Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:52, 16 November 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.

KuatofKDY

Final (5/7/0) ended 17:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

KuatofKDY (talk · contribs · count) – I am nominating myself for the position of administrator because I have been working with Misplaced Pages for quite a while and enjoy editing and contributing to the database. I have been cleaning up succession boxes and badly made articles on royalty and generally clean any messy article I come across. I respond very quickly to most comments made to me or a page I edited, and I continue to watch nearly everything I edit. I created a template scheme for the succession forms (Template:s-start) and have overhauled the entire system. I have learned much of CSS from scratch and used what I learned to help where I could. I wish to be an administrator so I can help further and be more prominent in the Misplaced Pages community while allowing me to continue the editing that I love. Whaleyland 05:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Support

1. Merovingian 05:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
2. Support Editor since Sept. 2003. Relatively low edit count, but a diligent history of template maintenance. Seems a solid "janitorial" wikipedian, and we need the cleaning around here. Xoloz 07:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
3. Support template editors should be able to be admins. There is room for them and I don't see that as a reaosn for an oppose vote. Seems arbitrary to me. Wii edits aren't any more better or more important than template edits when being an admin is no big deal. Could use an admin like this user.Gator (talk) 18:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
4. Support Solid and trustworthy worker. User talk:Jtdirl 19:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
5. Support. Ambi 00:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Edit summaries are basically non-existent. This plus just 7 wiki edits (looking through contrib's there is little diversity generally) is enough to oppose. The work in templates is excellent though, and the user seems to want to help. Use summaries and move around the wiki and you get support next time! Marskell 17:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
2. Oppose 7 wiki edits are Way too few. Try editing more in AFD and RFA and u will get my vote next time --Jaranda() 17:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
3. Weak Oppose Wait a few months. Good attitude and the CSS knowledge will ensure approval then, but right now I think he's a bit too unseasoned. Karmafist 20:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
4. Oppose, per Jaranda. Θrǎn e (t) (c) (e-mail) 21:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
5. Oppose. Looking through your contributions, it seems that you made your first edits on 27 September 2003, then one edit on 4 October 2003, 9 edits on 9 November 2003, 17 edits during December 2003 and then nothing for six months, until you returned in late May 2004 and were very active through to 26 July 2004. You then took another break and didn't return to active editing until 2 April 2005, where you then edited through to 26 April 2005. It seems you then took another long break until 10 September 2005. However, from that time through to now I'm glad to see that you have been active and have done some great work on the succession templates.
   However, the reason I oppose at this time is for you lack of edit summaries of which they are the exception rather than the rule. The other reason I oppose is your current lack of communication with other users and your current lack of edits in the project namespace.
   Please don't feel disheartened by my vote. Get yourself involved in the project namespace, remember to always write an edit summary and continue to actively edit over the following months and I will gladly support your nomination. -- Ianblair23 (talk) 02:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
   • Surely if there are only a few edits, then edit summary usage is not a big issue. It can be corrected straight away. If one was dealing with someone who edits 100s of articles and did not do edit summaries then one could regard it as a serious issue. In this case I suspect it is simply a case of someone who does few edits on the rare occasions he has done so forgetting to do edit summaries, not a serious ungoing repeated issue. I think this editor is someone who shows a calmness, community spirit and professionalism that would make him a worthy admin. Lack of edit summaries is simply a minor glitch probably by accident, not a deliberate 'I will not do them and you will not make me' attitude. Just my observations. User talk:Jtdirl 05:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

   Thanks for the support Jtdirl. And yes, for those of you wondering, I often do tons of minor edits with templates to test them, and often the one that ends up on top I did not bother to place a summary with. It is not intentional, I just like to reserve summaries for when I do something that needs justification. On those other issues, I plan to get to them when I finish the project I am working on. My school hours and homework, unfortunately, conflict with my ability to edit entries, but I am trying. Thanks for the support and/or advice!
   –Whaleyland 06:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

6. Oppose. I couldn't have said it better than Ianblair23. Keep up the good work, and please work on your weaker areas. Owen× ☎ 23:14, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
7. Oppose per Ianblair23. Fahrenheit Royale 16:58, 21 November 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 check out Category:Misplaced Pages backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A. I have been working to clean old HTML succession forms for a while and continue to remove those and clean up new ones. I also like to clean up and create lists for better sorting, as well as cleaning up and creating categories where they are needed. General cleanup of messy pages, especially early Spanish monarch pages, is a project I am working on right now. Any other chores within or without my field I would be happy to participate in, though I would prefer to find things relative to my interests so I can be most at help.

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

A. Although I take great pride in all my successful edits and creations, I especially enjoyed researching and writing the House of Capet page. Working with CSS to create the Template:S-start succession box series, though, I consider my greatest success. My other major joy is working with the List of kings of Dalriada, a pet project that got me started on Misplaced Pages and is still keeping me going.

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 only major conflict ever has been over the Bagrationi page, a dispute that still rages. I believe I have handled it well, coming up with a decent compromise, but it still ended with the violator getting banned. In the future, I hope not to be forced into such situations, but I will stop users from violating Misplaced Pages if it is necessary. All pages I edit I watch for vandalization continuously.

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

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

The Tom

Final (16/1/2) ended 01:51 23 November 2005 (UTC)

The_Tom (talk · contribs · count) – User:The Tom seems to me like a stand up sort of guy who I assumed was an admin. He appears not to be, hence this nomination. Hiding talk 18:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I graciously accept. Thanks Hiding! The Tom 01:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Support, despite whining about the Yukon being different. :-) Lots of good edits, lots of good category cleaning up work recently. Will wield the broom sensibly and is respectuful of consensus. Will be a good administrator. Luigizanasi 02:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
2. Support -- The Tom has been around for a while and has made nearly 8000 edits with a good spread over the talk and project namespaces. I'm very pleased with the category work he has been doing. The only complaint that I have is the lack of information on his userpage, but that is just what I prefer to see. Otherwise, I see no reason why The Tom shouldn't become an admin. -- Ianblair23 (talk) 03:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
3. Support, but please use edit summaries more often. Also, try to 'talk' more. You have only 69 usertalk edits, about .9% of your total edits. Θrǎn e (t) (c) (e-mail) 04:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
4. Merovingian 05:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
5. Support No reason to believe that he can't be trusted with admin tools. --Rogerd 05:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
6. Support 8000 edits and a solid history with "janitorial" tasks; I can't hold the 200 edits against him when he was cleaning WP's house at the time. Xoloz 07:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
7. Support, good record of janitorial work. Kirill Lokshin 14:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
8. Support work on those edit summaries but I don't think that should ever be a reason not to support someone. Just because it's harder to evaluate the editor? Other than that, a lack of edit summaries aren't a good enough reason to vote oppose when being an admin is no big deal.Gator (talk) 18:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
9. Support Use Edit summaries!:) Ohterwise, Gator is right, being an admin is no big deal. Good luck!--MONGO 20:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
10. Support. Ambi 00:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
11. Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:37, 18 November 2005 (UTC) Good work.
12. Support. El_C 23:33, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
13. Always being sensible at WP:CFD. Martin 20:48, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
14. Support Fahrenheit Royale 16:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
15. Support. --Kbdank71 18:12, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
16. Support, seems like a good and dedicated editor. Palmiro | Talk 15:14, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. I don't know this user personally, but from looking at his last 200 edits, it is very hard to find an instance when The Tom put an edit summary, and just a bit more often he uses the minor edit button. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Yikes. You're quite right that I've been leaving the old edit summary blank a fair bit lately (although I was mildly surprised myself how brutal it looks at the moment). In all honesty, though, I've been on a huge Category maintenance kick lately which isn't indicative of my general editing habits. You'll find 90%+ of those edits have been either votes on CFD subpages or manual recats (which, admittedly, could have been summaried). The Tom 02:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I looked at all your edits, starting with June, 2003. I see more edit summaries, but not many more. I know that putting edit summaries is just one (and not the most important) of the qualities necessary for an admin. However, I keep my vote. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

In this edit, dated November 18, 2005, you emptied a category which seemed well-named of subcategories which also seem well-named and belonging in this category. The mother category is still alive, empty for now, with no mention anywhere whether it will be deleted or not, or what on earth is going on. This is a concrete example of why edit summaries are necessary. Would you mind explaining? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:12, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral Must use Editsummarries but other than that everything is ok --Jaranda() 03:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
2. Will support if I see more edit summary usage by end of RFA, this is a big pet-peeve of mine, especially for an admin. Other than that, I have seen the work you have done and support you as an admin. «»Who?¿? 02:35, 19 November 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 check out Category:Misplaced Pages backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A. I've been a fairly enthusiastic battler of vandalism across a heftyish swath of politics articles that have ballooned my watchlist in the past few months, and have been known to F5 good old WP:RC on the odd lonely night. The magic of would certainly let me continue this with a bit more vigour and an enhanced sense of, erm, duty. I've also been a keener is matters of article titling, and so I imagine I'll spend some time working at WP:RM as well as overwriting a long mental list of obstinate redirects that I've let slide.

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

A. Gosh. I've long been brutal at starting anything that isn't a stub, and while a few have grown into wonderful oak trees (or however the strained metaphor goes), I can't honestly say I've got a portfolio that I'm crazy about. I suppose there are a couple of political templates I can call my own... the standardized political party sidebar that started for Canadian parties like the Liberal Party of Canada has since spread throughout the Misplaced Pages, often unbenownst to even me, such that the likes of the Left Party (Germany) and National Party of Australia now look mildly Tommish. A lot of election articles, like Canadian federal election, 2004 and British Columbia general election, 2005 contain a lot of me, too, including that bigass candidate template/table I designed (also seen here). I'm also really pleased with the group effort I helped to participate in for 2003 UB313 which grew an article about a ball of ice to something rather good within hours of said object's discovery and continued to flesh our marvelously in the weeks that followed. That effort led me to a fair amount of work on articles like Trans-Neptunian Object.

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. To be perfectly honest, I've had very few problems, considering the total number of edits I've accumulated—perhaps I've just been editing alongside too many other Canadians :). I've had the odd brush with disagreement over applying Wikiwide standardization to the odd topic, and I've lost a few WP:CFD decisions, but I've rarely let it really affect me all that much. There seems to be very little that a polite note on a talk page won't accomplish. Indeed, my talk page pretty much reflects my experience here at wikipedia, warts and all, and I can't honestly say there's been anything too heated on it (nor in any of my replies). Should the day come where I attract a bit more ire from users, which I suppose could be expected from the odd administrative decision, I see no reason to change my tune and become any more touchy.

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.

Yelyos

Final (42/0/1) ended 01:51 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Yelyos (talk · contribs) has been an integral member of the Misplaced Pages community for a long time, and has consistently showed a strong commitment to NPOV, conflict resolution, and the general betterment of the Misplaced Pages. Yelyos is very even-handed in conflicts and reacts calmly when attacked, and thus I am nominating Yelyos for adminship without reservation. As an experiment in thinking, try not to vote based on her edit count. --Phroziac 00:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please accept the nomination here: I accept the nomination. Yelyos 03:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Extreme duh. --Phroziac 00:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
2. Answers to questions are good, and the nominator rocks :).--Sean|Black 04:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
3. Support I seem to remember this user from somewhere. Ashibaka (tock) 06:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
4. Ooh - yes please. Celestianpower 08:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
5. Support Four edits per day is fine. We shouldn't make terminal wiki-addiction a requirement for the mop :) - Haukur Þorgeirsson 09:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
6. Support, looks good to me. — JIP | Talk 11:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
7. Support, been around a long time and knows the rules. Should be no big deal. Rje 12:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
8. Obvious Support No brainer.Gator] 14:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
9. Support Good editor --Rogerd 15:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
10. Support --FireFox ™ 18:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
11. Support per Rje and Haukurth. Youngamerican 19:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
12. Support. Good editor, knows her stuff, editcountitis is the root of all evil. Lord Bob, the guy with a low edit count 20:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
13. Support I serisouly thought he was one (so cliche). -Greg Asche (talk) 21:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
14. Support Private Butcher 23:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
15. Strong Support, obviously. I thought Yelyos was one until I saw otherwise at WP:LA. Redwolf24 (talk) 23:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
16. Weak Support Doesn't meet my admin criteria cause of 4 edits a day and wiki namespace a bit low for my taste but I see him editing more often and he whould benefit with the rollback button --Jaranda() 03:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
17. Would someone fix the vote here thing? I haven't the time. Θrǎn e (t) (c) (e-mail) 04:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
18. Merovingian 05:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
19. Support it's about damn time...  ALKIVAR™ 06:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
20. Support Yep --Ryan Delaney 06:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
21. Support--Duk 06:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
22. Support.Voice of All 13:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
23. Support MONGO 20:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
24. Support All my interactions with this user have been good and even though he doesn't meet certain users' editcountitis standards, I feel comfortable that he'd be a good admin. Jtkiefer ---- 23:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
25. Support Some folks just deserve it, there's more than enough of a track record here to support. Good, level headed editor. Rx StrangeLove 07:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
26. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 07:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
27. Strong support. Ambi 00:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
28. About bloody time. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:36, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
29. Support. BD2412 T 00:13, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
30. Support. Guanaco 01:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
31. Support. Friendly, lots of vandal whacking. I doubt she would abuse admin privileges. delldot | talk 04:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
32. Support --pgk 18:37, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
33. Support. El_C 23:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
34. Support, promising user. She promises and promises... just kidding, fine upstanding editor. Bishonen|talk 03:06, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
35. Support, and I've corrected everyone's spelling. DS 03:13, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
36. Yup, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:39, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
37. Support. See no cause for concern. Jayjg 07:22, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
38. Support, not only do I not see any cause for concern, I also think this user will do well as an admin! --JoanneB 10:56, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
39. Support Izehar 22:30, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
40. Part of the furniture. Should have been adminned months ago. JFW | T@lk 02:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
41. Support. Notable. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 05:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
42. Support. --GraemeL 16:35, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

1. I've just gone through his previous nomination, Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Yelyos. Since then, the user has mustered around 1000 edits (including deleted edits) which translates to less than 4 edits per day - this is on the lower side for a would-be admin. The only reason for which I am not voting oppose is the 222 deleted edits he has - mostly copyvio tags and delete tags. --Gurubrahma 06:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

   Four edits a day is a reason to oppose? This is taking editcountitis to an insane level. Ambi 00:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

#Neutral per Gurubrahma. I rather see more activity as a user than 4 edits a day which is too low in my voting standards. Will support in another month. --Jaranda() 21:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• Just wondering... Have they changed the RfA process to not include the "vote here" link at the top of the nomination? --FireFox ™ 18:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

  Yea, it seems so. I always just used the edit link anyway. -Greg Asche (talk) 21:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

  I didn't use a template when i nominated her, the way the template is now, it's horribly painful to do that way. --Phroziac 13:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

A. I would continue with the tasks I usually do when fighting vandals but with the admin powers, namely reverting, deleting CSDs, and blocking vandals (after they've been sufficiently warned - I tend to be on the reluctant side when it comes to blocking).

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

A. I'm most pleased with Popeman and Sinclair Ross, the former of which brings much amusement to my friends and family, and the latter of which I believe filled an important gap in our coverage of Canadian novelists.

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

A. I'm lucky enough not to have been involved in any serious conflicts, beyond reverting vandalism or the like. I hope I won't get into any, but if I were to get involved in a conflict I'd stop all editing on the article page as soon as I recognized there was a conflict and leave a note about it on the 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 successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

MONGO

Final (58/14/3) ended 5:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

MONGO (talk · contribs): He's an incredibly courteous user, a certified expert on anything regarding national parks, he has 6,107 edits as of the establishment of this rfa, and if anyone needs an example of his ability to get past differences for the betterment of the project, I can't think of a better example than my RfA. Heck, there was an attempt to nominate him for an RfA a few weeks ago, and two people voted for him before he even accepted it! If it weren't for the fact that he just went on vacation, that RfA would have passed IMO. We need more people like MONGO as admins. Karmafist 17:31, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I am honored to accept this nomination MONGO 05:59, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Pre-emptive support Great guy, always civil - persistent and thorough with a cool head in controversy. --Doc 17:40, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
2. Support - again, I thought he was one. --Celestianpower 17:45, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
3. Absent Minded Nominator Support - I used to feel like Lulu, heck I even asked JamesMLane at one point what I could do to stop the POV wars me and him had. That was back when me and MONGO were newcomers. He's a right winger, i'm a left winger. In the real world, we might have disagreements, but on Misplaced Pages, we're all family: this project supercedes any ideology when you're on here, IMO. I can only hope the rest of the world feels that way about respecting their fellow man someday and rise above their differences. Karmafist 15:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
4. Support, MONGO is an OK bloke. — JIP | Talk 15:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
5. Support good editor and will be great admin.Gator(talk) 15:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
6. Support On wikibreak but spotted this. All of my experiences with Mongo have left me with a great impression. He is both dedicated to wikipedia and helpful. Banes 15:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
7. Support seems good.  Grue  15:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
8. Cliché #1. Oran e (t) (c) (@) 17:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
9. Support. Its about time! I was about to nominate him myself.Voice of All 18:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
10. Support - excellent vandal fighter. --Ixfd64 20:28, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
11. Support Good editor, I have had positive experiences with him --Rogerd 22:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
12. Support Private Butcher 23:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
13. Strong Support Excellent user another RFA that I got beatin on to nominate --JAranda | watz sup 00:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
14. Merovingian (t) (c) 00:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
15. NSLE 00:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
16. Support--Duk 01:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
17. Support - won over by the strength of your answer to question #4. BD2412 T 03:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
18. Support. KHM03 04:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
19. Support -- I did some research, looked at the answers, and decided that I should be acting in good faith in this matter and voting for support. Regardless of the user's past, he's explained his actions to a degree that satisfies me. I am always willing to give someone a chance if they show the proper attitude, and I think that MONGO shows that attitude. --Martin Osterman 04:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
20. Extreme Cheesehead Support. Nice user, level headed (unlike me) and I honestly thought he was one. :-) --WikiFanatic
21. Support, per the answer to question #4. However, I must say, you've got to work on your temper a little bit. As an admin, you'll be on the front lines against vandalism, and some vandals will go to the point of death threats to continue with their lunacy. I'm confident that you'll learn to stay cool even in those situations. Titoxd 05:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
22. Support, but I second what Titoxd says about your temper.--Sean|Black 05:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
23. Tony Sidaway 06:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC) An independent thinker, but fundamentally fair-minded.
24. Support Bygones are still bygones. Alf 15:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
25. Support — Eoghanacht 15:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
26. Support - No-brainer. --kizzle 17:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
27. Support nobs 18:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC) Slam dunk.
28. Support --FireFox ™ 18:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
29. Republican senator voting for Justice Breyer or Democrat senator voting for Chief Justice Roberts Support I was going to vote neutral, but I am going to assume good faith here and vote to give this user the mop. I think Mongo will watch his temper and has lightened his POV in recent months. Also, support votes and/or lukewarm opposition by some wikipedians that have had issues with the user in the past help convince me to vote for a qualified, if controvesial, user. Youngamerican 19:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
30. Support - I was definitely put off by MONGO's attitude at (then) Wikipedians for Decency, but from what I have seen he has really turned it around. I am happy to support him now. FreplySpang (talk) 21:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
31. Support. I have no reservations. -- Essjay · ] 21:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
32. Support, agree with ArseJay :D Redwolf24 (talk) 23:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

    Don't insult ArseJay, he might make another RfC against himself to improve himself :D.Voice of All 02:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

33. Support - Users who go through this type of controversy are some of the best kinds, they know how to deal with POV, while not forgetting that POV users can add to the project. I'm convinced MONGO will do a good job. Smmurphy 03:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
34. Support -- User:Ianblair23 (talk) 03:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
35. Support. I think MONGO will be a fine admin. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
36. Support. Have always had good interactions, and I believe some claims below are being blown out of proportions. --tomf688 19:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
37. Support. Has been extremely helpful, and also courteous, and I've noticed him making very numerous helpful changes to a number of articles. Perfect candidate, has patience with all sorts of contributors, from newcomers to angry ideologues, and good judgment. Definitely support. --Daniel11 19:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
38. Support Good candidate. Dwain 22:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
39. Support Most of the diffs below look bad, but they were from ages ago (one I checked was from Janunary!) I think he's grown since then. Borisblue 07:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

    To clarify, (based on Lulu's objections) I do realise that the most recent diffs come from August, which is still a long time ago. Borisblue 23:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

40. Support. I've rarely read so thoroughly through a user contribs for an RfA as I've done with this one. Agreed, most of the oppose arguments raise my eyebrows, most notably those Mr Tibbs mentioned. Leftist foreigners might also have an opinion worth including. But checking through his last 1,000 or so, there seems to be few POV edits (seemingly none, tho i havent checked them all), or potentially worse, reverts. All the ugly edits seem to date from August or so. Admittedly, this is strange, as you would expect somebody who has been with WP since January to know better. Nonetheless, he seems to have picked up on the criticism. I especially found his remarks on User talk:Agriculture on everybody just doing their best to reach NPOV very positive (hopefully he includes leftist foreigners in this show of AGF ;-) ), and i find his work since then to be excellent, especially in vandal reverting. The Minister of War 11:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

    I'd just like to butt in here and say that it's not just the Edit Summaries of the diffs I cited that you should be looking at. For instance, of the two recent August edits I cited: . The first one has an offensive Edit Summary: "rv, antiwar foreigners pushing their POV". But the Second one purposely compromises the integrity of the article to make a point by inserting things like " (which never happened)". It's not just an edit summary issue. It's a POV issue as well as an article integrity issue. -- Mr. Tibbs 21:50, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

41. TacoDeposit 15:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
42. After careful review of his history, I am changing my vote to Support TheChief (PowWow) 22:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
43. Support, should be no big deal. Seems to have learned a lot since he got here. silsor 23:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
44. Support, 'n stuff. TDC 05:12, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
45. Support - His positive contributions vastly outweigh the missteps of his past. – ClockworkSoul 06:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
46. Support --pgk 18:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
47. Support. Humorous and fun, but need to watch out a bit with his humor. :-) --Nlu 21:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
48. Support. MONGO has done great work on George W. Bush and other articles. Rhobite 23:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
49. Support. Strong and resilient in the face of vandals on Bush's page. Just keep your head in disputes, and you'll be a great admin. Harro5 03:36, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
50. Weak support. I have been impressed by the level head he's kept on this RfA, and he has assured me that his recent offensive edit summaries were meant jokingly. I've done the same myself (as has User:Babajobu, who I nominated not so long ago). MONGO can rest assured, though, that I'll be (metaphorically) defeaning him with the aid of a (metaphorical) bullhorn held (metaphorically) at close range if I imagine he doesn't show proper respect for non-Americans in the future ... fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
51. Speaking of metaphors, if I'm doing the right deviation thing here, might as well take it the whole the way. With great trepidation, etc. El_C 12:51, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
52. Strong Support freestylefrappe 16:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
53. Support. Looks fine to me. Shanes 20:58, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
54. Strong affirmative action Support, a good, helpful user, and conservative rural Americans are an exotic species among admins. Babajobu 18:12, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

    Note for the bureaucrat(s) looking at this RfA: This vote and the votes below it in this section were made after voting ended. --Idont Havaname 21:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

55. Support. I appreciate his handling of the talk page of George W. Bush; clearly one who survives in this environment will be comfortable in easier situations. Rama 21:13, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
56. Support Izehar 22:31, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
57. Support Derktar 02:35, 22 November 2005 (UTC).
58. Support. Seems to have learned from past mistakes. --GraemeL 16:35, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. My experience with MONGO was via Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Wikipedians for encyclopedic merit, and various talk pages that spun off that, where he was consistently belligerent and confrontational with multiple editors (including myself). Moreover, much of his confrontation was around him pushing very POV political opinions. A look at MONGO's user talk page shows a lot of further rancor as well. (followup: MONGO's below answer shows a growth of maturity; however, additional evidence located by Mr. Tibbs is troubling too. I think less than 3 months of good interaction is not quite enough; I would support the nomination in another 3 months if those see good cooperation) Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:28, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

   Comment: I was actively involved in the AfD debate for WPWfem too, and I and MONGO were on opposing sides. Still, his arguments were good, and I haven't had further bad experience with him. The only person on the AfD debate I really disliked turned out to be a troll. — JIP | Talk 16:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

   There were post AFD issues that I hope MONGO will elaborate on below. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

   There were numerous trolls on that PfD(project AfD) and perhaps MONGO got caught in the heat of things over-reacted to legitimate users. Nevertheless, his agruments, as JIP noted were well-thought out. He is one of the most polite editors I have come across.Voice of All 18:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

2. Oppose. I'm afraid I must object. When the WikiProject for Encyclopedic Merit was originally founded, MONGO spent a lot of time arguing (and edit warring) about which usernames were allowed on its membership roster, leading eventually to the page being protected. I don't find that attitude very constructive. Radiant_>|< 17:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

   He was removing obvios IP vandal "members" with no other edit history or people who explained there membership by statements in opposition to the group. Perhaps the edit warring was worse than I thought...but I doubt it.Voice of All 18:51, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

   Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC) (Lulu: i.e. repeated deletions of memberships of FCYTravis, Zoe, Ngb, User:172.130.8.51, Sdedeo, Morwen, Hipocrite, Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters, etc. who disagreed with MONGO)

   • Please read Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Wikipedians for encyclopedic merit/Archive 2#MONGO vandalism for details. I really do mean repeatedly removing the names of established editors. Radiant_>|< 22:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

   All of the people removed, by there comments there, where obviously against the project, so why did they "join" in the first place. I don't go over and join Moveon.org clubs and interest group sectors just because I oppose them. I can't say "I join and support this group because I disagree and oppose it". While I don't agree with edit warring over it, and it is a bit bold to remove names other than that IP troll, I can certainly see were he was coming from. Considering all of the "anti-censorship" argument venom, he likely saw this as a ploy ar the time, and not a good faith effort to join WfEM. I dont see this as a reason to vote oppose.Voice of All 23:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

   • I can see where he was coming from, but the fact that he kept doing it despite being repeatedly told not to, by various people, does not speak well for him. Those people where not against the project, rather they had a different view of "encyclopedic merit" than Mongo did. I respect your opinion and I would appreciate it if you would respect mine. Radiant_>|< 23:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

   I agree with that, but he is a changed man ;-). As for respecting others opinions, I don't mind someone voting oppose for this, but I just disagree with it...:-).Voice of All 01:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

3. Strong oppose, ditto above objections. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 23:59, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

   Oppose. As above. This sort of edit war, especially when carried on by sockpuppets (84.67.79.63, 81.79.117.98, 84.68.242.172) to avoid breaking 3RR, does not inspire confidence. — Dan | Talk 02:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

   I agree that edit warring is bad, and I was wrong to do so. However, your accusation that I used a sock puppet account at any time is baseless and completely incorrect. I log in from two locations and one is IP 68.13.94.113 and the other is IP 63.113.14.5 . Both originate from Omaha, NE. U.S.A., which is where I live. IP 84.67.79.63 is from the U.K. IP 81.79.117.98 is also from the U.K. , and IP 84.68.242.172 is as well . If you still feel that I use or have used a sock puppet account, then by all means ask David Gerard to check me out. MONGO 04:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

   On reconsideration, I withdraw my vote. — Dan | Talk

4. Strong oppose as per the reasons above. Mongo does not have the temperament for adminship. User:Zoe| 03:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
5. Oppose per Radiant. Too controversial for adminship at this time. Xoloz 05:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

   Oppose our interaction is brief and limited, but the context was hostile on the part of MONGO, making unfounded accusations of disruptive behavior (the behavior in question was asking on talk pages for supporting evidence on the talk pages of interested parties). TheChief (PowWow) 21:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

   After recieving a response, I am removing my opposition. TheChief (PowWow) 19:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

6. Oppose per Radiant. --Ryan Delaney 06:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
7. Strong Oppose -- A cursory glance at this user's article edit history reveals many destructive edits. Some of them even with inflammatory statements in the Edit Summary like: "It looks like foreigners and leftists wish to control this page....good luck!" . Some other edits following this pattern: . And it's not just the Bush article either, here are some more recent ones: -- Mr. Tibbs 07:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

   Yikes...I might have to change to Weak Support or Neutral...that is very disturbing. I believe that he has apologized over edit warring over WfEM member lists, but this is another matter. Sheesh, he has to stop these kind of edit summaries.Voice of All 13:20, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

   I have looked through his contributions and it should be noted that he has not done anything like that in months. So I suppose Mr. Tibbs's issues are old news.Voice of All 17:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

8. Object. Disruptive actions in August are far too recent for me to support now. Filiocht | The kettle's on 08:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

   Oppose, nothing to do with the decency/encyclopedic merit project this time, though Mr. Tibb's edit summaries above are very interesting. But my main reason is the only intervention by MONGO I've seen, in a dispute between User:172 and User:Silverback in October. I thought him unreasonable and biased then. He did aboutface in the end, seeming to become aware of the untenableness of his original position, but hardly in a gracious way. He used WP:AN in the "I don't have time to do the research but here's a thought anyway" (not a real quote) manner that the ArbCom has criticized in a recent case. Some examples: . Here's the long tail of the WP:ANI conversation, on El C's page, where MONGO again defends his statements about "tit for tat" and his continuing absence of evidence: "I won't take a stand on who is right or wrong...just saw that there was some tit for tat...It's all part of the same bantering back and forth." Here's an apology for one particular, minor, comment, inlined in the noticeboard thread two days later (=rather hard to find). That's good, and was well-intentioned, I'm sure. But it isn't much. If I've left out anything of import I ask MONGO to tell me so. The praise in the Support section presumably refers to other cases; perhaps I just caught the user at a bad moment, and I will certainly review again if there's a second nomination some time from now. I have some sympathy, as he seemed to be rather short of time, but it seems to me an important principle that admins know to walk away from what they don't really have the time gain an understanding of. Do nothing rather than do harm. "Let somebody else fix it" is a great wiki principle. Apologies for the length, but I felt I needed to explain this vote. Bishonen|talk 19:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC).

   Bishonen, I was trying to keep 172 and Silverback from arguing and it appears I did a lousy job as an Rfc was quickly filed against Silverback right after that. I told Silverback to "ceasefire" and I tried to get those two to simply leave each other alone for a while. I think what I have learned in Misplaced Pages is that if two warring parties step back, even if one is absolutely right and the other absolutely wrong, that maybe there is a way to reunite after the steam blows off and compromise. I later talked to 172 here (with his responses being here) and suggested mediation and to see if there was anyway to avoid a long drawn out series of Rfc's, and then probable arbitration. The conversion between 172 and myself, ended most pleasently I thought. In all honesty, as a completely outside third party, I was only trying to see if I could play mediator...I should have just let them go about their business. Do good faith attempts to try and resolve hostilities between two users go punished around this place. I recognize it may appear that I took a stand but I was only trying to demostrate that it does take two to have a war...and two to make a peace.--MONGO 19:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

   I'm not so impressed by Mongo's response here, but as El C says below, there's a much different one on my Talk, and I've been giving this opposition some thought since that was posted. If a disgraceful lefty like El C can withdraw his Oppose, I can withdraw mine. Bishonen|talk 11:46, 20 November 2005 (UTC).

   P. S. /me retreats hastily in hail of rotten vegetables. That was a joke about El C being disgraceful! I love him! Sheesh! Now I know how MONGO feels! --Bishonen|talk 11:53, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

   *Kissess* I sorta want him to win now. He's deeply reactionary, but he likes mountains, if that makes any sense... El_C 12:51, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

9. Oppose. I'm troubled by the concerns brought up by multiple users. Gamaliel 19:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
10. Oppose- offensive username. Astrotrain 21:20, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

    Uhh, didn't you ever see Blazing Saddles? At worst, Mongo's making fun of himself. --kizzle 21:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

    Very funny, but, seriosuly, that's not your real reason is it? If so, I would hope the bureacrat will not count that as an oppose. I wouldn't even change the counter to reflect this oppose vote (as it stnads at least). Please explain.Gator (talk) 21:37, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

    What more explanation do you need? MONGO is an offensive term, and not an appropiate username for an admin. My oppose vote is genuine, and should not be discounted. Astrotrain 13:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

    I agree that the stated reason for this oppose vote is silly. But no sillier than the stated support from Borisblue (who points out that some questionable behavior is from January, which tries to insinuate away all the links to edits in August). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

    Ooh, to clarify, I meant that some of the diffs go back to Jan. I know the most recent problems come from August (still a long time), but the fact that you're digging up dirt on him from 10 months ago is just unwarranted IMHO. A lot changes happen in 10 months. Borisblue 23:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

    Thanks for clarifying, Borisblue. I did not find the January diffs myself, but I can see their relevance. If it was only during a "bad week" in August that MONGO edited with excessive rancor, that would be a simple glitch. But if he had done similar things much earlier as well (but it seems like only intermittently), that puts context on the August edits. I entirely agree that MONGO has been polite and respectful since early September. To my mind, 2.5 continuous months is not quite enough good behavior for adminship (after earlier problems), but 6 months would be—in fact, MONGO and I had a very cordial discussion of this on my user talk page. My personal 6 month standard is completely unofficial, but it is roughly the guideline I have in mind for my personal oppose vote. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 00:54, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

    I am making fun of myself! But actually a few buddies called me Mongo as a kid due to my size. I'm 6'7" and 275 (though, of course not that big then) and the movie Blazing Saddles was a big hit way back then. Anyhoo.--MONGO 21:44, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

11. Oppose. Enough volume of troubling concerns raised that makes me not comfortable with MONGO's promotion at this time. A few more months of trouble free editing and I'm sure you'll be a shoe in. - Taxman 15:42, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

    Oppose. "Foreigners" can edit here too. Smit 16:10, 19 November 2005 (UTC) After some explanations that he was joking at certain points, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and withdraw my opposition. Smit 02:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

12. Oppose. The whole Wikipedians for encyclopedic merit thing just scares me - I'm having trouble seeing past what appear to be bad faith edits and opinions that relate to this project and spill over into the 'pedia proper. Sorry. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 18:50, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

    15.I probably would not have voted (even notwithstanding my own interaction with MONGO which Bishonen outlined above, not only since I was the one who temporarily? suspended it, but largely in light of a good introspective response recently on her talk page), but highly disturbing edit summaries from Aug. are too recent for me. I have little doubt that if he fails this nomination, he will win the next one. I am troubled that someone could think so parochially, even if they manage to hide that they do (in which case, we wouldn't know). That said, work in the area of (American) national parks is highly commendable (I would have liked more of my counterpart oppose voters to acknowledge this to his credit) and is endearing to myself, personally. I've been to well-over half the states in the U.S. and the national parks have always been and remain the highlight for me on such trips. His measured conduct throughout this RfA has been impressive. El_C 23:31, 19 November 2005 (UTC) — MONGO explained to me that this was meant as a joke (highly untactcful as it may be), and that he dosen't actually think in such xenophobic terms. Thus, withdraw my opposition. El_C 08:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

13. Oppose. It seems that, for the most part, when MONGO comes to my attention, it's been for the wrong reasons. That could be that he edits under my radar much of the time, but the other oppose votes above suggest this is not the case. The edit summaries from August cast a long, dark shadow over the time since then, and I'm not yet certain that enough water has passed under enough bridges to lend my support at present: any editor with that in their past, and the misbehviour on the project does, imo, need to pass a noticeably higher bar before my fears are satisfactorily laid to rest. One point in particular: do not get involved in situations unless you are prepared to do all the necessary legwork — it looks bad, feels bad and, as turned out here, doesn't usually work. Still, I'm sure there's plenty to learn from in this RfA, so a few more months solid, sound editing and good-things-on-the-radar should be in the offing. -Splash 03:26, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
14. Oppose Managing to be civil and measured for one week during the RfA doesn't excuse previous actions. Proto t c 10:01, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
15. Oppose per Redvers and Radiant, and I generally agree with Carbonite's past reason for opposing. One week of good behavior is rather easy to do, but I'd like to see MONGO in the trenches for a few more months before supporting, particularly in light of his involvement with Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Wikipedians for encyclopedic merit (the AfD for that brought a lot of concerns over censorship, and WP:NOT censored. I was among the editors that said that the existence of that WikiProject went against our policies.). Also, removing established editors from a WikiProject if they have listed themselves there is wrong, and borders on vandalism. --Idont Havaname 20:54, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Note: I've struck out my vote because I voted after the voting ended (so did the voter above me, and presumably several others). It was my mistake; this RfA was still at the main page of WP:RfA at the time that I had voted, and I didn't notice when the closing time was. (At any rate, if this RfA were still open I would have switched to neutral based on a message that MONGO had left on my talk page.) --Idont Havaname 21:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

Evolving, Please see question 4 below. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:03, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Oppose Dodged my questions. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

1. Strong Neutral "I was wrong to remove names" was actually not in your initial response to question 4, which led me to believe you were defending the practice. I'll happily bygones the incident, now. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

   What exactly is strong neutral, not that I mind it...:-)?Voice of All 01:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

   I have strong feeling about this situation, but cannot determine which of my strong feelings are correct. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

2. "Strong support offered." MARMOT 00:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
3. Neutral. Yikes. I'm very concerned about those edit summaries, and bishonen also brings up some very interesting points. I personally don't know enough about MONGO to vote support or oppose either way, and I'll be upfront: I'm only looking at the votes and diffs of the supporters/opposers. I will keep a neutral stance for the moment, but as stated earlier, I'm concerned about those diffs above. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 19:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Neutral. I was seriously considering supporting, until I read the oppose votes. User:Bishonen raises some good points (do we really need admins who aren't willing to do the work themselves?), but the deal-breaker is those edit summaries, particularly this one. I realise it was quite a while ago – otherwise I'd be voting oppose right now – but I'm far from convinced that the ignorant, idiotic mindset that would describe other good-faith editors on a supposedly international website as "foreigners" is the sort of thing that could vanish overnight. Has MONGO grown up, or simply learned not to say certain things that he still believes? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 04:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

1. Oppose. It's obvious that MONGO has made huge strides since he first joined Misplaced Pages. I think he's conducted himself very well during this RfA. However, many of the diffs provided by oppose voters above are too recent for me to support. I'm a strong believer that a "clear the air" RfA is often very beneficial for users whose past may have some blemishes. Assuming there are no incidents in the next few months, I will support any future RfA. Carbonite | Talk 14:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC) I've been impressed enough with MONGO's conduct during this RfA to withdraw my opposition. Carbonite | Talk 18:41, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• I'd like to say one thing. Even though I nominated him, if this rfa was going on any time before July or August, i'd probably be a Strong Oppose. He was a Right Wing POV Warrior just like I was a Left Wing POV Warrior in our collective early edits. However, it's my opinion that the WFD imbroglio changed him(I was there and voted strongly against it.), which is best evidenced by this thread and that link I put above. I don't know about anyone else, but in my opinion the most liberal thing anyone can do is sow the seeds of peace whenever the opportunity arises, and despite any other views or disagreements we might have in the future,it's my view that MONGO did that post-August. Karmafist 06:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• As this is shaping up to be a very close RfA, I've gone and done a bit more thorough look into MONGO's article edit history. I found some interesting edits to the Ray Nagin article in September: . He mention's "foreign newspaper" in his edit summary of the first two edits. I also took a look at his talkpage edits around that time: I also wanted a to take a deeper look into the reasons behind MONGO's August 2003 Invasion of Iraq edits that I cited earlier. Here are his other edits to that article at that time: . And apparently MONGO has made no discussion on the talkpage of the 2003 Invasion of Iraq article around that time, however I did find some talkpage edits from earlier in April: . I have also found some interesting October talkpage edits: . MONGO also has quite a lot of good edits to National Park articles and vandalism reversion edits. But the Ray Nagin article edits and some of the talkpage cites appear to me to only reaffirm my Strong Opposition to this RfA. -- Mr. Tibbs 07:49, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I especially like this citation you provide, in which every respondant was in agreement with me.. Mr. Tibbs, I fully respect your vote of "Strong Opposition", and again explain that you are taking my edits out of context. I use the term foreign newspaper when discussing Ray Nagin only in that it is an opinion piece, and not a news piece and that since I am not particularily in favor of opinion pieces unless they are called as such, I see such opinion discussion in a non U.S. newspaper as having even less "encyclopedic merit" than I would in an American newpaper when in discussion on an American topic. I am not a bigot, nor am I opposed in any ay to "foreigners"...my girlfriend Ivana is Croatian. The cites above in which I say "foreigners" as a joke on Rama (which I don't think he thought were "funny" either) were absolutely an attempt to humor him since the two of us had had more heated arguments back in January during discussions in the George W Bush pages. Trust me on this one, I usually respect the international press a lot more than I do the corporate led American press anyway. I just wwant to make it clear that I am most assuredly not opposed to non Americans. I was on the side defending the Ray nagin article against a concerted attempt by a series of strong POV attacks by those utilizing sockpuppet accounts and doing all they could to create an attack page on Ray Nagin. The talk pages for that article clearly show this to be true. I regret my choice of "jokes" and it was wrong for me to assume that others would find them funny. They were definitely in bad taste.MONGO 08:26, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

What a mess that article was at the time, nonstop. Unincidentally, I've just reverted it, a full ten days after the prior edit. :) El_C 13:23, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Yep, I think it was one of the more heavily POV pushes I've seen by what may have possibly been paid political webspammers. Interestingly, their "evidence" was really weak, especially when confronted by Wikipedians!MONGO 13:40, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

That's exactly what I thought: they were payed. It was just so unremitting yet monolithic. Seems the pro-Nagin forces didn't have access to such funds (→ note that this is all part of the indoctrination process on the part of yours truly!). El_C 14:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

MONGO, if it was a joke, why did you make legimate spelling corrections in the middle of that series of edits? Why did you tag the article as POV at the same time as well? Here are all of MONGO's edits to that article in August arranged in chronological order from past to most recent: . All that seems to be a lot of trouble to go to for a "joke". Honestly, how can an edit with the summary: "Article suffers from systemic bias" be part of an attempt at humor? And more than that, is an article's integrity expendable to you for the sake of humor? Tagging an article as POV or inserting comments as a "joke" strikes me as very irresponsible. ( Doubleposted here: ) -- Mr. Tibbs 21:23, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I was also questioned about the wording here and I should have made a better examination of the wording used. It is a valid point that no one can "know" what other people "think" but my point was that, {and I still believe this to be true), there are speeches and legislation that were passed, some of which was through the United Nations, that Saddam Hussein was indeed a threat to the stability of the region. I don't think the choice of wording was best, and I could have made a better argument then I know. Repeated UN resolutions and the continuation and even the occasional escalation of actions regarding the "no-fly" zone and sanctions against Saddam and his rule also coorelate with conceptualizations that Saddam was a threat. I'll certainly not argue now that he was capable of launching a true military attack against the U.S., yet I agree with the legislation passed during the 1990's and early into the 21st century such as UN Security Council Resolution 1441, that Saddam was a continuing "problem". As far as inserting the NPOV tag, I should have discussed that in the associated talk page, at least after I did it and explained why I did it. A contenious issue regarding something like the Iraq War and George Bush should always have a heavy engagement in talk before making such changes, or at least after. As I stated, Rama, I am sure, saw no humor in my editing and my choice of word play was provocative, but it wasn't filled with malice in any way. Susequent spelling corrections are due to habit, perhaps a problem with precision, or because I may be anal about word choices? An article such as the one cited is going to have some strong opinions associated with it at times, mine being one of them. I won't be an apologist for the 2003 Iraq War, but I will for my choice of wording at that time and for the misconception that my choice of wording seems to have fostered in some that I am or seem to be opposed to people who are not from the U.S., which is certainly not the case. It should be noted that some of those edits were intended to be a joke, exaggeration, preposterous to a degree and you're right, article integrity shouldn't have suffered just because I wanted to play a game of sorts. I will state that I did have a problem with the choice of words "create closure", "humiliated" and "failed" and saw them as being extremely POV and I did counterargue them with the one edit, though I certainly could have done a better job explaining why. Are you questioning my right to refute such unreferenced passages or my right to be bold?--MONGO 00:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

• I find it a little hard to swallow that those awful edit summaries were actually a very funny joke. Why has this reason taken...3 months...to turn up? -Splash 03:15, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Splash, I never said they funny, they were intended more as a "rib" in the side to other users. They were poor choices of words. Since no one else appears to have complained about them till now is why it has taken 3 months for them to be addressed. Aside from the comment on my talk page, which questioned one passage, no one else seems to have been greatly offended, Though I have yet to converse with anyone else that may have been offended. As I stated before, I was wrong to use such edit summaries and to give anyone the false impression that I am some kind of ugly American. I think it is good that Mr. Tibbs has brought these issues regarding edit summaries and my choice of editorial quality to my attention, and I wish now that I had done a better job choosing my words and providing citable sources for my refutation of commentary.--MONGO 06:58, 21 November 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 check out Category:Misplaced Pages backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A. I've been doing some RC patrol and routinely get beat out on reverts of vandalism therefore the Admin tools would help me better contribute in this area and fight vandalism. The ability to speedy delete nonsense articles and block repeated vandals would be of great help as well. I would also particpate in closing out AFD's ensuring I always follow the rule of rough consensus as a bare minimum.

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

A. Though I have yet to bring an article up to featured status, I have started over 75 articles, almost all of them regarding areas of land management. I suppose I am most proud of Shoshone National Forest, though I still have plans to greatly expand it in detail. There is so much yet to do! I also believe that I helped for some time to bring the George W Bush article more in line with WP:NPOV policies.

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 known to come across as somewhat combative, especially in my earlier edits, but my wording then was always more abrasive than my true sentiments. I feel as though everyone I have met here is my friend to some degree and truly believe that the vast majority of editors here are all trying to do the right thing. I have had conflicts with some editors such while working on the George W Bush article yet feel that even in this case, some who I may have been harsh with and still have disagreement with in terms have content, are people that, like me are trying to make the articles as neutral and informative as possible. I try and make an effort to extend an olive branch as often as possible.

4. The conflict at Decency/Encyclopedic Merit Debacle (DEMD) was long and difficult, so I have a long multipart question-info request. I am hard-pressed to determine my vote, but I am certain it will have "Strong" in front of it.

1. Briefly describe the genesis and timeline of the DEMD.

2. Briefly describe the major arguments of the major players to the DEMD. If categorizing players into constituencies helps, please do so.

3. Briefly describe actions taken by the major players/constituencies to the DEMD, and categorize from your current perspective which of those actions were either A. Serious Wrongs, B. Minor Wrongs, C. Irellevent or D. Helpful to the Encyclopedia.

4. Would you have done anything differently if you could turn back the clock to the start of the DEMD? What? Why?

5. What do you think my answer to question 4 would be?

Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:03, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

These questions (with the possible exception of 4.4) are quite outrageous and improper, and I would strongly urge MONGO to ignore them. This RfA is about whether or not we can trust MONGO with admin tools, it is not about 'DEMD'. Why should MONGO provide a history lesson? And why on earth would MONGO want to describe the arguments of other users, or categorize users into consitituencies, or pass value judgements on their actions?? (THe last would be quite impproper.) Why should he second guess Hipocrite's views?? What type of agenda lies behind this? I'm damned if I know. Doc 16:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I will clarify my questions after MONGO answeres them or refuses to do so. Understanding and passing value judgements on actions accurately is, in my opinion, central to being a good admin. My adjenda is to gain additional information about an incident that MONGO neglected to discuss in the standard questions. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

It seems reasonable to hope that MONGO has learned from (one of) the long conflicts he was an instigator of. If answers suggest that behavior was a thing of the past, I might be convinced (similar to Karmafist's support vote). Answers to questions like Hipocrite's might help show this. The fact MONGO has political opinions I disagree with is not at all a problem (many good admins do), it's the fact he used to let those political opinions bias his editing behavior and turn towards belligerence towards disagreeing editors. But as per my oppose vote, I have not had contact with MONGO for several months, so he may have grown out of that. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I told myself, I would not argue against oppose votes and am am not going to do so. Lulu and Hypocrite are fully entitled to their right to voice their opinion and from those opinions I can only learn the best way for me to contribute to Misplaced Pages in the most pro-active manner possible. I need to clarify that I do not consider myself to be a "right-winger" but I altogether understand why many others may see it that way, especially if they come from outside the U.S. where politics, especially lately, have been less conservative. I was a later arrival to the WikiProject for Decency and was surprised to see that other members had been tagging articles and images with a "decency" tag...something I openly stated that I was opposed to doing. I clearly stated that I wanted to both change the scope and direction of the project and as soon as the Vfd for the project ended with "no concensus" I commenced altering the scope of the project , I then changed the title to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Wikipedians for encyclopedic merit . I had hoped, using a basis of a few of the aspects of the original decency project, to develop more of a think tank or discussion group which could iron out the best path to continue to ensure that Misplaced Pages would become, or at least would develop into, the most reliable web based encyclopedia there is. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters was initially in support of my title change and attempts to redirect the focus of the project. There was an argument between numerous editors what this new scope should be and over who should remain as members in light of the fact that the project had changed, both in title and direction and some of the previous members had signed on in what appeared to be, from my vantage point, an attempt to play spoiler. I did remove a few names from the members list, yet stopped doing so when asked by one member. I was removed by unknown editors too , . I think that Lulu and I both withdrew from the "battle" because we are both mature enough to know when to stop and when to recognize when a project is essentially dead. My last edit was to try once again to take the project in the direction it needed to go, but I believe that there already is a similar area which is more in keeping with my sentiments anyway, without the controversies! I think that a few users here deserved an answer regarding these issues but continue to urge all those who vote to do so based on their true sentiments so that if this nomination fails, I can learn from it and become a better contributor.--MONGO 19:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

This non-answer did not address my concerns. "You have violated your administrative powers with this protection of the wrong version" was said in all seriousness by MONGO. You didn't stop because someone asked you to -> you stopped because the page got protected. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I was asked by Zoe to stop removing names from the project membership and explained why I was removing names to her here. She reverted my removal just prior to her warning to me. I did not remove anyone's name after she did her revert. However, you removed Noitall and then another user were then reverted by Noitall and then Noitall struck your name out you then reverted him and it was after this edit war you were engaged in with Noitall that Radiant! then protected the page . No doubt I was combative, and I was wrong for being so. I argued with Zoe about the purpose of her membership, but did not remove her name or anyone else's after she asked me to stop. The page protection was 4 days after I last removed anyone's name and was after you and Noitall were edit warring over the issue. I am disappointed that I have been accused of sockpuppet use to avoid 3RR and that you have wrongfully stated that I only stopped removing names because of the page protection. I stopped because Zoe asked me to do so. Please provide proof to the contrary.--MONGO 14:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Hipocrite is a redlink. You were told to stop removing names here. The page was protected to stop you and a bunch of anonymous IPs from removing names here. I did not remove noitall, as a reading of my diff would make clear.Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I did remove names 7 hours prior to the page being protected at that time. In the meantime, you and Lulu were combating an anon or series of anons and then the page was protected, more than 10 edits later, none of which were mine. I stated above that you had removed Noitall, what I meant was that you removed his comment. After only a three hour page protection, the page was unprotected and that is when an anon removed my name twice as I mentioned above. I do not know what your redlined link Requests for adminship/Hipocrite is in reference to. I thought we had buried the hatchet and I do not understand how I can better answer your questions. I am disappointed that you are still angry with me about this as that is the last thing I would want. As I stated, I was wrong to remove names from the project and I am sorry I was rude to you and the others I offended with this action.--MONGO 15:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Heh, he meant you're the one on the spot, not him. El_C 12:51, 20 November 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.

Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Ann Heneghan

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

Jareth

Final (27/5/4) ended 03:17 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Jareth (talk · contribs) – I have been with Misplaced Pages since June 2005. I can't get to Kate's tool at the moment, but I believe I am over 3,000 edits (since the last I remember checking). Most of my contributions have focused on article cleanup and maintenance, though I do throw in the occasional new piece when I come across something I believe to be worthwhile. I think adminship would increase my ability to assist in the general cleanup that goes on and appreciate your consideration. .:.Jareth.:. 06:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I had better accept ;) .:.Jareth.:. 06:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Support

• Contribs look good, although as mentioned below might be better if you engaged in discussions with others on user_talk pages. NSLE _(讨论) \ 06:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

  I've discovered as per below that what I thought isn't correct, I'm tempted to change my vote. Therefore, see below. Also I'm sorry if this sounds horribly wrong, or that I'm judging you or something, rather this is a misjudgment from myself. NSLE _(讨论) \ 08:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

1. I'm tempted to remind people that this should be no big deal, but I know better. So Jareth welcomes new users and has been fortunate enough, hitherto, in avoiding conflicts. Are those really bad things? From what I see in Jareth's record he has potential to be a great admin and has been here long enough to become a trusted member of the community. Support. -JCarriker 09:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

   That's what I thought at first, but a nice balance of all sorts of edits is always good, isn't it? NSLE _(讨论) \ 09:48, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

   Yes it is, but it's not worth denying adminship in my opinion. Wikipedian's specializations are unique I see no need to enforce a blanket standard on a user who meets the requirements; has been here a while and is generally regarded as a trusted member of the community. While I respect the dissenting users opinions, I must disagree with them. -JCarriker 10:04, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

   Looking at your userpage, I'm hoping your wikistress wasn't caused by this o.o... I get your (and Haukurth's) point(s), but it's no use arguing this now. (And for me to switch my vote again for whatever reason would be ridiculous). Thanks for your comment though, I'll try to remember the the next time a similar RfA comes up. Now, back to voting, let's stop detracting! NSLE _(讨论) \ 10:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

2. Support No big deal - and I thought he she was one already, anyhow. The guy's gal's offering to do more work for us, I say we let him her. There's nothing that indicates that he'll she'll abuse admin tools. But if this nomination fails then please keep up the good work and come again soon - we need more admins willing to tackle copyvio backlogs. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 09:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
3. Support. Quality edits, especially in wikifying and cleanup, and vandal patrolling. We need more editors like him. - Mailer Diablo 10:44, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
4. Support, insane enough to be on helpdesk-l. Go forth and do good stuff! Alphax  14:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
5. Support. In my view, the Talk record shows this user has handled a few thorny issues, which is a good sign. More community interaction would be desirable but I don't see that as a bar to adminship. The Land 15:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
6. Support Good editor, will be good admin --Rogerd 15:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
7. Support: no reason to believe he will abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
8. Enthusiastic David Bowie support --Merovingian (t) (c) 00:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
9. Support, solid record of editing and vandal-fighting. Lack of talk-page contributions is a bit unusual but not a no-go issue and explanations seem satisfactory. Palmiro | ] 01:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
10. Support--Duk 02:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
11. Support Kate's tool is back up. He does have over 3000 if you count the 226 deleted edits. His record is good and shows a lot of work. --Dakota 06:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
12. Support due to namespace-countitus in the oppose votes. I don't get many messages on my talk page, and most of my talk edits are due to giving standard template messages to vandals. Users talk over the place, and can not be measured with edit counters. NSR (talk) 11:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
13. Support Excellent wikifier and vandal fighter from the looks of things. I don't have a problem with comparing namespaces, but Talk contributions seem less than relevant for a person who busies himself doing the grunt work others don't have patience for. Marskell 12:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
14. Weak Moderately Strong Support, only seen him once, and it was good :) Redwolf24 (talk) 23:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC) After remembering where I remember Jareth for, I remember that Jareth's been quite likable, so support strongly ;-) Redwolf24 (talk) 00:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
15. Strong support After responding to a rather problematic topic/RfC I posted and after I solicited additional assistance, regardless of J.'s longevity on Misplaced Pages, I have found Jareth to be very analytical, conciliatory, pleasant to work with, and somewhat humorous. Thus, I offer my unsolicited support for Jareth's RfAdmin. E Pluribus Anthony 01:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
16. Θrǎn e (t) (c) (e-mail) 04:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
17. Support. utcursch | talk 06:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
18. Support. The links provided by the anonymous user (24.55.228.56) opposing below convinced me that Jareth should be an admin. She was calm, polite, and clear about the relevant policies in that interaction. You certainly don't have to be an admin to cite the blocking policy, which constitutes advice, not a threat. Chick Bowen 14:52, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
19. Support. Hard worker. A look at his/her contribs shows s/he does a lot of gruntwork. Comments on talk pages are friendly, whether they be welcome messages or politely worded requests to stop vandalizing. Always uses edit summary. A good deal of reverting vandalism--so the admin tools would be good for this user. delldot | talk 04:10, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
20. Support. Looks as though this user doesn't allow others to pick a fight with her, helps sort out disputes, and could use the admin tools to make the project better. —Cleared as filed. 16:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
21. Support mainly based on cool-headed dealings with anon in the oppose column. Borisblue 18:49, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
22. Support Everything looks fine to me...little more interaction. MONGO 12:20, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
23. Support. Despite not having focussed on editing articles in a major way, she has put a lot into the Misplaced Pages project as a whole by cleaning up. Some people are just more made for that. More importantly, she's made over 260 replies to the mail:helpdesk-l list, an important point of contact for ignorant members of the public and future Wikipedians alike. jnothman 14:14, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
24. Support. Has plenty of helpful interaction with new/potential members of the community on helpdesk-l. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
25. Support Izehar 16:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
26. Support. My original opposition was due to what I saw as lack of interaction with other users; however, now that I see Jareth is quite involved on the helpdesk-l, I have no problems supporting. --MPerel 17:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
27. JFW | T@lk 02:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Only 31 edits to article-talk pages, which shows too little community interaction. SlimVirgin 07:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

   Looking in another perspective, it can be seen as positive as it may mean that he hasn't got into much conflict with other editors. :) - Mailer Diablo 10:44, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

2. Oppose. Only 31 article-talk page edits??? Community interaction is essential to good adminning. Jayjg 18:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

   78 talk page edits over all namespaces, for what it's worth. Also see Jareth's answer to question 4 below if you didn't already. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 18:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

3. Oppose Based on the edit imbalance, I feel this user needs more of a record on which to judge his capabilities. "Better safe than sorry vote", and I look forward to supporting later. Xoloz 05:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
4. Oppose After only receiving an admin nomination, Jareth is acting as if s/he is king of wiki. S/he is presently threatening me with suspension, and s/he is not yet an admin. Please read her/his threatening message here: I have never broken the 3RR rule, despite her/his agressive talk. Make her/him an admin and you will have created a monster. Be warned. --24.55.228.56 02:19, 18 November 2005 (UTC)UPDATE: Jareth wrote that "If either you or 24.55.228.56 continue with the edit wars and reversions today, you will be blocked from editing." Jareth presently has no authority to block anyone. Do you want to give him/her that power?--24.55.228.56 03:18, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

   After reading a bit of the debate you're referring to, yes Jareth is exactly the sort of person that I want to have the right to block people. The Land 15:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

   Oppose, there's almost nil interaction with other users to be able to make a judgment on this editor. Most of the edits are simply disambigs and grammar, which is still necessary and good, but I'd like to have a little more of something to go on before I can support for adminship. --MPerel 06:57, 20 November 2005 (UTC) changed vote, see above. --MPerel 17:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

   Oppose for the reasons stated. Izehar 23:48, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

5. Oppose. Admins must of necessity interact widely with the community. Experience doing so is an indsiputable must, and is also very necessary to be able to carefully judge the temperament of a candidate. -Splash 14:49, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral after reading his answer to Q.3 and noticing that the no. of his contribs to user_talk space is less than 50, most of them being either welcome messages or test-warning messages. --Gurubrahma 06:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

   You're absolutely correct. I believe most of my discussion has been on article Talk pages, and not in the user space. Talk:Robert_Steadman would be a recent example. Thank you for the input. .:.Jareth.:. 06:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

2. Neutral per original vote and followup comment. NSLE _(讨论) \ 08:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
3. Neutral- I saw Jareth’s comments on Gurubrahma’s talk page where I had gone to post a message. I moved on to learn more about Jareth, and I found him really fine, and he has all the potentials to become a good administrator very soon. --Bhadani 17:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
4. Neutral Too low in talk edits --Jaranda() 21:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• User has 2756 edits; activity on talk spaces (article and user and wikipedia, etc) is 2.76%; activity on project space is 13.10% and activity on article namespace (many of them edits which could be considered minor) is 88.70%. NSLE _(讨论) \ 08:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

  Interestingly, the percentages don't match, so if someone could go back and double check (Kate's Tool is down, this was done through excel), it'd be good. NSLE _(讨论) \ 08:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

• You do have an email set, don't you? Alphax  14:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I do. .:.Jareth.:. 15:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

• Did I mention she's a she? Alphax  17:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

If you read J's user page, this is clear; she's a self-professed tomboy. And she's not just a she: she's a she-bang! ;) E Pluribus Anthony 18:37, 17 November 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 check out Category:Misplaced Pages backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A. I believe I would work mostly on backlog, specifically on pages needing deletion and copyvio issues. Since most of the patrol I do in not on RC, but shortpages and wikification, it would be helpful to be able to speedy the pages I come across that have slipped through the cracks. I imagine I'd also be involved in blocking since I often come across repeated vandalism when browsing shortpages.

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

A. My favorite has probably been the improvements to Citrus production; it was a stub that had been vfd'd, but I felt it had a lot of potential -- a quick bit of on the spot research and help from other editors who felt it could be improved resulted in a quality article. Most of my other major contributions center on animal articles or project work (i.e. stub sorting, disambiguation, punctuation and syntax fixes). I also participate in the Cleanup Taskforce and had a great time working on the NetBIOS article.

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 personally involved in many edit conflicts; I tend to head them off by starting a dicussion on any disagreements before they become an issue. I do occasionally comment on on-going issues and rfc's -- I believe there's always a compromise, though sometimes it takes outside input or cooler heads to see it. I anticipate I'll continue to use a good discussion as the first line of defense in the future.

4. Do you accept that being an admin requires good communication with others? Do you forsee increasing your community interaction, regardless of the outcome of this RfA?

A. Absolutely, to both questions. In fact, I've recently become active on Helpdesk-l and assist in answering questions. I honestly hadn't considered that taking discussions off-wiki would be a road-block, however, I do understand its not as easily trackable. One of my favorite mediation feats actually occurred entirely off-wiki -- the community supporting the Joomla! fork of Mambo wrote a page, which was afd'd shortly thereafter for its ad-like quality. I've spent a great deal of time with them explaining how Misplaced Pages works (their influx of support looked very sockpuppet like) and working with them on how to create a better article. I think it can still use improvement, but it is no longer entirely an ad and most of the revert warring has stopped. Unfortunately, since this was all done via IM, forum and IRC, there's just no paper-trail to display.

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.

GraemeL

Final (79/1/0) ended 01:07, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

GraemeL (talk · contribs) – Fellow Wikipedians! Now that User:JoanneB has, how shall we say, been nominated for adminship, I nominate GraemeL as a new admin! He has been around for almost three months now, and in that time, he has been a really good and experienced Wikipedian, fighting vandalism and somewhat active on WP:AFD. I wish he should be made an admin. — JIP | Talk 09:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept the nomination. --GraemeL 13:43, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Extreme nominator support! — JIP | Talk 09:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
2. Support FireFox 13:50, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
3. Support Tintin 13:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
4. Extreme "Oh look, the other one I was waiting for" support - brilliant user/vandalwhacker. --Celestianpower 14:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
5. Support pgk 14:01, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
6. Extreme Support with Sprinkles. Good vandal fighter, never personally seen him lose his cool. --Syrthiss 14:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
7. Support. But of course. Shimgray | talk | 14:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
8. Support!. An excellent editor who truly understands how WP works. Owen× ☎ 15:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
9. Support!. Kirill Lokshin 16:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
10. Support, unlikely to abuse the admin's toolbox. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
11. Support he's Scottish (knows what he's doing - and when he doesn't, he asks) --Doc 16:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
12. Support Private Butcher 16:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
13. Support Seen his good work around, doesn't loose his cool! --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 16:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
14. Support Cool Wikipedian, for sure! Xoloz 16:47, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
15. Support Use the blocking option with wisdom and restraint. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 18:22, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
16. I'm-back-from-my-travel-support -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 18:35, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
17. Support - levelheaded - and good with humour too! --HappyCamper 19:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
18. Support -- Francs2000 19:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
19. Support, I have seen enough of this user to be absolutely sure that he'll be a capable, courteous admin. Oh, and all of the above, too :-) JoanneB 19:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
20. Support seen user around and has always been on the ball.Gator(talk) 20:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
21. Oran e (t) (c) (@) 21:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
22. Extreme I-just-had-a-Reese's-peanut-butter-cup support --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 22:20, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
23. Support, now when's Vilerage gonna run...? Redwolf24 (talk) 22:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
24. Support Excellent RC patroler --JAranda | watz sup 22:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
25. Strong Support Great vandal fighter. Will make great admin. -- Psy guy 23:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
26. Support Will be good admin --Rogerd 23:27, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
27. Support, seen GraemeL in action and believe him to be very adminable. -feydey 23:46, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
28. Support--Sean|Black 00:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
29. Support - diligent RC patroller, needs a mop. Also, good attitude. FreplySpang (talk) 00:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
30. Support as an apology for all the messages intended for me he gets on IRC :> -- grm_wnr Esc 02:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
31. Support - seen good things. BD2412 T 03:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
32. Support. Yamaguchi先生 03:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
33. Support - great vandal fighter, and has helped me out with reverting multiple occurrences of vandalism on a page. As he said in his answers to the questions, he's already doing admin tasks, so it makes sense to make him an admin. --Idont Havaname 04:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
34. Support Not sure what more there is to add, at this point. — MC MasterChef :: Leave a tip — 04:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
35. Support. PJM 04:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
36. Support I thought I already voted here. GraemeL totally deserves it, he helps fight back vandals all the time. -Greg Asche (talk) 04:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
37. Support. Robert 04:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
38. Support.Thought he was already.--Dakota 05:07, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
39. Support--MONGO 06:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
40. Support. --Alan Au 06:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
41. Support. An active vandal fighter. jni 07:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
42. Support Hail Eris! --anetode¹ ² ³ 07:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
43. Support. Seen plenty of good work here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
44. Support - looks like a good egg Brookie: A collector of little round things 08:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
45. Support. Aye. encephalon 09:37, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
46. Support. A very good editor and vandal fighter. Mushroom 11:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
47. I hate exams. Alphax  14:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
48. Support A user who drives me nuts because he is forever reverting vandalism seconds before me. I assumed he had the rollback all this time. (I'm sure I'm not alone there.) Banes 15:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
49. Support Per above. --Martin Osterman 15:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
50. Support. A fellow vandal fighter that is super-active and pays attention to detail. Most deserving! ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 17:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
51. Support. Some good VF, and generally good input. jnothman 17:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
52. Support. No reason for concern, and admin tools would be helpful in vandal fighting. Jayjg 18:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
53. Support. Blackcap | talk 20:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
54. Support per above. Silensor 23:07, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
55. Support. KHM03 04:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
56. Support per nomination. Edits to military articles are always of the highest quality. Megapixie 04:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
57. Strong how-on-Earth-it-took-me-so-long-to-notice-this support! Another great vandal-whacker. Titoxd 04:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
58. Support. Though I think its clear you do a damn fine and fast job of reverting without Rollback! The Minister of War 09:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
59. Support. Live an learn; he told me about the substing...--Lectonar 16:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
60. Support clearly better at fixing html than me :) --TimPope 18:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
61. Without reservation. -- Essjay · ] 21:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
62. Support; RC patrols a ton, have had only positive experiences with him. Was going to support earlier, but he wasn't at 3 months yet :) Ral315 (talk) 02:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
63. Extreme can't-believe-I-haven't-voted-yet support! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
64. Support. I didn't support earlier, because I thought I had already supported! utcursch | talk 06:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
65. Support. Lots of vandal whacking, almost always uses edit summary. Adminship would be really useful for this person because fighting vandalism is a big part of their job. delldot | talk 15:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
66. Support. the wub "?!" 21:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
67. Support. sure, good user. Jtkiefer ---- 23:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
68. Support. Had several good experiences with this user. Also trust the opinion of numerous other supporters. - Mgm| 23:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
69. Support and allow for organic development. Bahn Mi 05:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
70. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 08:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
71. Support Often seen reverting vandalism.--Alhutch 19:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
72. Support. Excellent communicator. Joyous | Talk 03:10, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
73. Support. of course. Dlyons493 Talk 21:18, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
74. Do I have to really put my reasons support. per all above and good contributor «»Who?¿? 02:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
75. Support. But can we do something about his first name's spelling? ;-) --Nlu 21:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
76. Support. El_C 23:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
77. Support, and only just in time! A good user, good editor and good admin-to-be. -Splash 03:27, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
78. Support Izehar 23:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
79. Support - I am not supporting twice – am I ? --Bhadani 14:01, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Boothy443 cause no adminship should be without opposition :) (then again not like it matters on this one)  ALKIVAR™ 06:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

• Your email id is set, yes? Alphax  14:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is. --GraemeL 16:13, 14 November 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 check out Category:Misplaced Pages backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A. I do a significant amount of RC patrol and admin functions would help me do this more effectively; The ability to speedy delete articles that I have to flag at the moment. The ability to fix copy and paste moves. The ability to block problem users and unblock where appropriate, or where collateral damage is unacceptable. I already close speedy deletes at AfD, where an admin has deleted the article, but forgotten to close the related AfD entry. I would extend this to more general closing of AfD discussions. I would also help to monitor WP:AIV.

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

A. My prose is not particularly riveting. I tend to either be too terse, or waffle on, and so I do not do much article writing. However, I do work to clean up (wikify and format) articles that I get involved with through AfD or copyvio flagging. The best of these is probably 2nd Canadian Infantry Division. I picked it up as a copy and paste copyvio at Second Canadian Division and was contacted by the author on my talk page. I processed it through the confirmation of permission process, then worked on the article. I finally merged it to its current location, where there was a much shorter existing article on the same subject.

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

A. I've been involved in a few minor conflicts, generally over link spamming and one over the merging of Ned (Scottish) with Chav. I feel that all of these were dealt with in a courteous manner. I sometimes get stressed on RC patrol, but I recognise when this is happening, and a half hour break has always been enough to reduce my stress levels.

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.

Guanaco

Final (38/24/5) ended 00:56 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Guanaco (talk · contribs) – Guanaco has been an admin before. He was deadminned following an arbcom-mandated reapplication of the sort that the arbcom recently pretty much admitted they should never do again. He was renominated in March, and almost got it. Frankly, he's been in the doghouse too damn long, and it's time to give him his mop and bucket back. Phil Sandifer 20:27, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I accept this nomination. Guanaco 21:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Extreme nominator support Phil Sandifer 21:14, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

   Weak Support, haven't seen Guanaco around much, but the very little I've seen has been good. Plus I believe in second chances. Redwolf24 (talk) 21:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

2. Support warmly. Have previously been impressed with Guanaco's admin work and have no doubt he will perform again. JFW | T@lk 21:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
3. Support. He has been an admin with no problems in my part of the encyclopedia, to my recollection. --Ancheta Wis 21:13, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
4. Ground floor. --Golbez 21:40, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
5. Support He's been away long enough.Geni 21:52, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
6. Support time to bring back this experienced user.Gator(talk) 22:31, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
7. Support. I believe people are capable of change as well. Give him another chance. Bahn Mi 22:58, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
8. --JAranda | watz sup 23:31, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
9. support. About time, too. Grutness...wha? 23:35, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
10. Support - Mopify every Zig. You know what you doing. Mopify Zig. For great justice. FCYTravis 00:35, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

    Support....maybe...yeah okay. Private Butcher 00:50, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

11. Support - he has been an excellent admin before, and will no doubt be an excellent admin again. --Ixfd64 01:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
12. Sure. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 01:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
13. Support, it's about time he was given another chance.-gadfium 05:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
14. Support with trepidation. Some people seem to be on a kick to rehabilitate banned users lately. That's nice if it works, but the benefits to the encyclopedia are not all that great when balanced against the potential to dissipate our energies. Rehabilitating former admins strikes me as a much more useful proposition. Based on his comments here, Guanaco has acknowledged and explained his previous conduct in a way that suggests he recognizes the problems with it. I hope therefore that these scenarios will not repeat themselves. --Michael Snow 06:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
15. Support --Duk 06:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
16. Strong Support; Guanaco made some mistakes, for which he has apologized, and has promised to work on. He's done a lot of good work both before and after deadminship. Let's not deny him adminship for something that happened nearly a year ago. Ral315 (talk) 09:50, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

    With respect, Ral315, it was not "something that happened a year ago." It was a pattern of bad behaviour that went on for about a year before something was finally done about it. Even then, he burned good faith in his last renomination, and he's provided scant evidence in this RfA of anything having changed. Ambi 10:04, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

17. David Gerard 15:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
18. David Remahl 17:23, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
19. Support did he do anything bad as of late?  Grue  21:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
20. Support Let by-gones be by-gones. Rex071404 04:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
21. Acegikmo1 05:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
22. Support. Agree with Snowspinner on this one. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:04, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
23. Support, again. -JCarriker 08:44, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
24. Support Izehar 09:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
25. Support What he did wasn't even bad. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
26. Support -- albeit only moderately. I assume good faith on the part of this user and I'd give him a second chance. However... if events repeat, I won't be as kindly with my vote. --Martin Osterman 14:48, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
27. Support Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 16:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
28. Andre (talk) 17:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
29. Support. We should forget about his past mistakes (he has apologised for them), and move on. --Lst27 (talk) 23:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
30. Support There is a lot to read here and after digesting the entire thing I see that I can think of no reason to not assume good faith. MONGO 10:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
31. Tony Sidaway 10:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
32. Support the kind of attitude displayed in the oppose votes below is why I rarely vote on RFAs these days. Forgive and forget, I had one of my old account's userpage vandalized by this user but that was over a year ago! If we can't forgive, then the core values of Misplaced Pages are comprimised and the vandals will have striked a major victory. NSR (talk) 11:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

    Before you generalize, notice that many of the oppose votes are based on the fact that Guanaco virtually disappeared after his last RfA. Sustained editing only restarted about two weeks ago. Carbonite | Talk 15:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

33. Support Unquestionably. One of the old Ronin -long time editor/admin. --Jondel 02:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
34. Support warmly, a great Wikipedian he is. Halibutt 07:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
35. Support having read comments and assuming good faith--A Y Arktos 20:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
36. Support per Arktos. Guanaco's answers below seem adequate and sincere and I'm all for second chances. But I can understand that people want to see a few more weeks of problem-free editing so I look forward to supporting again soon :) - Haukur Þorgeirsson 14:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
37. Support. I believe in second chances. I can't quantify whether or not he'll do these things again, but Guanaco's responses below strike me as sincere. I don't think that the belief that he will be difficult to de-admin (if necessary) holds water: he was de-adminned once, and the second time will certainly be easier. Give the man back his mop. I, for one, trust in him enough that he will do well with it. It's time to move on: mistakes happen, and it's pointless to keep a man in the mud after an apology and a promise not to do it again. Blackcap | talk 01:21, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
38. Support. KHM03 00:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Some comments from previous nominations don't bode well (" A loose cannon for a long stretch", "I do not want an admin to display this erratic behavior", "Has Guanaco done something terribly worthwhile or noteworthy that I've missed? I am weary of Guanaco's behaviour, and maybe it has changed, maybe not. But as hard as it is to deadmin people around here, I'm not keen on finding out", "he needs to actually show a good deal of good behaviour before we trust him again", "Questionable judgment, reckless unilateralism, and refusal to admit mistakes are bad enough in an editor. Guanaco's behavior before his desysopping demonstrated why no-one with these traits ought to be trusted with adminship", "as a candidate for adminship, he marked his RfA for speedy deletion instead of withdrawing in the normal fashion", "Has repeatedly done dubious things in regard to admin powers, and has often been recalcitrant when asked about them", "I believe that admins who are willing to take unilateral actions—actions which may or may not be in accord with the will of the community—should be ready to explain themselves and discuss their reasonings when the inevitable questions arise. If their actions are repeatedly challenged, they should stop. Guanaco did not, to my knowledge, show himself to be open to discussion of his controversial actions, nor did he stop after several challenges from other users" , "He frequently abused his privileges, and acted with disdain toward community consensus. He makes no effort to "play well with others," and the ArbCom decision should be considered carefully", "He's unblocked users who there was consensus to block (such as impersonators), misused blocking powers in other ways, he's unprotected pages without the slightest regard for what was going on on talk, causing edit wars to unnecessarily restart - and that's just what I can remember off the top of my head", "Admins should act with consensus and be held to a higher standard", "Guanaco seems to be a blazing loose cannon" - Xed 22:10, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

   Are all these comments from previous RFAs? Has he done anything questionable since then? Raven4x4x 00:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

   Yes, they are. Have a look at them - Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Guanaco and Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Guanaco2. His last edit (his answer to Question 4) was questionable in that he didn't explain why he attempted to cover up the actions which lead to his de-adminship. Despite having a year to do so, he still hasn't explained why. - Xed 00:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

   I did not attempt to cover anything up. I have explained my actions in my answer to question 4. If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask them, but please do not accuse me of a cover-up without providing some evidence. Guanaco 00:27, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

   Ample evidence of your covering up is at the bottom of this page Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Cantus_vs._Guanaco/Evidence - Xed 00:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

   As I said in my answer to question 4, I reverted his edits because he was considered banned at the time. Edits by banned users are to be reverted. Guanaco 00:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

   Strongly oppose. It concerns me greatly that quite a few of the support votes seem to come from newer users with the attitude of "I don't know him, but oh well, okay". Guanaco wrote the book on abusing adminship; he was the first user to be desysopped by the ArbCom, and was far more regular in his actions (and far more reticent when approached about them) than Stevertigo ever was. I was prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt last time he came up for re-adminship, but then he went and removed Willy on Wheels from the list of banned users "because he hadn't had an arbitration case." I've seen basically no evidence that he's changed in the slightest, and I'd hate for a repeat of all the time that was wasted in unnecessary disputes because of his actions during his last time as admin. Ambi 01:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

   That's a bit of an unfair characterization - his argument for removing WoW from the banned user list was that, if someone showed up and began making legitimate edits and we later found out it was Willy, we would not immediately block that account - unlike, say, Wik. This is not an argument that is wholly unreasonable. Phil Sandifer 06:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

   Also, it seems inaccurate to say that he was the first user to be desysopped by the ArbCom - he was desysopped by an angry lynch mob, because the arbcom screwed up (As evidenced by their backing down and reconsidering the most recent time they threw an admin to the wolves). Phil Sandifer 06:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

   The committee's decision to reflect the change in community opinion (they were not widely criticised for doing this in Guanaco's case) and drop the forced re-evaluation can hardly be taken as a vindication of the conduct of either Guanaco or Stevertigo. I have little doubt that the alternative would have been to straight desysop Guanaco. Furthermore, I'm not one for grudges; I gave him the benefit of the doubt last time, and he blew it. After that, I wait for evidence that he can be trusted not to waste everyone's time again, and I just haven't seen that here. Ambi 09:30, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

   "Guanaco wrote the book on abusing adminship" is a ridiculous and entirely unhelpful overstatement that I really doubt you could properly support as stated. The AC also acknowledged the throwing his adminship back to a vote (not a "deadminning" as you state it) was a bad idea - David Gerard 15:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC)\

   It was a good idea then. It would be an even better idea now, given the many admins who do little but throw their weight around instead of building an encyclopedia. - Xed 15:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

2. Strongly oppose. I agree with Ambi above. User has a history of problems. —Cantus…☎ 02:18, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
3. Per Ambi, and per my comments the last two times around. —Charles P. (Mirv) 03:54, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
4. Oppose we need to be tough on rogue admins imho. I expect to see a clear sustained pattern of excellent behavior before I'd consider voting support.Borisblue 04:40, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
5. Strong Oppose per Ambi. Rogue admins are an increasing problem, and readminning this editor would send a very bad message. Simply too little to gain, too much to lose. Xoloz 07:38, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
6. Never Guanaco used to use admin privileges to protect trolls. I'm not interested to find out if he/she has gotten over that. Wile E. Heresiarch 09:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
7. Oppose due to concerns stated above, particularly Ambi's. Everyking 09:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
8. oppose per concerns above --Isolani 14:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
9. Oppose Changed my vote to oppose because of what I've seen. Private Butcher 16:40, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
10. Oppose. I'm quite willing to vote as if the slate was wiped clean after his last RfA. There's really only been two weeks of consistent editing since his last RfA in March (with sporadic edits in the interim). Given that it's a long, difficult process to deadmin a user, I'm going to need to see a longer period of good editing. Carbonite | Talk 16:43, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
11. Oppose—Since his last RFA, Guanaco has done nothing to change my opinion. (In fact, it doesn't look like he's done much of anything.) A.D.H. (t&m) 21:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
12. Oppose. Why should I support a candidate that tried to get his previous nomination speedy deleted and has since then accumulated only very few edits? Too little to gain, too much risk involved letting Guanaco run amok again. We have much better candidates in line waiting for the mop. jni 07:46, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
13. Oppose. I am certainly willing to discount past issues and let bygones be bygones. However, discounting his history, I must note that there's hardly any recent history to judge him by, as he made hardly any edits from april until the end of october. So I oppose for lack of activity. Radiant_>|< 13:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
14. Oppose per Radiant and others. We seem to have have a nearly endless supply of good admin candidates who have no history of bad actions whatsoever... so why would we re-admin someone whose major claim-to-fame is abusing admin privledges and getting de-adminned for it? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
15. Oppose pretty much per what Radiant said, but also because your characterization of the situation in your answer to question #4 below is pretty far from the mark. You weren't deadminned for blocking Cantus, you were deadminned for consistently controversial use of admin tools. An answer that whitewashed indicates you don't really understand the problem. - Taxman 16:16, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

    I would point out that the question called for a description of the events that led up to Guanaco's de-adminship, not the grounds for which he was de-adminned. The distinction is important, I think, because like many Misplaced Pages editors, Guanaco has a tendency to read things in a literalistic fashion (sometimes excessively so, an aspect that has contributed to past controversies). As a result, while his answer may not address all the issues you think the question should imply, I don't think it is fair to characterize it as a deliberate whitewashing, especially considering that Guanaco has acknowledged the additional controversy in his other comments here. --Michael Snow 19:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

    Edits are events. Comments are events. Only after Ambi pointed out there was a lot more going on that was explained in the answer to #4 below, Guanaco explained it a bit more accurately with "I was often rude and dismissive, trying to defend myself as if I were on trial. I caused a significant amount of trouble as an admin, and I apologize." Those events and others representing a pattern of bad behavior are the ones that led up to de-adminship, not what was described in the answer. - Taxman 19:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

16. Oppose per reasons given above. With no usable way to de-admin people, I have extreme reservations about giving the tools to those who've been known to abuse them. Friday (talk) 17:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
17. Oppose, disagree with nominator that now is the time. Silensor 23:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
18. Oppose. Toughie. Second chances are definitely good. Proven abuse of admin tools definitely bad. So the question seems to be: "would he do it again?". This is hard to judge from recent edits; certainly some good RC patrol in there, but also more reverting than constructing. this edit demonstrates he reverts rather quickly, without reading the full extent of the edit. Tricky. But then my eye catches question 4: De-adminned for reverting one person after 26 hours? Judging from the answer on question 4, Guanaco doesnt seem to have gotten the jist (sp?) of the case against him. And how can you learn from the past, if you dont acknowledge what went wrong? As such, judging from the (admittedly little) information available, the answer to the above question would seem to be: "he might". Hence I oppose. The Minister of War 09:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
19. Oppose per Radiant. 82.26.164.114 Pilatus 10:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
20. Oppose per Radiant. No Account 18:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
21. Oppose per Radiant. the wub "?!" 21:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
22. Oppose, previous admins should have a higher bar than regular users, and by that standard, there is just too little to go on at this time. Turnstep 14:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
23. Oppose: agree with Turnstep. If it weren't so hard to get something done about unaccountable admins, it would not be such a big deal, I think. CDThieme 16:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
24. Strong oppose to anybody who had a hand in the reinstatement of User:Michael into the Misplaced Pages community. User:Zoe| 03:58, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

• Wait a second, let me get this straight because it was before my time. If I understand correctly, he was arbcommed and deadminned for blocking someone (Cantus) for revert warring, over a technicality because the revert warrior did not break the 3RR but reverted four times in 25 hours? Radiant_>|< 22:07, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

From perusing the discussion here and at the first RfAr, it appears that the result was more of his actions afterward (To quote then-Arbitrator Ambi: If it was an honest mistake, as Raul characterises it, then why did Guanaco go to such lengths to cover it up?) and a pattern of "consistently controversial" admin actions. Note that I am not an Arbitrator and that I am not expressing any opinions regarding this RfA. Hope this helps. Flcelloguy ( A note? ) 22:32, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Ambi was not an arbitrator at that time. She functioned as more of a prosecutor. I did revert Cantus's posts, but once he had calmed down and stopped spamming, I read one of the notes. Seeing that he was not technically in violation of the ruling, I unblocked Cantus. Guanaco 23:53, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Though Guanaco is right about my role in the case, he was not desysopped for just one incident. He had, over a series of months, persistently unblocked users who had made nothing but bad-faith edits, unilaterally unprotected pages without regard for whatever was going on in the dispute, and was generally controversial in all his adminship actions. When questioned about his actions, he was - without fail - rude and dismissive (quite similar to the current situation with Stevertigo, except that Guanaco had a longer history of doing it). I was prepared to live and let live during the last re-adminship vote, but he then went and doing the same sort of thing - removing Willy on Wheels from the list of banned users because there hadn't been an arbitration case. I've yet to see any evidence that he's changed, and I'd really hate to have to go through the whole process again. Ambi 01:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

My unblocking of these abandoned vandal accounts was intended to make Special:Ipblocklist smaller by clearing out accounts that more than likely would never be reused. In retrospect, this was simply a waste of time with little possible benefit and much potential for controversy. At the time, I saw it as a solution to the ever-increasing problem of a painfully long block list (think George W. Bush x10). My unprotection of those pages was rash, stupid, and dangerous. I should have thoroughly investigated each one before making a decision on whether to unprotect. I was often rude and dismissive, trying to defend myself as if I were on trial. I caused a significant amount of trouble as an admin, and I apologize.

The only claim Ambi has made about my history as an administrator that I do not fully acknowledge is that I was "generally controversial in all my adminship actions". I deleted a large number of articles and files, and my deletions were very rarely disputed. I helped block active vandals and banned users such as User:Paul Vogel and the Vandalbot.

I should never have disputed the ban status of Willy on Wheels. It doesn't matter whether WoW is banned or just blocked, because all his reincarnations will be blocked indefinitely anyway. I caused trouble and wasted people's time, behaving as a troll might. I cannot prove that I have changed in any way. All I can do is admit that I was wrong and try to assure you that I will not repeat my past mistakes. Guanaco 05:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

1. Strong Neutral... don't know which way to go. Ambi and Snowspinner both make excellent points, so I'll take the middleground. Redwolf24 (talk) 04:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

   Comment to Redwolf24 -- I can't resist bringing up my heavily unsalted peanuts idea; might it not become a very popular product at the grocery store? As a follow-on to this potential product, lightly unsalted peanuts could then make its debut at the stores. --Ancheta Wis 04:54, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

   Ancheta, please clarify your analogy and how it relates at all to this rfa. Karmafist 15:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

   He was joking about the idea of being strongly neutral, which appears to be an oxymoron. ] 15:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

   Aha. You'd better tell Switzerland it's an oxymoron then ;-) Karmafist 04:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

2. Neutral Tough one.--Sean|Black 07:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
3. I am also forced to be very neutral. On the one hand, Guanaco has done good work fighting vandalism and working on deletion. I want to assume that he would handle the role well and uncontroversially. On the other hand, he has had significant problems in the past. The majority of the work that he wants to do(other than acutally pushing Alt+D) can be done by all users, so I think it unnecessary to give him these tools. I wouldn't be particularly worried if he were to have them, but I am by no means certain enough to support him. ] 15:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
4. Guanaco has given me his word that we won't see a repeat of last time, so in the interests of assuming good faith I'm moving my vote to neutral. Ambi 02:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
5. I cannot in good faith support or oppose. I believe Guanaco means well, but some of the objections raised worry me. Maybe next time. Johnleemk | Talk 12:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• See Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Cantus_vs._Guanaco for the ArbCom case, Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/User:Guanaco_versus_User:Lir for another ArbCom case and Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco for a RfC that was used as evidence and may be pertinent. Flcelloguy ( A note? ) 21:15, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Also see Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Guanaco and Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Guanaco2 for previous RfAs (adminship). Flcelloguy ( A note? ) 21:22, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• See Misplaced Pages:Requests for de-adminship for a brief summary of the incident. Flcelloguy ( A note? ) 21:26, 12 November 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 check out Category:Misplaced Pages backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A. I intend to help with RC patrol by rolling back vandalism and blocking vandals as necessary. I will protect pages in cases of extreme vandalism or edit wars and unprotect them when the vandals have settled down or the edit warriors have settled their dispute. The main use of my admin powers will probably be helping with article and image deletion (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion, Misplaced Pages:Images and media for deletion, Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree images, etc. I don't anticipate enforcing arbitration rulings or editing the interface very often.

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

A. I try to avoid becoming too attached to my contributions, but I have made significant edits to controversial articles like Westboro Baptist Church and George W. Bush. I have uploaded several images I created, such as Image:Poodle.jpg, and some files created by others, such as Image:WBC protest.jpg.

In the Misplaced Pages namespace, my most well-known contribution is the possibly unfree images 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?

A. I have very rarely been in article content disputes. In these situations, I generally have dealt with it by reverting once or twice, discussing the disputed section on the talk page, and if the situation becomes too stressful, simply leaving the dispute. I have made a few mistakes and engaged in a few debates regarding the blocking and protection policies. In the future, I will discuss matters before (un)blocking a user or (un)protecting a page. Guanaco 21:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

4. Many new users are not familiar with your history. Briefly describe the events that led to your de-admining. Mention anything that you would now handle in a different manner.

A. Cantus had been reverting the clitoris article exactly three times per day. The current blocking policy for violations of WP:3RR did not exist at that time, but there was a revert parole applied to Cantus at that time (see Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Cantus). If Cantus reverted any page more than three times in 24 hours, he could be banned for up to 24 hours. I checked the history on clitoris. I checked his recent reverts, and he appeared to have reverted the page four times within 24 hours. I blocked him, . Cantus used a few other IP addresses and accounts to spam the village pump and dozens of administrators' user pages with a plea for help. I rolled back the edits as expected for a hard-banned user. Cantus stopped his spamming after being blocked a few times more (I think he was writing to WikiEN-l at that time). Out of curiosity, I read his edit to the village pump. I checked the clitoris history again and found that his fourth edit was about 26 hours after his first. I immediately unblocked Cantus. Cantus requested arbitration. I apologized and requested mediation, but he refused and demanded punishment. Guanaco 23:53, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

5. One of the complaints about your previous controversial actions as an administrator was a reluctance to communicate or explain yourself when concerns were raised. What would you do to address this?

A. I recognize that I was often reluctant to explain my actions as an administrator. I now try to be as open as possible with my edits, explaining them whenever I'm questioned and admitting fault when I realize my mistakes. I would avoid being overly defensive of my actions and remember that Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment, however hostile it may seem, is not a courtroom. Guanaco 05:00, 13 November 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.

JoanneB

Final (87/0/1) ended 00:56 19 November 2005 (UTC)

JoanneB (talk · contribs) – She's a very respectful user who has been here since mid-August, but in that brief time she's become an extremely active RC Patroller, with almost 6,700 edits. She's also active in AFD, and overall, uses speedy tags well. Every encounter I've had with her has been very courteous, and there is no doubt in my mind she'll make an excellent admin. Titoxd 01:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination! --JoanneB 10:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Extreme Mexican Nominator Support! Titoxd 01:26, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
   • I take offense to this vote, both as a supporter, and as an extremist. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-16 06:30
     • Whaaaa? Titoxd 07:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
2. Extreme Speedy Support Excellent User --JAranda | watz sup 02:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
3. Very strong support, 300% Redwolf24 (talk) 02:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
4. Strong Support Johann Wolfgang 02:06, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
5. Support. Robert 02:07, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
6. Extreme-beat-the-nominee-to-her-own-nomination support — MC MasterChef :: Leave a tip — 05:41, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
7. Extra☺rdinary IRC anti-vandalism supp☻rt!!! → RoyBoy 07:46, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
8. Strong Support!!! Always been level-headed, fair, smart, quick, would make a GREAT admin!!! --VileRage (Talk|Cont) 07:51, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
9. Extreme "sorry for being late" support - amazing vandalwhacker and Wikipedian. Needs the powers and would use them to great effect. Go JoanneB! --Celestianpower 09:28, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
10. Support See above, not much more to add --pgk 09:35, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
11. Support. Absolutely one of the most dedicated RC patrollers I have ever seen. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:22, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
12. Support as above. NSLE _(讨论) \ 11:30, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
13. Support, if nothing else it will stop me having to block for her. Actually, this is not just another one of the CVU RCP's wanting admin - JoanneB has being doing far more than that - she's done all sorts of thankless grunt work since she arrived, with a high degree of civility and competency.Doc 11:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
14. Support obviously.  Grue  12:13, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
15. Everyking 12:26, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
16. Strong Support This user is fair helpful and will make a very good admin. --Adam1213 Talk+ 12:30, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
17. Damn-it-I-had-exams Support, I was going to wait a bit longer, but I think she's ready for it. Very level headed, will make an excellent admin, plus her email is set and she's often on IRC. Alphax  12:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
18. Support Professional, smart, thoughtful and kind, she consistently writes good edit summaries. -Walter Siegmund (talk) 12:52, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
19. Support. Based upon her valuable contributions, this user will certainly be a good Admin. --Smiley77 13:02, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
20. Strong Support. I see her on RC patrol all the time. Canderson7 13:47, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
21. Support Tintin 13:59, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
22. Already preforms admin tasks. He marked hundered pages with cvio and nonsense templates and those got deleted as a result. If he had the power to go ahead and deleted them it would save other wikipedia admins great time, also I am well aware of the level of vandal reverting this user does. --Cool Cat 14:02, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
23. Orange Furry Alien Support Hell yeah. Make with the mop guys. Alf 14:09, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
24. Support More polite vandal-fighters. Xoloz 14:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
25. Support, does much work in wikipedia. --Kefalonia 14:27, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
26. Support we need more admins like this user.Gator(talk) 14:29, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
27. Support Very good, very proactive editor. Other users thinking about admin-ship would do well to look at the type of work JoanneB does. Rx StrangeLove 14:31, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
28. Support We need more good admins like her. --Rogerd 14:52, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
29. Oppose, needs more cowbell Strong SUPPORT! of course! Welcome! Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 14:58, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
30. Acetic Acid expects that every man do his duty and vote for this fabulous candidate. Acetic' 15:13, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
31. Support- always seems to be vandal-fighting (and doing it well), painful without the buttons. Has also been helpful in CVU IRC. jnothman
32. Support. Absolutely. No questions asked. Ann Heneghan 15:36, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
33. Support. Believe she will use the admin options with wisdom and restraint. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 15:42, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
34. Support because I missed this last night and I just got up. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 16:18, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
35. Unprecedented level of support. Is there any way we can bypass the seven days on this one? BD2412 T 16:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
    1. Speedy promote! :) - Haukur Þorgeirsson 17:13, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
36. Extreme-how-can-this-many-people-have-beaten-me-to-voting support! FireFox 17:45, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
37. Support. Joanne, nice name. I wonder how you look like... - Darwinek 18:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
38. Support. Despite the length, the user has shown a level of dedication to Wiki that I wish I could emulate. LOL. --Martin Osterman 18:10, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
39. Support --Ilario 18:41, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
40. Support. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:45, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
41. Support --Ryan Delaney 20:32, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
42. Support Great user. -Greg Asche (talk) 22:00, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
43. Support. User very active and needs more tools.--Dakota 22:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
44. Support. KHM03 23:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
45. Support Private Butcher 00:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
46. Support - I'm surprised that this user isn't an admin. --Ixfd64 01:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
47. Extreme I-See-What-You-Did-There Support --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 01:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
48. Support. Is the voting process even necessary? — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-13 07:04
49. Extreme "I was supposed to nominate her!" support! I've been waiting for weeks for JoanneB to be nominated for adminship. She's been ready for it for at least a month. Give her AdministrativePower®, and quickly! — JIP | Talk 07:54, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
50. Support, of course. --GraemeL 12:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
51. Support, RC soldier. --Vsion 13:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
52. Bovine Support, An excellent vandalism fighter. Cowman 14:38, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
53. Suppport - We need more female admins to push my agenda...err...oops...TINC.... Seriously though, vandal fighters are exactly the type of admins we need. Editors don't need admin privileges as much as people who work behind the scenes do. And lets not forget that this project wouldn't work if it wasn't for all of us. Even the trolls and vandals are useful. (they keep us on our toes and give us something to laugh about later) --Phroziac 15:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
54. Support! A top-notch vandal-fighter. I love her use of edit-summaries; her style should become our new standard! Owen× ☎ 16:06, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
55. Of course! -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 18:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
56. Strong Support. Seen this user around. Oran e (t) (c) (@) 21:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
57. Support. A true force in RC patrol. PJM 02:36, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
58. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:18, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
59. Extreme "damnit I wanted to nominate her" support! Excellent user, excellent vandalfighter, excellent ... um ... edit summariser? Uh. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 06:01, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
60. Support MONGO 06:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
61. Support. --Alan Au 06:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
62. Support. Wow. encephalon 08:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
63. Support Lectonar 10:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
64. Support. - Mailer Diablo 10:46, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
65. Support. An excellent vandal fighter. Mushroom 11:36, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
66. Support. Ucucha (talk) 17:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
67. Strongest support. Joanne is not only one of the nicest editors around, but she is proficienty on WP policy and active in may aspects of the community. Well deserving of mop and bucket. Give her the key to the janitor;s cupboard! ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 17:28, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
68. Support. Already doing good admin work, now just needs the tools. Jayjg 18:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
69. Support, as one of the nicest Wikipedians I've met. PeruvianLlama 22:39, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
70. Support a nice person and a nice RC patroller. (And I echo the praise of your edit summaries!) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
71. Support. Whats the record on total support votes anyway? -- The Minister of War 08:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

    Func with 112 supports according to User:Zzyzx11/RFA nomination records. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

    I boil when I read such comments, or when someone makes jokes like why voting? This is highly disrespectable of the democractic values instored in Misplaced Pages. When I read such things, I'll just refrain voting. Fad (ix) 00:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

    I understand and I fully agree, Fadix. I appreciate the amount of support (although I have to admit I'm still very much suprised by it), but I feel very uncomfortable with the constant referrals to any record whatsoever. That's not what an RFA should be about... --JoanneB 11:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

    In case you are wondering, I created User:Zzyzx11/RFA nomination records back in May 2005 in the first place for my amusement only. It was not meant in anyway to influence voting here on RFA. In fact, I may add another disclaimer on there too mentioning this. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:53, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

72. That's hot. Mike H (Talking is hot) 09:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
73. Extraneous, blatant, unneeded Support But sincere--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 10:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
74. Off-the-wall, foaming-at-the-mouth, please-calm-down-Babajobu support, because Joanne is the most dedicated vandal fighter I've ever met and a generally wonderful person to boot. Babajobu 13:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
75. Strong-but-irrelevant-at-this-point Support. Kunal 14:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
76. Absolutely no doubt in my mind. -- Essjay · ] 21:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
77. Support. Actually thought she was an admin already. :/ --Syrthiss 21:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
78. Support. By all means deserving. Ramallite 22:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
79. Support; a great RC patroller, and good person. Would have nominated myself. Ral315 (talk) 02:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
80. Support. utcursch | talk 06:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
81. Support lets push for another support record.  ALKIVAR™ 06:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

    Your vote is appreciated, of course, but please see my response to vote #71. --JoanneB 11:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

82. support --Isolani 16:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
83. Support the wub "?!" 21:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
84. Support Per all of the above, and per comments on vote num. 71. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk. 00:11, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
85. Support. Sarge Baldy 03:12, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
86. Support per above. Briangotts ] 14:35, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
87. Support. Dlyons493 Talk 21:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Only 6707 edits --Cool Cat 13:59, 12 November 2005 (UTC) Just mocking editcountis freaks ;) --Cool Cat 14:02, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Oppose Fad (ix) 21:30, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

May I ask why? Acetic' 21:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Answers to question 2 and 3. Fad (ix) 21:53, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral. Absolutely amazing worker. If anything her only drawback is that she has only been editing for 3 months.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 11:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• Can the candidate give examples of articles she has expended and that she is pleased with? Fad (ix) 22:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

It's hard to find them amidst of the other edits, since I don't have a lot of time right now, but here are some diffs: , and . I can't say I'm really 'pleased' with those, I think I'm better at 'protecting' the work of others. Regards, JoanneB 09:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

• I think JoanneB might have pointed to User_talk:JoanneB/Archive2005/October#Ok_Tedi as an example where she worked with another editor to improve an article. Moreover, she gave me most of the credit. However, it would have turned out nearly as well without her involvement. I suspect that many interactions of this sort contribute to the support this RfA is receiving. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:21, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

• It's worth pointing out that I contacted Joanne some time ago as I was working on an article on ergative verbs and wanted some examples in other languages. She was very helpful , which I appreciated all the more as I had not had any prior contact with her and have no reason to think she's particularly interested in linguistics. However, I got a bit caught up with other articles, so I haven't yet added the examples to the ergative verb article. (She had said she'd post them on the talk page rather than directly into the article, as she didn't have experience of that particular subject, and would be more confident if I added them.) So that's one example of an article that would have been improved thanks to her. That it hasn't improved yet is my fault, not hers. Hey, I've just realized, while writing this – "improve" is an ergative verb! Ann Heneghan 21:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Satisfies me. Fad (ix) 22:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

• I think that just about everyone wanted to nominate JoanneB A very small bit of the list --Adam1213 Talk+ 07:43, 14 November 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 check out Category:Misplaced Pages backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A. When on RC Patrol, I run into lots of things that require admin attention: vandals that need to be blocked, copy-paste moves, attack or nonsense pages that need to be speedied. I now tag or report those things, but it would be nice to be able to take care of them without adding it to the workload of others. I would also help out reduce the backlog where needed, like for copyvio issues.

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

A. There are no specific articles that I'm most proud of, yet. Most of my contributions are 'behind the scenes': reverting vandalism, disambiguation, participation in things like AfD. Although edits like that are not very visible, I believe they do contribute to the readability and usability of the encyclopedia. I have also expanded and wikified articles and stubs that I ran across (especially those found on Special:Deadend pages) and translated articles from Dutch.

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. Until now, I have not been in any real conflict with other users (with the exception of some vandals, but I guess that's part of the job). As in real life, I find that WP:AGF is often the right attitude to avoid problems. However, I do realise that conflicts cannot always be avoided, but I'm pretty confident that I'll manage not to let them escalate.

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.

Nlu

Final (58/0/0) ended 00:56 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Nlu (talk · contribs) – Nlu has been an active contributor since July 26, 2005, and has amassed over 5,000 edits in that short amount of time. He is extremely active in fighting vandalism. He is a constant fixture at WP:AIV; indeed, I estimate that about a quarter of the AIV reports I've acted upon as an administrator have been submitted by Nlu. He understands well Misplaced Pages's policies on vandalism and blocking, and is cool and calm when dealing with vandals. It is my belief that, as Misplaced Pages continues to grow, vandalism will only become more of a problem, and we need more capable administrators that are able to quickly deal with vandalism in a calm and rational manner. Misplaced Pages would benefit greatly if Nlu had access to administrator capabilities. android79 15:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I was just about ready to nominate this guy right now but Android79 beat me to it ;) so why not co-nom. Nlu is a outstanding and nice user who is very active in fighting vandalism and He is going to use his power very wisely. --JAranda | watz sup 02:08, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept. I think Android79 has been overly generous in his description :-) (thanks), but I will do whatever I can to help. (Oh, Android79, you guessed my gender correctly. :-)) --Nlu 23:12, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nominator. I hope I didn't step on anyone's toes with this nomination – you know he's a good candidate when three others say "Crap, you beat me to it." The sooner he gets the mop, the better! android79 04:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
2. Strong Support I was planning on nominating him myself, but I got beat to it. Great user, I see him reporting vandals all the time at AIV. -Greg Asche (talk) 00:49, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
3. Support because it's almost quitting time. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 00:59, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
4. Support this would be a useful admin --Doc 01:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
5. Support, active vandal-whacker. Titoxd 01:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
6. Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 01:34, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
7. Support MONGO 01:53, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
8. Late Co-Nom Support' Yes Yes Yes --JAranda | watz sup 02:08, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
9. Support looks good... best of luck to you.  ALKIVAR™ 02:28, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
10. Support Good editor --Rogerd 02:39, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
11. Support Excellent work on articles about the Han Dynasty.--Confuzion 02:44, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
12. Support Redwolf24 (talk) 02:46, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
13. Support, most definitely. Active RC-patroller, dedicated to keeping the Wiki clean of vandalism; calm; good editor. Antandrus (talk) 02:51, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
14. Support, excellent RC-patroller. Kirill Lokshin 03:23, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
15. Support I was going to nominate him soon if no one else did. I'm tired of blocking vandals for him; let him do it himself! :) --Ryan Delaney 03:27, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
16. Support. Robert 03:47, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
17. Support.--Sean|Black 04:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
18. Support Always seems to beat in reverting vandalism, so lets make it even easier for him to do so :-D. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk. 04:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
19. Needs the LART and bucket. Wikibofh 04:23, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
20. Support Misplaced Pages would clearly benefit by offering Nlu access to the administrator tools. — MC MasterChef :: Leave a tip — 05:35, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
21. I-was-away-traveling-support -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 05:37, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
22. Support. This user is unlikely to abuse administrator tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
23. Support per Android79 and Aranda56. — JIP | Talk 08:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
24. Support - he isn't one already? --Celestianpower 09:00, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
25. Support --pgk 09:32, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
26. Support Polite vandal-fighters. Xoloz 14:22, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
27. Support --Kefalonia 14:27, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
28. Support Will do an excellent job.Gator(talk) 14:31, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
29. Support Nlu deserves a mop and will wield it well. Alf 14:51, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
30. Support Johann Wolfgang 17:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
31. Support. Nothing to really say here. --Martin Osterman 18:07, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
32. Of course Acetic' 18:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
33. Support Fad (ix) 21:32, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
34. Has made a positive and levelheaded expression, so yes. Radiant_>|< 22:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
35. Support. We need an infinite number of level-headed administrators. Bahn Mi 23:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
36. Support. user has many quality contributions. was planning to nominate Nlu myself.--Jiang 23:42, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
37. Private Butcher 00:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
38. Support - excellent editor. --Ixfd64 01:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
39. Support. One of the most active RC Patrollers around. Owen× ☎ 03:22, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
40. Support RfA cliché #1. -- Psy guy 07:04, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
41. Support FireFox 12:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
42. Support. --GraemeL 12:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
43. Support! Sango123 (talk) 17:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
44. Hell Yes Good editor. -Loren 01:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
45. Support. Very constructive edits, will make a fine admin. PJM 02:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
46. Support.--Dakota 05:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
47. Support MONGO 06:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
48. Support Ive always seen Nlu around. Oran e (t) (c) (@) 06:39, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
49. Support. --JoanneB 16:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
50. Support. Admin tools will be helpful for RC patrolling. Jayjg 18:18, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
51. STRONG SUPPORT. A catastrophic malfunction in HTML Tidy happened. Nlu kept calm in this crisis.Martial Law 05:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
52. Support -- The Minister of War 08:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
53. Support. -- Essjay · ] 21:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
54. Support A solid, and candid, Wikipedian who should administrate nicely; should probe more deeply before assessing a situation, however. Good luck! E Pluribus Anthony 07:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
55. Would benefit from being able to push the delete button himself, instead of filling up CAT:CSD. I've speedied a lot of articles he's tagged over the past few days, and can't recall seeing any that didn't meet the criteria. —Cryptic (talk) 17:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
56. Support Rex 17:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
57. Support. the wub "?!" 21:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
58. Support impressive dedication to the project --anetode╔╝ 09:42, 17 November 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 check out Category:Misplaced Pages backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A. Of the eight types of duties outlined by Misplaced Pages:Administrators, I see what I'd help with the most is reversion -- since that's what I do already and I feel that I have good judgment in deciding when to revert and when not to. I also think that I'd be active in deleting unwanted pages. Blocking and unblocking I also see myself doing quite a bit. The other duties I think I'd do a bit less, but I'll try to help, except that I think that for the time being I won't be doing much database queries or playing around with the interface. --Nlu 23:17, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

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

A. I am most proud of my Han Dynasty-related article edits -- most of it expanding the emperors' articles and adding other figures' articles, including empresses and important officials. (I had done minimal editing to Han Dynasty itself, since the article was already well-written and well-fleshed out.) For examples, see Emperor Ming of Han, Empress Zhao Feiyan, and Huo Guang. I feel that while, prior to my arrival, English Misplaced Pages already had a good amount of information on Chinese history, much of it can be improved on by expansion and by correction and removal of incorrect information. That's what I've aimed to do during my time here. (I must admit that I've probably spent much more time on anti-vandalism efforts than on editing the last few weeks, and I'm hoping to get back to editing soon.) I've added a moderate number of baseball-related articles, and occasionally I've added/expanded articles in other fields. For me, accuracy/impartiality are important, and that's what I try to concentrate on when it comes to these other fields; adding information is not as important for me. --Nlu 23:22, 11 November 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. The most stress comes from dealing with suspected vandals who might or might not be true vandals. Dealing with true vandals is easy; revert their changes and request blocks. Dealing with people who appear to be vandals but you're not sure about is harder, and occasional leads to issues. The situation dealing with Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Joseph Allen Wood, for example, caused the subject of the article to vandalize my user page with racist insults and led to, an administrator getting on the cases (unjustified, in my opinion) of me and Jeffrey O. Gustafson. I deal with it by remembering that this is a collaborative effort, and that the entire theory behind Misplaced Pages is that having everyone's input is important. I must say that I am much more of an advocate than mediator personality-wise, but I'll try to be more of a mediator in the future. --Nlu 23:29, 11 November 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.

Cleared as filed

Final (36/0/2) ended 00:56 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Cleared as filed (talk · contribs) – I'm nominating myself for adminship. I've been an editor on Misplaced Pages since July and I have almost 3,000 edits. I enjoy writing and cleaning up articles (especially in the fields of aviation, baseball, and history) and I've been doing RC patrol (especially New Pages patrol) since I first started editing. I am interested in becoming an admin because I think that I'm ready to take on the additional responsibilities and challenges it presents, and I think I'm ready to handle the extra tools to help in my RC patrolling. I also think that I am pragmatic and reasonable, and will exercise good judgment when it comes to helping with edit disputes and the like. Thanks for your consideration. —Cleared as filed. 20:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Great Editor I could have nominated him if I knew he wanted to be a admin --JAranda | watz sup 20:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
2. Support because it's windy here again. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 21:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
3. Support How many transportation geeks can this place have? :) Contrib log checks out and the answers to the questions are reasonable. See no reason to deny him tools that will make him more effective. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 22:16, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
4. Support per Aranda.Gator(talk) 23:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
5. Oran e (t) (c) (@) 23:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
6. High Flying Support how can I not support someone who likes aviation, baseball, and history! --Rogerd 00:31, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
7. Support NSLE _(讨论) \ 00:58, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
8. Support - I feel that Cleared as filed will make a great admin -- Ianblair23 (talk) 01:13, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
9. Support, a good Wikipedian and an excellent answer to question 4. Thryduulf 01:30, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
10. Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 01:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
11. Maaad phat support, yo. Very active, conscientious, admin-worthy. BD2412 T 01:39, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
12. Troppus Emertxe looks good... best of luck to you.  ALKIVAR™ 02:29, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
13. Support. Kirill Lokshin 03:24, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
14. Support.--Sean|Black 04:06, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
15. Support Based upon answers to questions and contribution log. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk. 04:24, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
16. Support, unlikely to abuse administrative tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
17. Support seems good.  Grue  07:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
18. Cleared for adminship as filed. — JIP | Talk 08:16, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
19. Fine editor. Quite satisfied with response. Xoloz 14:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
20. Support common sense rules. Alf 14:52, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
21. Support per answers, contributions, and being beat to repairs of vandalism a few times. :) --Syrthiss 16:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
22. Support Johann Wolfgang 17:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
23. Support. I can't see anything really wrong here. This user looks like they are willing, able, and have the necessary mindset to be an Admin. --Martin Osterman 18:06, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
24. Support - looks level-headed to me. --<span style="text-decoration:overline underline">]]]]]</span> 20:41, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

    Please note that the above signature is the only time I will use it, just as a joke - before I get hundered of complaints flooding to my talkpage. Thank you. --Celestianpower 20:41, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

25. Support F.Ad (ix) 21:24, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
26. Private Butcher 00:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
27. n00b Support ∾ Cleared-as-filed has been helpful and informative to this Wikin00b, and I believe he would make a fine addition to the admin staff. → Ξxtreme Unction {ł_blah} 13:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
28. Support. See no reason for concern. Jayjg 18:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
29. Support.-- The Minister of War 08:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
30. Support, You're cleared and filed and HIRED:>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 10:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
31. Support. utcursch | talk 06:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
32. Support- and all the best. --Bhadani 16:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
33. Certainly, and extra bishpoints for the selfnomination. (Those mean that this counts as 2 1/2 support. :-)) Bishonen|talk 22:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
34. Support. Come across this user many times, never had a problem with their editing or judgement. Turnstep 14:21, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
35. Support Always see this user doing good work. I say yes!--Alhutch 19:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
36. All clear to take off! (and file too...) I happily await working with you on AfD. -Mysekurity 02:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Xoloz 21:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC) Pending answer to new question below. Xoloz 21:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

1. My interpretation of WP:IAR is that administrators should be using common sense to control their actions.

   Please use logic and reasoning rather than "common sense". --redstucco 09:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

2. Neutral E Pluribus Anthony 04:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• What does "Cleared as filed" mean? =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:20, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

As a pilot, when you file an IFR flight plan, you have to specify a desired routing from your departure point to your destination. The air traffic controllers near your departure point examine your routing and determine if it fits into the current air traffic control picture. If it does, and they don't need to make any changes to your routing, they tell you that you are cleared as filed when they give you your clearance. Check out my user page for an example clearance. —Cleared as filed. 11:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

So the case shall be clear soon (smiles), and shall be filed too in the wiki-archives. --Bhadani 16:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters (I'd also be happy to answer any other specific questions anyone has):

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Misplaced Pages backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A. I anticipate helping to close out Articles (and others) for Deletion, taking care of Copyright problems, rolling back vandalism and linkspam, and watching for vandalism in progress and helping out there as necessary (blocking vandals, protecting pages). I'll also continue with RC Patrol and help to speedy-delete nonsense and other speediable articles.

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

A. I'm pleased with my contributions to cleaning up aviation articles especially, and I have also enjoyed sorting through the New Articles and wikifying, cleaning them up, finding categories, etc. I've also enjoyed taking photographs of nearby places and putting them in the appropriate articles, something I plan to do more.

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 many conflicts; the few that I've been involved in, when it becomes obvious that things might get heated, I've taken myself out of the discussion until things cool down. I have no problem helping out with others' edit disputes, but I don't want to get too heavily involved in my own because these things have a tendency to become personal and I figure the healthiest way to deal with it is to contribute to other articles for a while. In the future, I'll continue to behave this way when it comes to disputes that I am involved in. I am all for finding common ground with other editors, but when it becomes a struggle of your way vs. my way with no negotiation, I figure there are 815,000+ other articles for me to work on.

4. In what ways do you believe WP:IAR should apply to administrative actions?

A. My interpretation of WP:IAR is that administrators should be using common sense to control their actions. Obviously we shouldn't be ignoring rules without a good reason to do so, and preferably a consensus to do so, but I have no interest in becoming an admin so that I can help create more red tape. The rules and policies of Misplaced Pages were all created for a reason, but the community couldn't forsee everything that might come under the purview of those rules, and I think obeying the spirit of the policy is more important than obeying the letter of the policy.

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.

Sherool

Final (27/4/0) ended 02:32 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Sherool (talk · contribs) – Sherool has been with us on Misplaced Pages since May 2005. He has made 3708 edits, 1606 (43%) of which are in the article namespace. He also has 801 deleted edits, most of which are adding speedy tags and other maintainance tasks. According to his user page, most of his tasks are "janitorial" and I notice he's been doing a lot of help putting speedy tags to enforce the new image speedy criteria. This focus, I think, would make him a very productive administrator. Coffee 15:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept --Sherool (talk) 19:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Support we need more admins doing what he's already demonstrated he wants to do. Would be good admin.Gator(talk) 19:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
2. Support —thames 21:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
3. Support freestylefrappe 22:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
4. Support Grutness...wha? 23:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
5. Support A quick check in the contribution log turns up nothing troubling and shows fine use of edit summaries. See no reason to deny tools that will make the user even more effective. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 23:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
6. Support. Does good work.--Sean|Black 23:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
7. Support Good editor --Rogerd 01:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
8. Support only first saw him yesterday, and I liked what I saw. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
9. Support, of course. Coffee 02:00, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
10. Support, looks like a good user. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
11. Support MONGO 02:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
12. Support. Kirill Lokshin 02:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
13. Support, this user is unlikely to abuse administrator tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:13, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
14. Delete, self-admitted nn candidate. — JIP | Talk 06:51, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
15. Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 07:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
16. Support giving him the mop would only make his work easier. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk. 20:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
17. --JAranda | watz sup 21:00, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
18. Support because the voices in my head tell me to. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 21:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
19. Oran e (t) (c) (@) 23:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
20. Support. Although the oppose votes below have raised valid points, I feel that people often loose touch of the fact that adminship should be "no big deal". I see only reasons to support and none to oppose. Gblaz 03:38, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
21. Support Johann Wolfgang 17:59, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
22. Support. As previously stated in Psy Guy's RfA, not all Wikipedians are going to be editors or contributers to articles. Just as a research center needs both the scientists who do the research and the cleaning crew who makes sure that the place looks nice, Misplaced Pages needs Admins to do article work and Admins to keep things nice and shiny. This user falls under the category of the latter (and there was no offense intended with my remarks. LOL) --Martin Osterman 18:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
23. Support Edits and their distribution have "janitor" written all over them. Perfect example of someone who would save time and save everyone else time if given the tools. Marskell 12:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
24. Support Enjoyment derived from janitorial tasks and commitment enough to already do so. Thats a reason to support if I ever saw one. -- The Minister of War 16:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
25. Support. We can always use more janitors, especially of such a high quality. the wub "?!" 21:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
26. Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC) Good chap, quietly getting on with essential tasks for which administrator powers would be useful.
27. Support good cleaner-upper. Dlyons493 Talk 21:36, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I must oppose based on response to question 2. User states not much actual editing, I personally feel this is a major point of contention, admins are supposed to lead by example... if all we do is cleanup work this encyclopedia doesnt really go anywhere. You should be familiar with all aspects of wikipedia to be a good admin, that includes FAC as well as AFD.  ALKIVAR™ 09:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
2. Oppose. I'm concerned about Sherool having only 85 posts to article talk pages in six months. Admins need more community involvement than that. I'll support in a couple of months time if he does something about that, and as Alkivar said, makes more substantive contributions to articles. SlimVirgin 22:59, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
3. Oppose per SlimVirgin. Private Butcher 00:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
4. Oppose per Alk and Slim. I note that most of the support-votes are of the regular "sure, why not" kind, and do not address these issues. Radiant_>|< 10:37, 16 November 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 check out Category:Misplaced Pages backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A. Well I've been pecking away at speedyable images (no source, no licence, orphanded etc) so I'll keep doing that. Also help carrying out delete sentences from the various deletion pages most likely and lend a hand at WP:RM and that kind of things. There are other maintainance tasks I'll do too, but they don't require admin powers. --Sherool (talk) 19:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

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

A. I have not contributed a whole lot of original text rely (mostly minor edits, adding a category here, sorting a stub template there, a little wikifying and such), aside from some "fancruft" Brynjar Meling is the only "big" contribution I can think of article wise. I'm fairly pleased by the work I did on splitting the overpopulated {{writer-stub}}, but others like Caerwine deserve the most credit. I only created two of the sub stubs and sorted maybe a couple of hundred stubs altogether. I'm also pleased to have contributed some free images to commons to replace copyrighted ones, or fulfill image requests, even if they are not exactly featured image candidates (hard to get lighting good when doing "macro" photography, at least with the camera I have access to). --Sherool (talk) 19:21, 10 November 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. Not rely. I generaly try my best to avoid conflicts. Someone vandalised my userpage once when I listed his joke article for deletion, and recently I've goten a couple of "un-diplomatic" comments thrown in my general directon on WP:TFD, but that kind of things don't rely bother me too much. I think this is the closest to a edit war I've been in so far. I typicaly try to work disagreements out on the relevant talk page(s), and do my best not to post if the blood is boiling. --Sherool (talk) 19:21, 10 November 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.

Ianblair23

Final (57/0/0) ended 03:14, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Ianblair23 (talk · contribs · count) – This wonder from Down Under has topped 11,000 edits since he began in December, 2004. This includes over 8,500 article edits, and hundreds of project space and talk space edits that show that he is a communicator, and a participant in work beyond article creation and maintenance. His interactions are courteous and positive. He is active in numerous Australia-related projects, and has created and/or polished countless articles relating to the places and institutions of that country, although his penchant for article creation is international (particularly when it comes to media, and to the Commonwealth Games). I would also note that, although his use of edit summaries was lacking early on, he has been rock solid in using them since September. I am pleased to nominate Ianblair23 for an adminship. BD2412 T 22:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I most humbly accept BD2412's nomination. -- Ianblair23 (talk) 00:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. Always happy to support a fellow Aussie. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 00:58, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
2. STRONG SUPPORT Definitely, Redwolf24 (talk) 00:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
3. Support. A great contributor on many interesting topics, and a sensible admin candidate. Harro5 01:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
4. Support - and glad to see it's taken off before I even got here! BD2412 T 01:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
5. Support -- JAranda | watz sup 01:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
6. Support -- Rogerd 01:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
7. Support MONGO 02:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
8. Support Always good to have well-qualified sysops in under-represented time zones for mopping up when other admins are sleeping or otherwise occupied. Youngamerican 04:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
9. Support. KHM03 04:10, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
10. Support seems a worthy candidate, I trust BD, so you have my support on your nomination.  ALKIVAR™ 04:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
11. Support - He seems like the perfect candidate, and his diffs reveal good editing skills. TDS 05:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
12. Support, unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
13. Support - Nothing indicates that he will abuse the tools and we need more admins. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 08:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
14. Duuude. -- Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 08:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
15. Support. Surprised he has 11k edits and is still not a sysop. Splintax (talk) 10:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
16. Support Good difs, lots of edits in lots spaces, fine on summaries. I like the attention paid to links and redirects. Marskell 10:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
17. Support about time! Gator(talk) 13:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
18. Support. Kirill Lokshin 13:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
19. Support Scïmïłar 15:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
20. Support. Oran e (t) (c) (@) 16:14, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
21. Support. -- NormanEinstein 16:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
22. Support. Thunderbrand 17:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
23. Support, per everybody. -- Sean|Black 23:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
24. Support. I remember that the first interaction I had with Ianblair23 was to nominate one of his articles for deletion... he handled that case very calmly and civilly. I see that Ian has done a great deal of excellent work with Misplaced Pages, and I think his answers to Aaron's questions are great. I see no reason not to support. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
25. Support. Thorough researcher, and has done a lot of excellent work on Australian articles. Cnwb 08:54, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
26. Support. Deserves to have been made admin long ago. Ambi 09:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
27. Strong Support for a wonderful contributor. In fact, nominating Ian was on my list of things to-do - and I certainly don't mind being beaten to it; he should have been one ages ago. -- Cyberjunkie | Talk 09:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
28. She'll be right. Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. - brenneman 11:24, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
29. Support. Stickler for accuracy. -- Scott Davis 11:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
30. Suport. An excellent user. Courtious & thorough. -- Ian ≡ talk 13:57, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
31. Support - good editor, thoughtful answers to questions. -- DS1953 16:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
32. Support Happy to support longtime editor. Xoloz 18:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
33. Support as per nominator. Hall Monitor 00:21, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
34. Support User is level-headed, slow to anger and a good community participant (active on WP:AWNB). pfctdayelise 01:12, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
35. Support. Good edits, excellent understanding of WP. I just hope your movie to film quest is bot-assisted! :) Turnstep 02:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
36. Support, well deserved! -- Chuq 04:10, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
37. Happy to Support. -- Roisterer 04:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
38. Support. -- May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 07:51, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
39. Support -- valuable Aussie editor. - Longhair | Talk 09:11, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
40. Support, yep, I've seen him around and don't remember any bad experiences. Alphax  13:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
41. Support: -- Bhadani 14:16, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
42. Support impressed by the answer to the curly questions also. Alf 14:58, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
43. Strong support. Gee, that's the second strong support today. Good going! Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 15:00, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
44. Support A real Aussie battler who seems to be found everywhere. jnothman 15:34, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
45. Support Johann Wolfgang 18:00, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
46. Support. Nothing really to say that hasn't been said already. -- Martin Osterman 18:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
47. Support -- A Y Arktos (Talk) 23:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
48. Support. has amply demonstrated he knows what makes things tick around here. -- cjllw | TALK 03:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
49. Support. He has been here along time and has done well so he will know what to do. -- Dakota 05:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
50. Support. Sarge Baldy 06:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
51. Support - JCarriker 08:48, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
52. Support Not really necessary, but still support. -- The Minister of War 16:44, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
53. Support. Piling on, but I see no reason for concern. Jayjg 18:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
54. Support and User:Splintax please fix your signature file for crying out loud. Silensor 23:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

    Not really Splintax's fault - HTML tidy is offline. BD2412 T 04:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

    I disagree. If you're going to have an annoying fancy .sig (not that I intend to imply anything about your annoying fancy .sig, BD2412, which is a very fine annoying fancy .sig indeed) you can at least take the time to learn how to do it properly. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

55. Support too. *drew 08:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
56. Support -- POY 19:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
57. Support. the wub "?!" 21:20, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Xoloz 08:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC) Won't vote until all Aaron's questions are answered, obviously. Xoloz 08:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Please sign your acceptance. Thanks. Turnstep 13:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Changed to support. Turnstep

Comments

There is no doubt from looking at your contributions that you're a hard worker. Thanks to examining your contributions I'm also happy to now know about The Disneyland Memorial Orgy. I'd like some further drill-down on your answers, though, as well as some fresh questions:

1. What has been stopping you from participating in WP:AfD, WP:CfD, etc. until now?
2. When you say that you'd use rollback in fighting trolls, can you explain how a bit more?
3. You say that you haven't had conflict, but can you give some examples of positive and co-operative interactions with other users?
4. How comfortable are you with Misplaced Pages (not main) space, and how familiar you are with the policies relevant to admin powers?
5. How do you interpret WP:IAR and when can you imagine that you would use it?

brenneman 01:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

A few curly questions there Aaron, but important ones.

1. Well nothing has stopped me from participating in these activities; I just haven’t been a regular. I have voted in the past and I’m familiar the policies. I have worked on articles up for deletion to get it up to a higher standard, North Sydney Girls High School and Getaway come to mind. However, if the topic is rubbish, vanity etc. then clearly it deserved to be deleted. -- Ianblair23 (talk) 02:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
2. The rollback function is one of the best tools that are available to admins. This tool is invaluable in the fight against vandals and trolls. I would like to start patrolling WP:RC more and this tool would most definitely help. However, this tool must be used with caution when reverting newbie edits as this might put them off side thinking that their edits are not worthy. To prevent this, I feel that the use of {{test}}, {{test2}}, etc. on their userpage and/or a mention of why revert occurred on the article's talk page is necessary. -- Ianblair23 (talk) 08:12, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
3. My talk page shows plenty of examples of positive interactions with other users especially fellow Australian contributors. -- Ianblair23 (talk) 08:28, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
4. I feel very comfortable editing and working in the Project space, having already made several hundreds edits. In regard to the policies relevant to admin powers, I have read the administrators' reading list and I will enforce policies where appropriate. I can assure you, I will not abuse my admin powers. -- Ianblair23 (talk) 06:57, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
5. One of the reasons why Misplaced Pages has been such a huge success and will continue to be huge success is the enforcing of the rules and policies under which it was established. Four of the five pillars of Misplaced Pages are WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, WP:GFDL and WP:WQT, with the fifth being WP:IAR. The way I interpret WP:IAR is that if any rules are getting in the way of the betterment of this encyclopaedia then do not just blatantly follow it but do what is the best for Misplaced Pages. Now this does not mean that admins or anyone else can use this as a way make up rules, but if genuine bureaucracy and red tape is hindering the project then IAR may be used. I like the final the sentence in the policy the most: "The spirit of the rules is more important than the letter". -- Ianblair23 (talk) 06:33, 11 November 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 check out Category:Misplaced Pages backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A. I would most certainly help clear the backlog on Requested moves. I would also like to work on WP:AfD, WP:CfD, WP:TfD and the like. The rollback feature would most definitely help me in fighting vandals and trolls where I come across it and I would be very happy to help users with any problems they may have. -- Ianblair23 (talk) 00:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

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

A. Being from Australia, I have worked on alot of Australian related material. I'm really pleased on progress I have made on the TV Week Logie Awards, the Australian version of the Emmys. I have also created several articles on Australian television programs, worked on List of Australian television series and created the template {{Logie Awards years}}

I have also done alot of work in regard to Australian schools. I broke up the List of schools in Australia into the 8 pages "List of schools in state/territory". I'm working hard on List of schools in New South Wales (the table that hopefully will be used on all the other state pages). I also created the categories "Schools in state/territory" and the stub {{Australia-school-stub}}

I also created articles for most of the 38 Local Government Areas in the Sydney metropolitan area. I also created pages for most of the suburbs in the City of Blacktown and created the template {{Sydney Blacktown suburbs}}

I'm also very active on the Misplaced Pages:Australian Wikipedians notice board and I regularly add to and check Misplaced Pages:New articles (Australia).

However, I have also done alot of work on more universal topics. Currently, the List of songs by "Weird Al" Yankovic is up for nomination to become a featured list. Also I have done alot on the Commonwealth Games and will be very active during the 2006 Commonwealth Games in Melbourne, Australia next year.

In addition to all that I also partake in alot of maintenance work fixing redirect links. In particular correcting links from "Title (movie)" to "Title (film)" of which there is a massive amount. -- Ianblair23 (talk) 00:13, 10 November 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’m very pleased to say that I have never been in any conflict with any other user. I’m a very rational, calm editor and not the kind of guy that loses his cool easily. I always assume good faith and most certainity never bites the newbies. -- Ianblair23 (talk) 00:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

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

Requests for bureaucratship

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

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

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

Requests for self-de-adminship and confirmation of adminship

Requests to relinquish adminship are granted on request and may be made at m:Requests for permissions. Do not place such requests here because the stewards will not act on them unless they are placed at m:Requests for permissions.

If you wish to have the community confirm or re-affirm your adminship, the correct process is:

1. Voluntarily relinquish adminship by placing your request at m:Requests for permissions
2. Apply for adminship here utilizing the usual procedure.

If you have concerns about specific aspects of your administrative performance, consider posting a request for review on the Administrators' Noticeboard or employing a Request for comment.

Related requests

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

If this page doesn't update properly, either clear your cache or click here to purge the server's cache. en:Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship

1. Candidates were restricted to editors with an extended confirmed account following the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I § Proposal 25: Require nominees to be extended confirmed.
2. Voting was restricted to editors with an extended confirmed account following the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I § Proposal 14: Suffrage requirements.
3. The community determined this in a May 2019 RfC.
4. Historically, there has not been the same obligation on supporters to explain their reasons for supporting (assumed to be "per nom" or a confirmation that the candidate is regarded as fully qualified) as there has been on opposers.
5. Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 17: Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions and Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Designated RfA monitors

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