, I immediately readded after I saw that an editor had any concern, and I gave a message to her that I did not think something as minute as this needed an extensive discussion. Lastly, I am just wondering, you have only been an editor for 2 weeks now, and I have never been in a conflict with you before, is there a reason you are bringing up disputes that have already been settled? I am just wondering, but I would like to thank you for voting anyways. --a.n.o.n.y.m 11:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

   It is not true that you have never edited India-related articles, even if Kashmir/Pakistan related articles are excluded. But I should have said South Asian related articles. That you show an anti-India bias in many of your edits can easily be seen by checking your edit history on south asian related articles. And I've been an editor for over 2 months. I explicitly stated that I didn't yet check the articles Lashkar, Military, Genocides, so here you're slightly detracting from the other articles, but I will check these articles. I'm all for npov, but you're edits frequently consist of sometimes extreme pov. P.S. I just saw your comment on User talk:Banes, so my response to this: I'm not opposing you because you're a Muslim editor, but because your edits are much too pov for me. Please don't make any unjustified accusations. (I also voted for Gren on this page who seems to me to be a perfectly good editor.) We never had any conflict till now, but that is only because I tend to stay away from edit conflicts. However, I saw many of your edits and many discussions where you were involved, and I have therefore formed my opinion on them. Again, it is over 2 months, not 2 weeks, even if this is again off-topic. I will add some examples of pov/bad faith etc. edits later. See talk page of this page.--Kefalonia 12:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

   Kashmir as we all know , is a controversial issue . By definition a controvesial issue has two ( or more ) different & usually opposing stories associated with it . Its alomst impossible to have a neutral article about a controversial issue , so its best to add both ( or all ) views that the opposing parties have of the matter . Here in Kashmir related articles , all of them are being edited for a long time by people who have a severe pro-indian view Now I am not saying that it shouldnt exist , ofcourse everybody loves his country . But as I have stated before , an article about a controversial subject should cite both sides of the coin . If we see the Kashmir associated pages on WP , most if not all of them dont give any clue about "the other side of the story" . So logic says , these articles are POV . The pro-indian editers on Kashmir related articles try to paint Indian views as the actual history . If by chance there is a sentence about the opposing view , the next sentence completely ridicules it . Now I am not gonna go into details here , just read any kashmir related article , it seems like Indians were just sitting peacefully when Pakistanis suddenly attacted their country and captured parts of it . And they have been killing Indians for a half century now . And Indians are still trying to cope with it peacefully . I think some space should be given to the other side of the story too . I think what Anonym does here cant be considered as POV , but the best he can do for making Kashmir articles as NPOV as possible . F.a.y. 19:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

   Let me say this once very clear. I think that in all articles all povs should be explained, as long as the article is npov itself. So for example I think that in Kashmir articles the pro-pakistan and the pro-kashmiri and the pro-india viewpoint shuold be explained. I have nothing at all against stating the pro-pakistan or pro-islamic or pro-whatever viewpoint in a neutral way. I have no problems at all with his pro-pakistan edits but I have problems with many of his edits that I too often have felt to have a pro-confrontational, pro-bias, pro-edit-war, pro-pov-deletions, pro-false-claims, pro-war, pro-terrorist, anti-india, anti-tolerance and anti-understanding bias. I think that Klonimus is right when he says that he stopped editing these articles, though I don't htink this is a solution. And I think Deepak was right in saying that AE's dispute with Idleguy was just not "acceptable". And I agree that AE will not likely "separete his strongly held belief's from his responsibilty as a sysop." BTW, the articles on Kashmir DID already state the pro-pakistan viewpoint before AE added anything, but again I'm not objecting to making articles more balanced and neutral but I am objecting to the way that AE trys to impose his special brand of "(n)pov". His edits have included pov-additions, pov-deletions, long flame wars and long edit-wars, low use of edit summaries, false claims, unsourced claims and many more. Apart from this huge problem, AE unfortunately doesn't inform himself about the subject and issue BEFORE he edits. He only deletes what he doesnt' like, but he makes much too less effort to read, understand and inform himself about the subjects. He has sometimes admitted himself on talk pages that he doesn't know much about these (south asian) topics that he edits. Anyway, this should NOT be a case of islamic vs. islamophobic. Unfortunately many voters on both sides seem to completely forget this. I just don't think that pov warriors should be admins - but maybe that's just me. I'm just funny that way I guess. I'm sorry for my stupid bias against pov warriors, vandals and the like. I have very limited time a the moment. I will however try to find the time to write some more details on his edits in the next hours. Anyway, the best and only valid argument is just to take a close look at AE's edits, Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Anonymous_editor#Evidence --Kefalonia 07:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

   AE said again on User talk:Voice of All(MTG) that he has never edit india-related articles. This is not true and it is not the first time that he's not honest. He edited in Islamic invasion of India, Babri Mosque, india-related stuff on State terrorism and maybe some other. And I again agree that I should have said south asian. --Kefalonia 11:20, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

   There are so many double-standars on RfA's, I'm beginning to wonder. I would like to note that both sides here seem to engage in too much campaigning, and that it is not very fair to accuse only one side of it. Anon at least at campaigned at many talk pages, and even at many talk pages of users who voted oppose to reconsider their vote. (I would also like to note that there are over eleven comments for oppose votes (that is about a comment above)). And I would like to note that NOT one of my criticisms has to do with directly islam-related articles, but almost ALL have to do with War or Terrorism related articles. I personally don't care much for his edits in directly islam-related articles (like Islam or Criticism of Islam), because I usually don't edit in these articles. (That said, I still strongly think that Anon's edits in these articles should of course also be unbiased). My criticisms regard primarly these articles and talk pages (there are also others):

   • Talk:Terrorism_in_Pakistan (relevant discussion on AE's behaviour)
   • Talk:Kargil War
   • http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Nichalp&diff=prev&oldid=24988801 "A problem user", relevant comment
   • http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Anonymous_editor&diff=prev&oldid=24700752
   • Talk:Terrorism_in_Kashmir
   • Terrorism in Kashmir
   • Terrorism in Pakistan
   • State terrorism:
   • Islamic invasion of India
   • Lashkar-e-Toiba
   • Genocides in history
   • Kargil War

   See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Anonymous_editor#Evidence for more details. --Kefalonia 27 October 2005

3. Oppose AE had a violation of 3RR in June of 2005, which was only four months ago. See User_talk:Anonymous_editor/archive1#Saudi_Arabia. Then he tried to slip past the ban with a sockpuppet which was discussed User_talk:Anonymous_editor/archive1#Query here and User_talk:Anonymous_editor/archive1#3rr here. I think that five months on Misplaced Pages is not long enough to be an admin. I suggest that AE apply again in 12 months. Joaquin Murietta 08:36, 24 October 2005 (UTC) amended 08:40.

   Just to be fair, it was one of my first weeks at wikipedia. Also there was no sockpuppet; I was using my normal IP address. But, I of course appreciate your concern and would just like to inform you that I have never done anything like that again and adhered to strict policy (never had 3rr again). But thank you for giving me a chance to address this concern.--a.n.o.n.y.m 10:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

   This is not very honest. There was at least also this 3RR on October 5 in Terrorism in Kashmir: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Terrorism_in_Kashmir&limit=500&action=history Kefalonia

   My question to AE: In view of the problems in June, would you be willing to reapply to be an admin in a year? Isn't four months without problems, out of five months online at Misplaced Pages, too little time to be an admin? Joaquin Murietta 08:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

   I assure you that in my 4 other months at wikipedia, I have made more edits than most other editors. I feel I am ready for this. Everyone has problems in their first month, after that it's a rapid learning process. :) --a.n.o.n.y.m 10:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

   OpposePer above comments. IMO, an admin should try to avoid getting caught up in controversy and pov-editing. I do believe however that anonyme has made many good contributions which are not written from his pov. Perhaps in a few months. Banes 10:36, 24 October 2005 (UTC) Leaving this debate alltogether.

4. Oppose I am not convinced about the neutrality of his edits. UPDATE: Other things that concern me is that he now apparently has decided to attack the editors that is opposing his request for adminship, making claims that they are sockpuppets, or that they is somehow biased against him: User_talk:Banes#Concerns. Another problem I believe is that he apparently is not as civil as I think he should be. When rallying support for a revert war at an article, he left this comment on a Wikipedians talkpage: "Zeno gone crazy again." and he even make a false claim about a 3rr violation. -- Karl Meier 11:11, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

   Dude, what are you talking about? You are the one tryin to go around telling your friends to vote against him. He's only asking the ones that opposed him without any reason for their reasons. He's not attackin them. You on the other hand are making bad faith edits against him trying to gather opposition. I don't think that's fair. See this . --Madhev0 18:45, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

   I don't tell anyone what to vote, just take a look at the diffs that you provided. All I said was "I thought that you might be interested in this request for adminship", and that not telling anyone what to vote. What AE on the other hand try to do is to make the editors that oppose his adminship look somehow suspecious, claiming that they are eighter "biased" against him or even "sockpuppets". I am not attacking anyone, or claiming that that his support voters are anything like that. -- Karl Meier 19:30, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

   But oddly you chose all the anti Muslim editors, many who don't know anonym I think or editors that have something else against anonym. I don't care to discuss this anymore, because it isn't my Rfa, but you know what u did and it was unfair. You should be reported. Madhev0 19:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

5. Oppose. The accusations of POV editing leave me concerned; I don't think that POV editors should have rollback buttons at their disposal, in particular. Also he deleted votes from an AfD last month because they were unsigned. (But I do kind of like your username.) --Idont Havaname 14:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

   Oppose. Ive had many bitter confrontations with Anon. At times in order to make the article Terrorism in Kashmir neutral, he would make it more biased and would often come up with inaccurate information. Certain comments left by him on my talkpage and on the article's discussion page, clearly show his attitude of getting into disputes and starting long flame wars; the reason why Im opposing his candiature. He has also violated the 3RR couple of times and has frequently removed information from articles backed by verfiable sources. I agree that Ive made some mistakes and thank AE for pointing them out, but the manner in which he resolves his disputes (especially the one with User:Idleguy) is certainly not acceptable. --Deepak|वार्ता 15:12, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

   Yes, I agree we have had bitter confrontations in the past, but we have always resolved our disputes. For example, on the State Terrorism article, we had a mishap where user:idleguy was involved and wanted to insert a large paragraph anti-Pakistan which you supported. After my extensive discussion with you, you said "I have no problems with recent edits uve made to state terrorism article. Cheers", which I assume was satisfaction with my efforts to make NPOV. Terrorism in Kashmir is a very hostile article and you and I worked out our disputes in a civil manner, before other editors started intruding and you mentioned this several times. I have resolved my disputes with both you and Idleguy. Also I have only violated the 3rr once (within my first week or two of editing as I stated above). But I respect your opinion Deepak and hope that you and I can work productively in the future. :) --a.n.o.n.y.m 17:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

   This is not very honest. There was at least also this 3RR on October 5 in Terrorism in Kashmir: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Terrorism_in_Kashmir&limit=500&action=history Kefalonia

   Resolving disputes with you is tiresome, since you constantly revert articles. I estimate that about 5% of your edits in the main namespace are reverts.You seem not to appreciate that reverting other people's work (even if you strongly disagree with it) is insulting to people who contribute in good faith. Personally, I don't contribute much to Islam related articles anymore, because I sick of dealing with editors like youself that will just revert anything they disagree with instead of trying to reach a concensus. I personally don't think that you need admin powers in the first place, or that if you had them, you would use them with wisdom and discretion. Klonimus 18:48, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

6. Oppose - Without passing judgment on his position in each case, the comments here generally reflect that this editor has been in many editing and revert disputes. While that is not a fault for editors per se, I am of the strong belief that administrators should be involved in as few edit wars as possible & thus try to build consensus. Right now we have way too many admins involved in way too many edit wars. - Rangerdude 16:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
7. Strong Oppose Anonymous Editor is the least competent for to be the administrator of Misplaced Pages. His loyalty is neither to facts nor to Misplaced Pages. He has an agenda and that is to censor every criticism of Islam. This editor has no understanding of fair game and impartial opinion. He is a militant cyber jihadi. With this much impartiality I personally don’t think he is fit even to be an editor of Misplaced Pages let alone an administrator. I am also saddened to see my suspicion about SlimVirgin being an Islamist came true. Look how she is supporting the nomination of AE. In few pages that I helped editing Ali Sina, Islamophobia and Useful Idiots, these two members worked in cahoots, while AE reverted all my postings, SlimVirgin protected his version and blocked the page so I cannot edit. Then her mediation was also biased and unfair. We have to understand that the Islamists are on a mission to impose their religion on others. There are two wasy to do that. Deciet and terror. The Muslim editors in Misplaced Pages are engaged in a Jihad of deciet or taqiyyah as they call it, while their borhers engage in terrorism. Only those who do not know Islam, i.e. the useful idiot think there is a difference. In Islamic countries Muslims kill the critics of Islam and where they can’t do that they try to silence them with any means available to them, and they work in gangs. Not only I strongly oppose the self-nomination of this utterly biased individual, I also think SlimVirgin’s position should be evaluated and revoked. We have to keep religious zealotry out of Misplaced Pages. These Islamists should not hold any position of authority. If they do, others lose their freedom of expression. The concept of freedom of speech is alien to Islam. I am not an Islamophobe. I know Islam. Like thousands of others leaving Islam, I have also left Islam and know what I am talking. Do not let Muslims take control of Misplaced Pages. Today, virtually all the pages of Misplaced Pages that talk about Islam are filled with Islamic propaganda and lies, while if anyone posts any message contrary to their view; they accuse him of “contravening ALL the Misplaced Pages rules” as Slim Virgin accused me. I asked her to be specific three times. She failed to do that. I urge other members and administrators to look into what transpired between AE, SlimVirgin and me, and you be the judge! Misplaced Pages is no more an unbiased source of information when it comes to the subject of Islam. If we let these militant Islamists become administrators, you might as well kiss goodbye the Misplaced Pages. Muslims work in gang and support each other no matter what. The reason is that they have pack mentality. They have divided the world in Muslims and Kafirs. They see themselves as brothers and the rest of us as infidles. Some of the names I see supporting AE’s nomination I recognize as Islamists. Muslims are militant and determined, the rest are laid back an easy going. We should not accept those supports. If you have 1000 Muslim editors, they all will support each other until they take over the whole show. Be warned of Islamic militancy. Be very warned. OceanSplash18:56 24 October 2005

   (As Basil Fawlty:) Other than that, though, no problems with this nomination, I assume? BrandonYusufToropov 19:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

   Comment. OceanSplash is a new editor who's had some trouble editing within our NPOV and NOR policies — only because he's new, and I'm sure it'll sort itself out soon — but his view that everyone who opposes his edits is an Islamist needs to be read in that context. SlimVirgin 19:03, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

   Comment - It's not fair User:OceanSplash to accuse User:SlimVirgin and everybody of bias and indeed accuse them non-stop of being islamist hooligans. What Slim did is apply the rules of notability. The issue was so simple to be resolved. A threat from an anon opening his mouth wide from an online forum is not notable to be put in WP. What we agreed about is to use the threat everywhere except the intro as per Hugo Chavez and Pat Robertson. . That was the position of everyone invloved in the discussion. Later on, you lost your temperament and stated that The death threats against Sina are part of the same pattern of assassinations and hooliganism with which Muslims systematically deal with the critics of Islam. We are witnessing this hooliganism right here in Misplaced Pages where Muslims have taken their terrorism to the cyberspace. . Nobody replied to your personal attacks. Instead, we thought that the anon citation from an Islamic online forum to be placed somewhere else . You disagreed for your some fair reasons you presented and I gave up and gently asking you to refrain from personal attacks. . User:Karl Meier was discussing gently and we were heading for a consensus for the second time. Late, User:Grenavitar asked you gently to refrain from personal attacks and presented a link to a possible sockpuppetry . User:Raul654 also intervened (he rarely do so indeed) and asked you to refrain from personal attacks . Nothing helped the case. Instead you replied to Grenavitar Asking you to convince your jihadi brothers to stop is not an insult. Aren’t all Muslims brothers? Aren’t the jihadis Muslims?. It was after that time that you requested an RFC and SlimVirgin took the task and protected the page after there was a suspicion about a possible sockpupptry and then explained some WP rules while protecting the page. You then suggest and question the fact about SlimVirgin protection and say This subject is exhaustively discussed and both sides have expressed their views. There is nothing else to add and I think the point is clear. while she explicitly explained her action . You agreed and we all were happy with the concensus . That was it! However, after the page was unprotected, it was just like nothing happened and we had almost to start again the process! . Summing up... Where are the hooligans? SlimVirgin, Me, Grenavitar, Anonymous, Raul654? -- Svest 00:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)  

   Damn, SlimVirgin — I thought you were a Zionist militant, and here you are an Islamist militant... What are you going to do in your spare time now that the IRA's decommissioned its weapons; knit balaclavas for the UDF? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:29, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

   I can't believe I missed that — that is good comedy! El_C 12:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

   "This is how fascism operates"... indeed. --Irishpunktom\ 23:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

   "We have to keep religious zealotry out of Misplaced Pages"... "The Muslim editors in Misplaced Pages are engaged in a Jihad of deciet or taqiyyah as they call it, while their borhers engage in terrorism".. "The concept of freedom of speech is alien to Islam".. "Do not let Muslims take control of Misplaced Pages".. "they have pack mentality".. "Muslims are militant and determined".. "If you have 1000 Muslim editors, they all will support each other until they take over the whole show". This guy's great, where did you get him from ? --Irishpunktom\ 23:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

8. Oppose: not ready. Tree&Leaf 19:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
9. Oppose the issues raised above are unsettling. -Greg Asche (talk) 21:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
10. Oppose: not ready (and may not be any time soon). Strong bias in many edits Rex071404 21:12, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
11. Oppose for now. This edit summary removing a POV check tag, and with an accusation of trolling against an, erm, anonymous editor, who explained his reasoning quite well on the talk page, looks wrong to me. Some good edits, though. Also, ditch the username. --Tony Sidaway 21:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

    Actually see discussion . He/she was hostile against me and all the other editors there. And they discussed the tag and their addition of offensive material after they inserted it. Thanks, a.n.o.n.y.m 21:36, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

    Well yes, sometimes editors do become quite hostile. The way to deal with this is--strangely--to be nice. If someone is being argumentative, calling him a troll isn't going to make him calm down. --Tony Sidaway 00:09, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

    Yes Tony. I admit that this was a minor error on my part. However, I did proceed to encourage the anon IP to edit productively and also left the dispute before things got ugly between him/her and the other editors on the page. Thank you for the advice. --a.n.o.n.y.m 00:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

    Strong Oppose: Per Tony Sideway; the last thing we need are POV admins with Rollback and Protect.Voice of All 21:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

12. Oppose: I generally have a good working relationship with Anonymous Editor and I hope I don't lose his friendship by voting against adminship. However, I do think that he is less even-handed and even-tempered than he could be. He is not yet ready to be an admin, though it may be a possibility in the future. Zora 23:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
13. Weak Oppose not convinced by allegations of Islam-bias brought up by previous oppose votes (dig up some diffs, people!). Calling an anon a troll is another matter entirely. I voted against a very good editor, NickBush24 on grounds of uncivility. I'm afraid I have to be consistent.Borisblue 00:44, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

    I feel uncomfortable about supporting with what has been brought up. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 02:04, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

14. Oppose, I do not think the editor is ready for adminship. --Sn0wflake 06:14, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
15. Oppose. Too soon for adminship; too many personal attacks, POV edits, etc. for comfort. Maybe once more time has passed. --Briangotts (talk) 13:46, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
16. Oppose I think you do good work, but I feel I have to oppose per Banes.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 14:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
17. Oppose - per Briangotts, Greg Asche, et al. Perhaps in the future. KillerChihuahua 14:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
18. Strong Oppose - incivility, too much POV activity for comfort. Babajobu 15:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

    After reviewing some of the diffs on the Oppose side, particularly AEs insistence that persecution of gays is "irrelevant" to article on the persecuting organization, change to Strong Oppose. This guy should not be an admin. His religion is irrelevant; his commitment to advancing his POV on Misplaced Pages is not. Babajobu 09:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

19. ':Strong oppose' - unless the editor does some basic courses in logic, decency, secularism, civil behaviour, the list is too long. Unless we want[REDACTED] to become a meeting point of all Islamic fundamentalists such people should in fact be banned. On second thoughts, it won't make a difference, because editors like him always have puppet administrators like User:SlimVirgin, who, without using whatever little intellegence they have, simply follow what these Islamists have to say. Let me repeat... although by having a double digit birth rate these people have garnered all these votes to get adminship, if such a thing happens, wikipedia's future as a reliable encyclopedia would become uncertain. Editors like him stand for everything that[REDACTED] stands against. Muwaffaq 01:50, 26 October 2005 (UTC) Struck as sockpuppet of User:Deeptrivia - David Gerard 15:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

    Double digit birth rate? These people? SlimVirgin 02:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

    I suggest you point to edits of Anonymous' similar to this or you shut up in embarassment. I am surprised your account hasn't been terminated as "standing for everything that[REDACTED] stands against". Baad 06:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

    Muwaffaq used to think quite highly of Anonymous editor. On Germen's user page, where he keeps his list of Muslim editors, Muwaffaq said of Anonymous editor: "Seems to be quite a clever guy to me ... Has probably the best developed feeling of fair play of this list." Oddly, although the comment is attributed to Muwaffaq, it was added to the page by Germen. Thanks, Dmcdevit, I misread the comment. SlimVirgin 08:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

    Actually, Muwaffaq seems to be a classic troll (and a vandal) who mysteriously appeared after a month's absence to vote here. He never said anything good about AE, Germen was just thanking him for reminding him about AE. In fact, I don't know why Karl Meier is soliciting votes from an Islamophobic vandal, but it is not encouraging. So much of this RFA feels like just an exercise in troll-feeding, AE has my sympathy. Dmcdevit·t 07:52, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

20. Oppose - Had some really awful time with this guy while editing Lashkar-e-toiba and Islamophobia. Personal experience aside, I have observed discussions involving him on many talk pages. This religious fervor was last seen only during the crusades. deeptrivia 02:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
21. Oppose - Everyone has some POV, uncivil, and bad edits in thier past, I'm sure. There just seems to be too many here. I'd be unconfortable with this user being able to delete... --VileRage (Talk|Cont) 07:42, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

    Could you provide some diffs on those numerous bad edits, if there's "too many here?" Above you, there seem to be a lot of with strong opinions accusing this editor of POV editing, but I haven't seen much evidence of it. --Aquillion 16:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

    Then you haven't read the whole page yet. Scroll down. Check the talk page. By the way, I don't base my vote on anyone elses, if that's where you're heading. --VileRage (Talk|Cont) 20:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

    I'd also appreciate seeing the diffs. Dlyons493 Talk 16:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

    You are welcome to. See the link posted directly below this comment. You, too, should probably read the whole page, including the talk page. --VileRage (Talk|Cont) 20:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

    A large collection of diffs regarding this, is available here: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Anonymous_editor#Evidence -- Karl Meier 16:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

    Just look at the bottom part of this page. Read the links, and decide for yourself. I feel as though I'm being asked to defend my vote, which I will not do. I voted what I voted because it's what I beleive. Big thank you to Karl Meier above for linking that. Thank you all for your interest in my vote. Next time I will be sure to only put "Oppose" or "Support". --VileRage (Talk|Cont) 20:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

22. Oppose: There's plenty of contention regarding this nominee here and on this RfA's talk page to highlight that he would be contentious as an administrator. --Durin 17:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
23. Strong Oppose - The edit wars I've had with anon editor are too many to be told here, still I'll give a glimpse. He has blatantly violated the 3RR rule many times across various articles on which his knowledge is suspect. The main reason for all these edit war could be avoided if he had read some of the sources I had mentioned. In the talk page of Terrorism in Pakistan he says "it is very likely that he made it up" when I had clearly quoted the references for a statistic provided by a Pakistani author. His bad habit of not reading a single reference unless other contributor points the exact line/page is unbecoming of a future admin. In Terrorism in Kashmir he repeatedly removed the generic POV tag to one that suited his own brand of POV, i.e stating that the article's POV was only an Indian bias which I didn't agree to. Instead of discussing the issue in the talk page, he chose to revert it to his version. Infact I was the one to open up on the talk page and adressed the statements that were supposedly biased towards India. since then I'd requested if there were any further statements that I could improve upon, but he chose to avoid them and the talk page stands as proof for that. In Kargil War too he tried to tag it as POV just because he felt that a pro-islamist view should be told irrespective of the truth. Much of the statements were already taken from the references and the sub links in the references; however until I mentioned exact webpages anon was stubborn. The disturbing thing was that he resorts to calling others as biased when comments in this section clearly shows how biased he is. Also indulges in personal attacks with statements like "Idleguy's limited ability" here to get his point across. Though I don't have issues with him currently, I'm sure if this user becomes admin then it's going to be nothing but mayhem for any new contributor with valid references that anon hates to learn about and thus deletes them first and then wages an edit war until someone points out his folly. A case of blatant bias and NOT reading references properly. Definitely not the way forward. Idleguy 18:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
24. Oppose - Premature nomination. I don't care what a user's religious affiliation is. His/her actions is what's important. Here, this user is trying to justify his repeated removal of a link to an article No dancing and no gays if Hamas gets its way (The Times of London, October 07, 2005) from the article Hamas because s/he thinks the issues of Hamas' prohibition of gays and dancing are "irrelevant", then the reason morphed into "the article is too short". The link was not added by me originally but when I disagreed, I was met with AE's ad homs, bad faith, threats with future retaliations and attempts to entagle Israel into the HAMAS and gays issue. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 23:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
25. Oppose for the reasons expressed above. Silensor 20:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
26. Oppose. There is some uncertainty over policy expressed in the answers below - thinking only admins can make it, for example. There is also a very small no. of Misplaced Pages: space edits. So I think I'd prefer to see some time spent familiarising with the processes that admins get involved in before acquiring the tools to effect those processes. Editcountitis in part, but experience-seeking in larger part. -Splash 01:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

    And, he's been campaigning for support , which I don't like very much. -Splash 01:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

    While I generally agree, the timing here looks more like counter campaigning for a nomination that seemed to be slipping away for not much reason. - brenneman 01:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

    Two wrongs ≠ a right. -Splash 02:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

27. Strong Oppose, both support and oppose votes (as well as the user name and links to his edits) did a very convincing job of giving me a terrible impression of this user. As an aside, I am only here because of his attempt to campaign for votes, something that suggests a cliqueish intent. Keeping contentious users talk pages on my watchlist bears strange fruit... Sam Spade 03:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
28. Oppose, not because of the smear campign (shame on you people!) but because zero to admin in four months is too quick. Six months from now, I'd probably support.-- BBlackmoor , 2005-10-27 T 04:00:49 Z
29. Strong Oppose. This character is too controversial and has too little intellectual integrity to entrust him with the responsibilities of adminship. He sees this probably as another venue to promote bias and silence critics. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 06:08, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
30. Oppose, Only because he is not ready yet. PMLF 06:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
31. Oppose, he makes 3RR violation allegations on others on talk pages instead of on the proper page. Looks more interested in rallying support for his position through numbers, and disparaging the opposition, than on the merits of the issues and the rules.--Silverback 09:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

    • There it is again. May I ask exactly what rule he violated by asking a fellow editor (me) to take a look at a borderline case? If he had made a formal complaint, you would have attacked him for doing so erroneously. Instead, he asked someone else to take a look at the edits, and no action was taken --- so you attack him for that.

    To be honest, my friend, your track record is evidence that you are not the most suitable Misplaced Pages editor for this endeavour. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 09:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

    Which endeavor are you referring to, Germen?BrandonYusufToropov

    • I guess if AE accepts an invitation to take a ride in a hot-air balloon, he's an exhibitionist .... and if he declines the invitation, he's a coward. BrandonYusufToropov 09:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

    • Your statement would be more convincing, if it was AE who had mentioned that it was a borderline case, rather than just complaining about a user.--Silverback 10:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

    • The question remains: What rule did he break? And here's another one: Are you quite certain you mean to say that someone who complains about the behavior of another editor is, by definition, unfit to be an admin? BrandonYusufToropov 13:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

32. Oppose per above.  Grue  13:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
33. Oppose Use of edit summaries appears extremely sporadic. Say a dozen in a row and then a dozen without. Also, out of 4000 edits very few in Wiki namespace. Just twelve on Wiki talk (and presumably two or three in ref to this nom). Not that you have to sit around yip-yapping but I can't be certain of familiarity with policy. Marskell 13:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
34. STRONG OPPOSE Openly admits to strong POV bias, it may seem petty, but if an editor with a, god forbid, chrsitian centric POV started pushing it into articles he'd be stripped of his admin powers in a second, yet you people don't seem to have any problem with double standards, it's like afirmative action for admins, you go out of your way to nominate a known POV warrior, just for being anti-christian--Sir.Salmon Fish 14:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
35. I was going to support, because I thought he was a good editor, but once here, seeing soooo much division, I don't think he would make a great face for Misplaced Pages. Everybody just needs to take a breath and relax about everything. I will support in the future if everything calms down. Sorry, oppose. --Lord Voldemort 14:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
36. Oppose. He is not ready yet. Maybe in the future. Carioca 16:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. He has made many good contributions since his arrival, however, the oppose argument worries me somewhat. If Klonimus can provide an example of bad behavior in controversial topics, then I'll vote oppose. If not, then I will support. Banes 08:26, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Awaiting answer to my question below. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:42, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

1. Neutral I dont know. Im really confused over the issue. Anon has tried hard at times to settle his disputes with other users but at times he would also balantly revert edits w/o even reading them and claiming them to be POV just because they are against his beliefs. There are many examples for this: in this revert, Anon claims a very famous Indian media site to be a blog site. One can also notice the long edit wars he had with User:Idleguy. I purposely stayed out of it because I didnt wanna have a similar edit/flame war with Anon again! In this edit he claimed the riots in Gujarat as an act of state terrorism by the Indian govt! Anon refuses to accept his lack of information about an issue at times which really annoys me. To end, he's devoted a lot of time in making some useful contributions to wikipedia; the only reason why I am changing my vote. I do appreciate Anon's efforts to remove POV from articles but at times he removes POV from one side and adds from the other (/opposite). --Deepak|वार्ता 03:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

   Thank you for your display of semi-impartiality. It will help towards the future. However, I have explained all my edits in the past and tried not to insert anything people would dispute, but I will not get into that now. :) --a.n.o.n.y.m 03:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

   Changing my vote. I may support later. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 03:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

2. Neutral. I do sympathize with some concerns raised about POV issues. I also agree with Idonthavaname's concern regarding AfD process. That said, I am equally concerned that some oppose votes may be motivated primarily by a POV-battle in which I have no involvement, and no wish to become involved. I will be interested to see how user's conduct is modified in response to issues raised here. Xoloz 06:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Neutral. There is so much written on this that it is difficult to form a balanced judgement. Certainly some opposition appears to be POV-war influenced and some of the diffs I've spot-checked appear to be arguable either way. In no case that I've seen, has this candidate descended to the level of personal abuse of some editors that one comes across. So I'd certainly hope to be able to support in a few months. Dlyons493 Talk 18:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Support Fadix 01:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC) Changing my vote to neutral. The reason being that I feel unconfortable with some of the edits I've read in the talk page. I wish therefor to not take position for the time being. Fadix 00:29, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Neutral. I'm close to a weak support. I would like to see more consistent use of edit summaries and a bit more involvement with policy. Overall, I mostly agree with the support voters and I'm rather surprised at the level of opposition. Carbonite | Talk 15:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments and questions

See talk page for other comments Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Anonymous_editor (Please don't remove link).

Questions for the candidate
A not generic question

Would you be willing to change your name to avoid confusion if granting you adminstrative status were conditional on it?

Yes, I would have no problem with changing my user name. It will indeed avoid confusion, because many times anonymous IP addresses use my signature and sometimes I get mistaken for anon IPs (as I say on my talk page). Thanks :) --a.n.o.n.y.m 18:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

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. All the chores I currently do now + more. Currently I: revert vandalism on a wide range of articles, warn users who vandalize and report them, and deal with the concerns of editors in a decent and honest manner even if they don't concern me directly. As an admin I feel I would be effective in:

• reverting vandalism (five times the rate I revert at now)
• blocking and unblocking vandal users (this should speed up because I won't even have to report them to an admin)
• protecting pages with edit warring &
• performing the Deletion and undeletion of articles.

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

A. Yes, I am pleased with the ones that I can make major edits to and not have people negate those edits. This of course means that there is a huge list of these articles, but there is also a list of article with disputes most of which I have solved with compromise and on good terms involved with the other party. I am equally proud of these and the ones I have made major edits in.

I feel privileged to be editing an encyclopedia where there is no limit to the amount of information that can be added. Here are some of my recent major contributions to articles I am satisfied with: Pakistan(for which I got a barnstar), Isa,Iblis, Moses, Halaal and Qur'an.

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. Of course. I have been in as many disputes as anyone else, perhaps more. I feel that editors voting here should note that I work in the most disputed of articles mostly, which are religion and politics. I don't think that there is anyone out there who won't find disputes on these articles. I try not to feel stressed out in such situations and help the other party involved to do the same. In the past I have solved all my disputes with the other parties and even self-settled a mediation involving me, without the mediator involved ;). To see an example of dispute solving, see the Jesus article, where I solved every dispute out of the 4 or 5 that I had with other editors. They were happy and I was happy.

4. Looking over your contributions, you don't seem to have had much activity in "policy" space. Can you explain how you think that this might impact your ability to function as an admin? 01:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

No problem. :) I thought only admins could get involved in policy making, that's probably why I refrained from contributing to policy. As an admin I will be very keen to help with policy wherever necessary or possible. I am well aware of most of these policies because of my encounters with vandalism and dealing with pov pushers. So, I feel confident that I will be good for this task. --a.n.o.n.y.m 01:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

5. Again, looking over your contributions, most of your contributions seem to have been fairly focused. As an admin you'd be expected to operate over a larger range some times. Do you feel familiar enough with the broader Misplaced Pages to do so? 01:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely. No doubt about it. If I can deal with the most controversial articles in the wikipedia, I can deal with anything else. I would be happy to RC patrol and check out some of the problematic areas of wikipedia. Also if any editor or admin needs assistance on an article which I have some knowledge of, I will be happy to help them. Many admins focus on specific tasks like vandalism, categorizing, etc. and that is fine, but I will also be happy to focus on a variety of tasks. --a.n.o.n.y.m 01:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

6.There has been some concern about your editting of controversial (Islam-related) articles. How do you plan on using (or not using) your admin capabilities on these articles? Misplaced Pages:Protected page states, "o not protect a page on which you are involved in an edit dispute". How do you interpret that and apply that concept to other admin powers such as reverting, blocking users, etc. (asked by gren グレン)

Well I will stick with the policy. If I am involved directly within a dispute, I will not protect the page and neither will I block the users involved, unless they are committing outright vandalism. It's as simple as that. :) --a.n.o.n.y.m 01:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

7This is from Idleguy: As an admin you should have moved the following previously posed follow up question to the proper section instead of removing it altogether from here. Why was it not done? Is it because you don't want to answer them?

8 The original question following your response to Q.#2 was "If you were really interested in removing copyvio and improving said articles you should have noticed that in Pakistan there is not a single reference provided for the entire article. Some were, and still are, riddled with factual inaccuracies. Or that a good portion of the images used in that article were copyvios/unfree until I'd marked them so?"

9 One more question from Idleguy. As a future admin will you first read references before starting edit wars and accuse others of bias; can you stay cool in the face of evidence that conflicts with your personal values and allow them to be included in Misplaced Pages? Idleguy 03:15, 27 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.

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)