Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:06, 27 March 2006

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 for adminship

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. If you intend to nominate yourself, please take note that while there is no hard and fast requirement for nominating, editors with less than three to six months experience and 1,000–2,000 edits very rarely succeed in becoming admins.

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

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

CBDunkerson

Final (111/1/0) ended 01:30, 03 April 2006 (UTC)

CBDunkerson (talk · contribs) – Conrad Dunkerson has had a Misplaced Pages account since 2003, became an active contributor last October, and is currently nearing 6,000 edits. His main areas of contributions deal with the Template namespace and the writings of J. R. R. Tolkien. I first encountered Conrad during a difficult period where several Administrators and the Arbitration Committee were dealing with a highly controversial user. Conrad was one of the few people who were willing to speak up on that user's behalf, and encourage everyone to try to act in a fair, equitable, and considered manner. While I did find myself in disagreement with his opinions at times, I also found that I had a high level of respect for his ability to rationally and articulately state his well thought and mature opinions. Since then I have continued to encounter him in various discussions around Misplaced Pages, and I continue to find his thoughts worth consideration. I believe he would make an excellent Administrator, and I am pleased to offer my nomination of CBDunkerson. Ëvilphoenix 16:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept with thanks. --CBDunkerson 22:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. Please see further questions below. NSLE _(T+C) at 01:25 UTC (2006-03-27)
2. Support. Yup, don't see any problems here. -- Jjjsixsix /_(c) @ 01:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
3. Not-very-but-still-weak support. He seems to be a good editor and he isn't likely to abuse Admin powers, but he has been inactive for quite a few months --TBC 01:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

   Not sure what you mean by that. He got his username several years before he became active, he's had over 800 edits a month since December, with 400 something the previous month and 200 before that in October. It's more accurate to say he was inactive, but right now he's a very active contributor and has several months of activity. Ëvilphoenix 01:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

4. Strong Support CBDunkerson is a wonderful asset for Misplaced Pages, and would do well with the mop. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
5. Absolutely support despite my serious concerns with the distribution of his edit totals. I mean, here this long, and only 3 edits to "Category talk" namespace? But I'm going to overlook that this time and not just go blindly by the edit count numbers because I think he will be a fantastic admin. —Doug Bell 02:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

   That's an incredibly arbitrary choice of namespace. I should guess that having even that many Category talk: edits is unusually high, and healthily low. I for example, have only 4. -Splash 02:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

   Heh... obscure in-joke Splash. He isn't serious. I think. :] --CBDunkerson 02:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

   Oh right. Perhaps my sense of humour has switched off. -Splash 02:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

   Well, if I have to explain it, then it must not be funny, so I'm going to not explain it and hope that it is funny. —Doug Bell 02:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

   I am sure that it is. -Splash 03:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

   Oh, and I have 9 Category talk edits in my much shorter time here, so I suppose any future RfA for me is doomed by my unhealthily high number of edits to that namespace. Oh well. ;-} —Doug Bell 04:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

6. Support, great editor. And {{day+1}} was on my personal wishlist. Kusma (討論) 02:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

   Glad to hear it. Someone requested 'day+1' on the talk Main Page so I created it... and then tried to figure out what to actually do with the thing. Fortunately, a few people have been finding uses for it. :] --CBDunkerson 03:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

7. Support - he's a good choice for admin. - Richardcavell 02:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
8. Suppport, worked with him—good editor and not somebody who'd abuse admin powers. —Mirlen 02:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
9. Support good user as far as I know, everything appears to in order. good luck.--Alhutch 02:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
10. Support. My impression of this user has always been good, and examining recent edits gives no cause for concern and much cause for supporting adminship. Evidently slightly idiosyncratic views on 3RR, so should be careful to respect others' views on when or not to block at WP:AN3 if he should decide to get involved; this presumably isn't a problem since he says he simply won't work over there much. -Splash 03:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

    Exactly. Admittedly 'idiosyncratic' views, but I generally won't go there and certainly wouldn't be disputing 3RR actions of others (unless only one side of a mutual 3RR violation were blocked or something like that). --CBDunkerson 03:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

11. Support per Mirlen. --Quiddity 03:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
12. Support Thoroughly wonderful editor. Xoloz 03:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
13. Support - seems like a great choice for admin to me -- Tawker 03:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
14. Support. pschemp | talk 05:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
15. Strong support for keeping his head cool and showing good judgement in the Pigsonthewing case. Conscious 05:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
16. Support. Very good user. --TantalumTelluride 05:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
17. Support. Good and responsible contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
18. Support Has the experience and the quality of edits. Gizza 07:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
19. Support a very good editor. I liked his answer to question 1 on 3RR. David | Talk 08:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
20. Support Everything in order here. Proto||type 08:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
21. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 09:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
22. Unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 10:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
23. Support, will make a good admin and very good edits Leidiot 12:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
24. Support. Looks great from all angles. ×Meegs 12:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
25. Support, although he has only been really active for a few months, I see no major problems. JIP | Talk 13:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
26. Support No problems here. A good user. --Siva1979 14:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
27. Support A reasoned voice in the whole WP:AUM mess. Unlikely to abuse the tools. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 14:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
28. Support per nom and everyone else. I couldn't not support a user like this. - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 15:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
29. Support, definitely. --Terence Ong 15:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
30. Support. --Adrian Buehlmann 15:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
31. Support, very active, no fear of burnout. bd2412 T 16:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
32. Support Merecat 16:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
33. Support was one of the first people to help me when I started editing. -Dawson 16:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
34. Support - Sango123 (e) 19:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
35. Support - Solid contributor. Put him to work. No Guru 19:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
36. Support good editor. --a.n.o.n.y.m 20:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
37. Definitely --Jay(Reply) 21:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
38. Wholeheartedly Thryduulf 21:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
39. Strongly support solid, levelheaded, supportive, etc. I have full confidence in you. --Mmounties (Talk) 22:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
40. Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
41. Support, good user. Fetofs 22:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
42. Support meets my criteria. — Deckiller 23:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
43. Support. 'Course. — Rebelguys2 00:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
44. Strong Support I thought he was one --Jaranda 00:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
45. Support this wandering mop-wielder. Deizio 00:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
46. Support looks good to me. --Rob from NY 02:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
47. Support - I thought he already was an admin?!! --Cyde Weys 02:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
48. Support per Cyde :-) SoLando (Talk) 02:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
49. Support, {{Rfa cliche1}}. --Deathphoenix ʕ 04:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
50. Support It's all been said, won't abuse tools and is a good editor. Good luck! Rx StrangeLove 05:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
51. Support well deserved--Looper5920 08:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
52. Support Certainly, for a fine user. Marskell 09:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
53. Support, excellent user. the wub "?!" 10:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
54. Support giving him One Mop To Rule Them All!! - Aksi_great 12:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
55. Support: helpful and friendly user, may his soul rest in peace (of which he'll have precious little once this passes :-). —Phil | Talk 12:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
56. Support --Ugur Basak 13:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
57. Support, of course. Kirill Lokshin 14:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
58. Support.  Grue  15:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
59. Support, Per above.--Masssiveego 18:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
60. Support, looks great, keep it up. Prodego 20:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
61. Support Naconkantari e|t||c|m 20:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
62. Support There is no reason not too. Jedi6-(need help?) 20:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
63. Support per above. Yamaguchi先生 01:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
64. Support. Thunderbrand 01:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
65. Support Moe ε 04:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
66. User:Go for it!/Vote StrongSupport I just awarded him a barnstar for his help with template programming on the Tip of the day project, and was considering nominating him myself. But somebody beat me to it! --Go for it! 05:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
67. Support - all looks just fine. Sandstein 05:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
68. Support with a Slam Dunkerson. Bad pun. -- Samir (the scope) 05:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
69. Support as above.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
70. Support This is such an obvious case for adminship that i say hand him the mop now! TruthCrusader 08:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
71. Piling on Support of course. --hydnjo talk 13:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
72. Support seems to be a decent candidate for promotion.--MONGO 13:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
73. Weak support, Good contributor from last few months. Shyam 16:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
74. Support I hope to aspire to CBD's level someday. He can stay calm under any situation. Karmafist 22:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
75. Support. Mushroom (Talk) 23:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
76. Support: seems like a nice bloke. Thumbelina 23:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
77. Support good candidate --rogerd 03:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
78. I have 11 Category talk edits... should I be proud or nervous??? More candidates like this one please!Support ++Lar: t/c 04:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
79. Support Everything seems to be in order here, give 'em the mop! — xaosflux 05:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
80. Support --Jusjih 09:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
81. Support cj | talk 09:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
82. Support Is this a joke? You mean he's not an admin yet? Misza13 12:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

    Support MONGO 15:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

    Pssst! MONGO, you were #72 above. Not that I don't appreciate the support. :] --CBDunkerson 15:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

83. Support Funny thing. I just ran into him. Noticed he wasn't an admin. Said "huh?". Did some poking around thinking I might nominate him. And here he is. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
84. Support per Rick. Hiding talk 18:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

    Is this an example of Block voting or a Voting block? --hydnjo talk 20:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

85. Support. Plus, he has almost doubled his "Category talk" namespace edits in the last week! --Alan Au 23:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

    Ack! Doomed. -Splash 23:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

86. Painfully redundant support. How is he not an admin yet? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
87. Umm, yeah, support. Whoa. This is a shocker. Really... he's NOT an admin? Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 04:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
88. Delete, nn. templatecruft. Wait, wrong page... Alphax  12:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
89. SupportGuettarda 13:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
90. Support Wait a secund... he's been here 3 years and still no adminship? Set things right! _-M P-_ 13:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
91. Support. Willing to let the Category talk namespace edits slide.  ;-) Hall Monitor 19:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
92. {{subst:Rfa cliche1}}, even though he only has 7 edits to the Portal talk: namespace. Titoxd 21:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
93. Support Joe I 23:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
94. Support, 93 people can't be wrong! Rock on to 100! Weatherman90 00:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
95. Support - BanyanTree 02:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
96. Support Will use the mop well. --Alf 08:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
97. Support easy. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
98. Support Blatant pileon on my part, sorry, I saw an RFA with 97 votes and felt it needed to be 100. Just kidding...CBDunkerson is a fine editor, whom I always took to be an admin already. He deserves this. Banez 15:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
99. Support --Edwy 15:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
100. Support 100! Way to go. --FloNight 16:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
101. Support. I have researched this user and like what I see. --Danaman5 16:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
102. Support. Impressed with contributions and attitude to resolving disputes. Carcharoth 17:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
103. Support. Great choice. Covington 04:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
104. Support. It's a pile-on at this point, but I only seem to get to this page once a week or so. Anyway, good choice. Jayjg 06:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
105. Support. Let's make it a Slam Dunk for Mr. Dunkerson--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 10:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
106. Support. Seems like a good editor. - Tangotango 10:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
107. Support with pleasure. SlimVirgin 10:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
108. Support. SushiGeek 19:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
109. Support. Congrats! – WB 21:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
110. Support AnnH ♫ 01:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
111. Last Minute Nominator Support. What more can I say? Ëvilphoenix 01:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose, 3RR is the least subjective aspect of blocking policy. Discussion should take place before it escalates to that level. Also, I'm not very impressed by his role in the proliferation of utterly frivolous meta-templates, which quite frankly should be a software extension. If "date math" is needed that badly, (it might be useful somewhere, but we've gotten along without it), go talk to the devs. — Apr. 2, '06 <freakofnur_xture|talk>

   Yes, discussion should take place first, but in my experience the usual reason for 3RR is that it hasn't. Yes, we can then throw a block at people and hope that will inspire them to start talking... but in my opinion it is better to skip the potentially aggravating block and go directly to having the discussion. As for "the proliferation of utterly frivolous meta-templates" - obviously we disagree on what is and is not 'frivolous'. I do agree that many of these functions ought to be software extensions... however, since they aren't I see no reason to not implement them using viable/approved methods currently available. We can convert them if and when the software capabilities are added. Finally, I can't accept all the credit for Category:Date math. More than half the pages in that category, the creation of the category itself, and the associated help page, are the exemplary work of Ed Poor. Efficiency ideas and improvements have also been contributed by Alfakim and many users have suggested inclusion of various features. --CBDunkerson 14:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

• Could CBDunkerson clarify Q1? Does he mean that he would choose not to act on 3RR reports or that he would reject them when they were otherwise in-order? -Splash 02:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

  My style of dealing with conflict is generally to resolve it through discussion. If that fails then blocks may be needed, but I wouldn't be imposing blocks for 3RR without first trying to resolve the situation. See my answers (in progress) to NSLE below for examples of what I mean. I want the ability to block when nothing else works, but don't think it should be used as the first option. --CBDunkerson 02:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

  A more direct answer....? -Splash 02:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

  Hrrrrm? "Yes"... and "no". It depends on the situation. I'd block for 3RR/edit warring when I felt it was needed. Overall I think my personal bar for 'needed' on that issue is higher than average. Does that clarify? --CBDunkerson 02:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 01:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• See CBDunkerson's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages in this capacity. Please take the time to answer 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 am something of a 'Wiki nomad' in that I move around from one project to another fairly often. Thus, over time I'd expect to get involved in alot of different admin tasks. However, there are some areas I know I will be actively involved in on an ongoing basis. I currently keep an eye on templates for deletion and work to help clear out the holding cell and as an admin would close out discussions and delete templates once they have been cleared from the holding cell. I'd also like to be able to perform speedy deletes and use rollback during bouts of recent changes patrolling.

I generally dislike WP:3RR and other blocks because, far from 'allowing people to cool down', they all too often result in escalating anger. Obviously, blocks are the only way to deal with persistent vandals and I anticipate using them often for such, but otherwise I'd plan to block only in cases where it is clear that there is no other option. Similarly I'm not a big fan of page protection because it can stagnate attempts to work out a compromise or annoy those who feel it was protected on the 'wrong' version. I've done informal mediation several times and it would be very helpful to be able to unprotect pages once the parties are ready to look for mutually acceptable text.

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

A. Three years ago I was first introduced to Misplaced Pages by articles here about the Middle-earth stories by J. R. R. Tolkien, and I recently helped to get the Tolkien article itself promoted to featured article status. I founded the Middle-earth Wikiproject, completed work on the Middle-earth Portal to get it up and running, have made hundreds of edits/new articles on this topic, and more than half of the 5,205 pages currently on my watchlist relate to this subject.

I created and maintain the Misplaced Pages:Featured content page and the logic which allows it to display randomly selected 'article of the day' and 'picture of the day' content from the past. I first became aware of the new Main Page design project after they decided to link to this featured content page and have subsequently helped to make some minor 'code' improvements to the Main Page for screen reader accessibility. I was also able to get similar accessibility improvements added to nearly all of the portals with help on formatting from AzaToth, Kmf164, and several individual portal maintainers.

I also do quite a bit of work with templates. In late January I discovered Misplaced Pages:Requested templates and have since been clearing out a six month backlog there while also answering new requests. Of the templates I have created I am particularly proud of {{Babel-X}} (a variable size 'babel box' which is now more commonly used than all but a few of the older fixed size {{Babel-5}} type templates), {{User Infobox}} (originally created as an alternative to having dozens of userboxes and now in use on over one hundred user pages), and just recently {{day+1}} / {{day-1}} (which allow new date incrementing capabilities for which I expect numerous uses will soon be found). Some of the other templates which I have helped work on are {{taxobox}}, {{FAOL}}, {{academia}}, et cetera.

Finally, I have also enjoyed and plan to continue my work on WikiProject Mammals, WikiProject Missing Articles, merging duplicate articles, recent changes/vandal fighting, and various other tasks as I encounter them.

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 used to participate in editing pages relating to current politics, but found that it was often very difficult to work with the 'radicals' on either side. I stopped following these after the BigDaddy777 incident and this is indicative of how I generally deal with "stress" of this kind. Misplaced Pages is a vast resource, any errors will be resolved eventually, and there is always something else to do.

Similarly, I have been involved in the disagreement over the relative merits of qif conditionals vs hiddenStructure conditionals, but was not named as a party in the current arbitration case on the same matter largely because I have walked away when things got heated.

This is not to say that I am shy about expressing my opinions. I try to disagree without being disagreeable and have taken part in several arbitration cases that I was not a party to (e.g., Pigsonthewing & Freestylefrappe) - either at the request of one or more parties/arbitors or on my own perogative. I even disagreed with Jimbo during the pedophile userbox wheel war case and was pleased when he reconsidered his position; though I couldn't say that my comments had anything to do with that.

Question from NSLE: What are your thoughts on Can't sleep, clown will eat me's 2nd RFA? NSLE _(T+C) at 01:25 UTC (2006-03-27)

I saw the discussion about this on the talk page. My general feeling is that there was probably no intent to 'game the system', but it is important that all RFAs be handled in the same way so that there is always the perception of a 'level playing field'. Thus, I think that CSCWEM's decision to withdraw and refile is correct... though I might have suggested just clearing the votes and continuing with the RFA. --CBDunkerson 02:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Questions from NSLE:
The following are hypothetical situations you might find yourself in. I'd like to know how you'd react, as this may sway my vote. There is no need to answer these questions if you don't feel like it, that's fine with me, (especially if I've already supported you ;)).

1. You find out that an editor, who's well-known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?

   Well, as I won't have checkuser access I'd probably only find out if it was publicly announced, but assuming that I somehow came by the information before it was well known I would immediately tell the person to stop and use admin actions to enforce that while discussing the situation with other admins. Things like this can generate alot of conflict ('you are mistreating well-known-and-liked!', 'well-known-and-liked gets away with everything!', 'you cannot prove well-liked-and-known is a sock of well-known-and-liked!', et cetera) and have a disproportionate impact on community morale - so I'd want to get other admins involved to consider the matter thoroughly and proceed in the least destructive way possible. --CBDunkerson 02:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

2. While speedying articles/clearing a backlog at CAT:CSD, you come across an article that many users agree is patent nonsense. A small minority, of, say, three or four disagree. Upon looking the article over, you side with the minority and feel that the article is salvagable. Another admin then speedies it while you are making your decision. What would you do?

   Ask the supporters to put together a cleaned up draft on a sandbox page somewhere and then run it past the admin who speedied. If they still felt it wasn't viable I'd put up a deletion review request with a link to the cleaned up page. --CBDunkerson 02:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

3. You speedy a few articles. An anon keeps recreating them, and you re-speedy them. After dropping a note on their talk page, they vandalise your user page and make incivil comments. You realise they've been blocked before. What would you do? Would you block them, or respect that you have a conflict of interest?

   I've been in similar situations a few times. Generally, I discuss the matter with the person and can usually come to some kind of reasonable solution. If that failed I would ask on AN/I for someone uninvolved to review the situation. An example of this sort is a case where I reverted vandalism, got insulted for it, but made a joke of it and was thereby able to get the user to stop. Another was when a user strongly objected to some AFDs, but eventually came around through discussion (as shown in the links). --CBDunkerson 02:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

4. An editor asks you to mediate in a dispute that has gone from being a content dispute to an edit war (but not necessarily a revert war), with hostile language in edit summaries (that are not personal attacks). One involved party welcomes the involvement of an admin, but the other seems to ignore you. They have both rejected WP:RFC as they do not think it would solve anything. Just as you are about to approach the user ignoring you, another admin blocks them both for edit warring and sends the case to WP:RFAR as a third party. Would you respect the other admin's decisions, or would you continue to engage in conversation (over email or IRC) and submit a comment/statement to the RFAR? Let's say the ArbCom rejects the case. What would you do then?

   I don't think it is an either/or decision... I'd respect the other admin's action, but continue trying to resolve matters in my own way. I'd let the other admin know that I have been working on the issue, try to keep the parties moving forward towards a resolution, contribute to the RFAR, and continue trying to resolve the situation regardless of the outcome/progress of the RFAR. My involvement with the Pigsonthewing arbitration was similar to this. I presented evidence while working to resolve disputes on various pages (Birmingham, The Merry Widow, et cetera) which had led to the RFAR in the first place. By the time the arbitration was over all the edit wars had been settled - unfortunately there were then other problems not so easily resolved. :

Questions from MasssiveegoE:

This question is worth 25%

1. Why there are a large number of orphan pictures in your gallery, mainly maps? --Masssiveego 01:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

There was a request for help translating a template and maps linked to the template from the Turkish Misplaced Pages for use in articles on Turkey here. The user apparently hasn't gotten around to implementing the template/images yet. --CBDunkerson 09:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The question is worth 25%

2. Why was this page blanked by you? ] --Masssiveego 01:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I started to post a question, thought of a way to resolve the issue, but accidentally hit 'enter' and saved a header with no info. Since I had no comment to make I then 'blanked' the empty "== Odd situation ==" header. Deleting the page didn't seem worth bothering an admin about, but if promoted I'll be happy to do so myself. :] --CBDunkerson 09:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The question is worth 10%

3. Why is there a decline in your post counts for the last 3 months? --Masssiveego 01:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Different kinds of edits. In December I was doing alot of vandalism patrol and small edits on Tolkien articles, in January I edited hundreds of userpages to fix userboxes which had gotten broken in the WP:AUM wars, in February I did alot of complicated template work and longer article edits which took more time for each edit and thus resulted in fewer, and in March I've been doing much the same but have slightly more edits than I did in February. Really the same amount of time spent on Misplaced Pages throughout, but different activities result in different edit counts. --CBDunkerson 09:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

My question: Why do your questions only add up to 60%? :] --CBDunkerson 09:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Typically 25 to 40% of what I use to determine the vote are examining other factors. I prefer the 60% questions. 40% history approach in determining Admin qualifications. --Masssiveego 18:51, 28 March 2006 (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 talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Gryffindor

Final: (88/3/1) ended 05:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Gryffindor (talk · contribs) – Gryffindor is one of those users that truly epitomizes dedication to the project. He has amassed more than 9,000 edits and is a vital member of various different Misplaced Pages projects, especially Misplaced Pages:German-English translation requests. He had an edit conflict several months ago with certain users who had apparently, to the best of my knowledge, come over from the Italian Misplaced Pages to rename articles from the English standard to the Italian version. In my opinion, he backed up his reasoning to block this motion extremely well, and the vast majority of users who have contributed regularly to the English wiki translation services agreed with him. However, I believe it was pointed out to him that he might have not fully abided by WP:CIV during the disagreements, and he clearly listened to the criticism. Ever since then, he has shown an unbelievable amount of effort to abide by WP:CIV in practically all interactions with other users. His admin coaching sessions are not only a great read for anyone interested in administrative duties, but show exactly how willing he is to learn and to become an expert at conflict resolution (one of the most important duties of an administrator). One example that I am familiar with is how he handled a conflict between User:Cfvh and the German-English translation team in which he guided the user from being an action user to a much more discussion-based user . I sincerely trust Gryffindor to be a fantastic administrator as he has shown serious dedication to the project and a desire to consistently get better at crucial administrative duties. JHMM13 (T | C) 03:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I humbly accept. Gryffindor 05:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Big time nominator support. I think I said it all above. JHMM13 (T | C) 03:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
2. Strong support I've worked with Gryffindor on several occasions. Very good, valuable contributor. Levelheaded and polite. Will be an even more valuable member of the pedia with the mop. Go to it, Gryff! --Mmounties (Talk) 03:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
3. Support; everything looks in order, but try to work on those edit summaries. They are important. joturner 05:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
4. Support. Meets my standards. --maru (talk) contribs 05:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
5. Support - strong candidate with positive appoach - Green Giant 05:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
6. Support. His image work is fantastic, and he is very thorough in copyright questions. When he and I have disagreed (usually on naming conventions questions), he was always polite and nice. I also like the answers to questions 2 and 3. Kusma (討論) 05:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
7. Support I have slight concern with his low edit summary numbers, but everything else looks great. Given the sheer number of mainspace edits, I am highly surprised that he wasn't nominated earlier. JoshuaZ 06:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
8. Support Looks like he'd make a good admin. Pegasus1138 ---- 06:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
9. Support, I see no problem. JIP | Talk 07:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
10. Support Read his admin coaching page & he seems like good admin material. Srikeit 07:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
11. Support He's a good admin candidate. I'm pedantic about spelling and grammar, though. Please be mindful of these, Gryffindor - Richardcavell 07:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
12. Support The sorting hat says: "Hmmmmm...Cabal House."--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 07:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
13. Support. Completely trustworthy. - Nunh-huh 07:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
14. Support. Good editor, will make a good admin. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 08:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
15. Support Good admin candidate. --Andy123(talk) 08:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
16. Support Seems to be a good editor, not likely to abuse admin powers. --TBC 09:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
17. Support - Wow! Your answers to the questions are the longest I've ever seen - practically essays! :) A friendly and courteous Pedian - good luck! Brisvegas 10:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
18. Support - per all of the above. Great editor and deserves the promotion--Looper5920 10:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
19. Support- Friendly, enthusiastic, and hardworking.--Exir Kamalabadi 11:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
20. Support A simply brilliant Aussie --Gizza 12:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
21. Extreme "Oh, no! Not another cliche!" support - great guy. --Celestianpower 12:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
22. Support: --Bhadani 13:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
23. Support --Terence Ong 13:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
24. Good guy. El_C 14:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
25. Support Does rock solid work, reliable. TruthCrusader 14:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
26. Support Great, personable contributor and an asset to Wp. And for those wishing to preclude his adminship based on 3RR, noone is a paragon of virtue. Get over it. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 15:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
27. Easy Support. Easy. --ViolinGirl 15:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
28. Strong Support A brilliant user. Will be a good admin. --Siva1979 16:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
29. Support per TBC. —Mirlen 16:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
30. Admin coach support to a responsible, courteous, and kind Wikipedian with an excellent grip on policy. Sango123 (e) 16:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
31. Wha... He's not... Support! But use more edit summaries, ok? Misza13 16:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
32. Support definitely. --Jay(Reply) 18:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
33. yes, Si, oui, jawohl A capable multilingual admin Lectonar 19:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
34. Strong Support Super Ted 20:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
35. Support. Mackensen (talk) 20:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
36. Support. Would be a good admin. Fetofs 21:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
37. Support, got a great coaching. very good Shyam 22:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
38. Oppose because I'm a Ravenclaw Support. David | Talk 22:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
39. Support Meets my requirements over 100%. Great edit count. Oh. and besides, I'm a fan of Harry Potter and my favorite house is Gryffindor. CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 00:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
40. Support. of course. pschemp | talk 02:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
41. Support. Good editor, though an annoying signature. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 03:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
42. Suppport. A trustworthy user. --TantalumTelluride 05:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
43. Support despite our ongoing dispute as to Gryffindor's interpretations of WP:NPOV. --Ghirla 07:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
44. support sehr gut. Grutness...wha? 09:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
45. "Adminship is no big deal." - Mailer Diablo 09:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
46. Support Leidiot 12:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
47. Support as above. enochlau (talk) 13:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
48. Super gigumbous support just one of those guys... American Patriot 1776 14:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
49. Support great user! Keep the edit summary usage up though.. - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 15:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
50. Support Appears to be an excellent editor and I'm really impressed with Gryffindor's response to the 3RR issue. Too many editors whine and rationalize away their mistakes but Gryffindor admitted the mistake while also explaining what happened. I'm sure Gryffindor will make a great admin.--Alabamaboy 18:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
51. Support. Jon Harald Søby 18:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
52. Support. As the person blocking Gryffindor for the Terrible Crime of 3RR, I draw the opposite conclusion to those commenting/opposing on those grounds: to wit, that when he makes a mistake, he is capable of acknowleging it, as ALboy comments, and that he's capable of learning from it. (I've no doubt that it was indeed a matter of good-faith intent, and an incomplete understanding of the rule.) That's surely a better recommendation than "has never made a mistake" (which is not only unlikely, but would implicitly be qualified "... so far"). Alai 19:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
53. Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
54. Support Joe I 23:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
55. Support, despite the fact that he's in the wrong House. But work on the edit summaries. Hermione1980 23:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
56. support Benon 00:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
57. Support Perhaps not a "born admin" in terms of what is planned for the tools, but a great Wikipedian who will grow into the post. Deizio 00:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
58. Support looks good to me. --Rob from NY 02:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
59. Support --Ugur Basak 13:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
60. Support. Kirill Lokshin 14:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
61. Support of course. Jedi6-(need help?) 20:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
62. Support, should make a fine administrator. Hall Monitor 23:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
63. Support Moe ε 04:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
64. Support based on past experiences and his sincere desire to improve the project. Olessi 05:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
65. Support, yup. Proto||type 11:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
66. Support. One of the people I consider most suited for adminship. —Nightstallion (?) 13:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
67. Support - should do fine from what I've seen over at the Misplaced Pages:German-English translation requests project Aquilina 18:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
68. Support - I hope we find many more of this kind of Wikipedians ;-) Fantasy 19:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
69. Support Because he voted for me in the Esperanza elections. Wait, did he? Oh, whatever, he's a good guy. Karmafist 22:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
70. Support. Mushroom (Talk) 23:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
71. Unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
72. Automation for edit summary reminding has been around for a while now. There is NO reason to have a low percentage of edit summaries any more, and that needs to be corrected going forward, IMHO. Still, that flaw is handily outweighed by all the positive aspects of this user. Sehr Güt! Support ++Lar: t/c 04:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

    That's "sehr gut", thank you very much, unless you mean some obscure South German dialect I've never heard instead of proper grammatical German. JIP | Talk 11:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

    Although we all know that South German is the only real kind of German, whereas North German technically just missed out on a couple of the language changes over the last millenium. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 11:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

    Aye, aye. There is some serious coloring missing in "North German".  :) --Mmounties (Talk) 04:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

73. Support. utcursch | talk 04:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
74. Support per utcursch. Hiding talk 18:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
75. Support Edit summaries looking better, very positive contributor. Messy userpage though ;) .:.Jareth.:. 22:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
76. Support A rather late admin coach pileon support, but this editor really deserves this mop. Hard working, diligent, good admin material. Banez 23:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
77. Support Good candidate --rogerd 02:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
78. Support Good candidate, however, the stunt with the redlink signature is not amusing. :).Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
79. Support: Have observed candidate's style in many differnt places, and he is very capable. _-M P-_ 07:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
80. Support - Great contribution to wikipedia. - Aksi_great 13:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
81. Support. A great user from what I have seen, with a potential to grow as an admin. Not impressed with the opposition arguments.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 15:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
82. Support, someone please check that I hadn't supported before... ;) Titoxd 21:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
83. Just another star in the night 13:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
84. Support --Edwy 15:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
85. Support Good editor and thoughtful and (long) answers to questions. FloNight 16:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
86. support - anyone without at least one 3rrv isn't trying hard enough :-) William M. Connolley 19:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
87. --Jaranda 04:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
88. Oppose. I only support members of Slytherin house. Support The Sorting Hat told me to change my vote. Jayjg 06:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose 3rr violation. --Masssiveego 08:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

   Based on this user's vote in several other RfAs, I sincerely question his judgment. JHMM13 (T | C) 08:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

   But, nonetheless, Gryffindor did have one 3rr violation...an issue which has been addressed. JHMM13 (T | C) 09:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

   1st Warning; Please do keep your discussions about the candidate to the RFA vote on hand, WP:Personal Attacks on my voting record are not relevent to this discussion. I am allowed to use the standard of a clean record as a means to disqualify any candidate from admin duties. --Masssiveego 21:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

   It is my right as a user to question your judgment of RfA votes based on previous ones. Considering your voting record, the disputes you've caused, and the reasoning you've given for your oppose votes. Please do not place the NPA template on my talk page as this is clearly not an instance of an unfounded personal attack. JHMM13 (T | C) 22:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

   There is no exception to the WP:Personal attack that allows for ad hominem responses. The argument made was a question about judgement based voting record. This is clearly an attack that has no bearing what so ever on the fact that the canidate in question has committed a 3rr violation. Raising doubt via voting record and "I question his judgement" is attacking the person voting, not the argument made that there is a 3rr violation by the canidate that disqualifies them from the admin position. The personal attack template was well warrented, by this unfounded personal attack by attempting to raise doubt via voting record of the person, thereby attacking the credibility of the voter, or tarnish his reputation in question, to discredit the voter. The first line there was no arguement about the reason of the vote, hence it is by the definition of ad hominem a personal attack. Please do not engage in personal attacks. --Masssiveego 06:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

   Regardless of what you think, your voting record is called into question when you oppose for reasons like you did here. That link alone gives me enough cause to say specifically "I question this user's judgment," because I sincerely do. I did not call you names or make unfounded claims, I honestly question your judgment of RfA voting because of that vote. Please explain to me how that's wrong. JHMM13 (T | C) 17:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

   What does the voting history, and the canidates Gryffindor's 3rr violation have in common? Nothing. The voting history was brought up to discredit the claim of a 3rr violation. The rules are the voting history may be used to determine on the right to vote, there is nothing in the rules allowing the voting history to be used for any other purpose or exemption to Misplaced Pages no personal attack policy after that. With no other purpose then to raise doubt, the wording is an attack on my credibility. Which is not relevant to 3rr violation problem, at which point it is a personal attack. There is no written exemption to the person attack policy that allows for the use of the voting record to question the voters based on their voting history. In effect the claim is the judgement is faulty in line one with no evidence. Technically the wording is only an insult to credibility, thus cannot be tolerated. As for the previous RFA, it is not relevent to Gryffindor RFA at this time, please take all such requests for an explaintion of votes to adminship request talk page. This is the end of discussion on the personal attack topic, any further discussion distract from this RFA, therefore please take any further questiosn to the main RFA talk page --Masssiveego 20:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

2. Oppose, sorry. I feel bad opposing someone who is obviously committed to the project, but to be consistent and fair to other candidates I feel I have to apply my own personal standards consistently. My reasons for opposing are: 1. I think someone who has had "admin coaching" should have a much higher edit summary usage. I would expect both minor and major edits to be closer to 100% than the 33% he has for minor edits. 2. I'm impressed with the number of contributions he's made to the mainspace, but I'm unimpressed with the (relative) number of edits to project space (265 out of 9148). 3. The fact that until a couple of weeks ago he had never even heard of Willy on Wheels makes me think he is inexperienced in some area but I'm honestly not sure whether it's because he doesn't participate in project space or whether he's not involved in vandal fighting or if it's something else, but it makes me extremely uncomfortable about the level of experience in admin related areas. 4. Just from scanning his contributions, it seems that most of what he does is creating redirects, adding pictures from commons, adding extra bits of info etc. I might have missed something, but I fail to see any editing activity that warrants admin tools. I don't believe that wanting to see how the rollback button works is a valid or relevant reason for granting adminship. Nor is wanting to be a mediator in NPOV conflicts since this can be done entirely without adminship. So, sorry, but I feel I have to oppose. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 02:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose: though this editor has progressed, I have to agree with much of what Sarah said. Not ready yet. Jonathunder 21:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral. It would be much better to use edit summaries more often, including for minor edits.--Jusjih 09:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• Edit summary usage: 82% for major edits and 33% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 05:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• See Gryffindor's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.
• Oppose blocked for 3rr too recently, back in January. --205.188.116.200 05:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous IP's cannot vote in this. Green Giant 05:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Concerning the 3rr block, which I am obviously extremely embarassed about, I can only say to my defence that I was reverting edits of a POV warrior (see history of ). That user's edits were reverted by other users later anyways. But I clearly was not fully aware back then of the exact functioning of the rule, that nevertheless I would still have to watch out for the 3 reverts, since I assumed I was reverting vandalism. I have talked about this with various users about what the correct procedure should have been . We learn from mistakes, clearly this will never happen again. Gryffindor 14:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Further comment: Apparently my edit summary seems to be of concern to some users. When I started helping Misplaced Pages one year ago, I was not aware that this was mandatory, only recently during my admin. coaching was this pointed out to me. I have since then started summarising all my major edits, if minor edits should all be summarised as well I will obviously do so, transparency is of key importance to me. Gryffindor

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages in this capacity. Please take the time to answer 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. At this point I have over 800 pages on my personal watchlist, it keeps on growing obviously. I have been a member now for close to over a year and I think I have a good feeling of how things work on Misplaced Pages, especially concerning difficult situations and difficult users. I notice vandalism, however it does happen often that by the time I finally reach the page and am about to revert it, someone else has beat me to it. I suspect it's because they have the rollback tool, which I am very interested in to see how it works. Haukurth's report on this sounds very interesting. I have been receiving training from my Esperanza coaches User:Banes and User:Sango123, who are super-nice, on my own personal admin. coaching page User:Gryffindor/AdminCoaching. I would love to help out with cleaning up more, so I hope that having sysop powers is like getting a broom. For example I would love to help out in the backlog of Articles to be merged as well as Articles to be split. I have done some work also with Cleanup by months, however sometimes you hit articles that need more expertise and I can't always improve on the article as required, since I lack the knowlegdge in the area. I would also love to be a mediator in NPOV conflicts, since neutrality to me is one of the most basic, fundamental pillars of Misplaced Pages. The Administrator's noticeboard looks very interesting and I am looking forward to participating in it as well.

One of my concerns is the use of information from other internet sites that are sometimes verbatim being brought into Misplaced Pages. I don't want Misplaced Pages to be seen as some gigantic information black-hole that gobbles up information from other websites and sources, when in fact we should respect the works of others.

I am also a member of the Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags team, checking to see if images are up to code. My concern is that many images are not, and I intend to be more forceful on this issue (not to be confused with copyright paranoia) however I strongly believe that rules and guidelines need to be followed, even if it isn't always pleasant. I intend to use my sysop powers to clean up with any image backlog and to check on images if they are within the rules.

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

A. I am quite proud of the article junihitoe and sudare, as well as suetsumuhana because it all stems from knowledge in my head, I didn't have to do almost any research on it, I still remembered everything from class. Articles that I did a lot of extra-research for and completely wrote from scratch are Palais Rothschild and Palais Lanckoronski, they have lately been a little bit like my two babies. I noticed that there are no articles existing on the internet on these two places, Google search now lands a direct number one hit when searching for that, so I am quite proud of it. Concerning my translation work from articles on the German-language Misplaced Pages to English I am proud of Communist Party of Austria, Austrian Green Party, and Kronen Zeitung, because some of that translation work was a true nitemare that I stayed up for hours on end until late night sometimes, as well as improving and reading up on other sources on the article I think in the end the English version is now even longer than the German original one. Also getting logos for political parties was quite difficult, because I had to write separate emails to each one of them, bugging them to release a logo for Misplaced Pages, which they almost all granted (see Image:Logo 4c.png, Image:Sp-bundKopie.PNG, Image:FP LOGO rgb.png, Image:LIF-LOGO CMYK.PNG, etc.). Apart from that, I am member in numerous Wikiprojects, such as WikiProject Films, the Judaism WikiProject, WikiProject Japanese mythology, WikiProject Vienna, just to name a few. Of course I can't always constantly participate in all of them, but I add whatever and whenever I can. I sometimes try to do interdiscplinary articles which are useful for multiple projects, such as my article Hotel Metropol or Leopoldstädter Tempel.

I am happy and honoured to be part of the Welcoming Committee, trying to make new users feel welcome and trying to be there for them should anyone have a question or need some help, it is a true pleasure to help out other users and I really enjoy doing it. I am a proud member of Esperanza since almost the beginning, where I have met wonderful users. Whenever I met new users and sense that they are nice and kind enough, I invite them to join Esperanza, since I believe that "quality" control is important as well if other users are going to be helped. Reflecting my philosophy I am also a member of the Kindness Campaign, because I know the going can sometimes get tough and everyone appreciates support and help when needed.

One thing I am quite happy though is how much I have learned through Misplaced Pages not only knowledge-based (meaning pure information), but how to do deal better with different opinions, how to argue and convince someone else, but also how to get convinced by others and reach a compromise. I have learned alot about the workings of Misplaced Pages and the learning process in itself has been very interesting and exciting (as well as frustrating sometimes obviously). The experience and time spend on Misplaced Pages has now formed a core set of beliefs in me, for example the strict neutrality on all issues, the objective point of view in articles (regardless what we personally might think about the issue), a zero-tolerance policy on rudeness or impolitness, and above all always to be patient and calm with everything and everyone. always.

One thing that is important to me is to make Misplaced Pages more efficient. For example this means trying to cut down on memory space for images for example. I have made substantial contributions to the Misplaced Pages:Commons, having contributed over 100s of 100s of images. I also try to bring images from this Misplaced Pages into the commons, in order to make them available for other language Wikipedias. By making more efficient use of the commons, we could cut down on the memory space that we need for saving images here.

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

A.Yes, there are always difficult users and difficult issues. The trick is to get the right "feeling" for what kind of a user one is dealing with, if it's a novice, or if it's a veritable troll. I also find trying to figure out the reasons why someone is doing something quite interesting, and listen to their reasoning. One of my worst cases was actually right in the beginning when I started with a user called User:Arrigo, who has left Misplaced Pages because s/he ended up getting into conflicts with almost everyone. That beginning was really tough for me, but I learned a lot from it as well, and there were a number of users who were nice and patient enough to support me. If there is one thing that I hate (and I will not mince my words here), it is chauvinism, racism, intolerance, or everything combined. One of my biggest battle royal was probably concerning Trentino-South Tyrol which was sometimes just mind-boggling because my user page ended up getting vandalised and I was personally attacked and verbally abused on my talk page as well as other places by users who IMO were taking the whole thing a little too serious and personal. So that was really tough because personal attacks can really hit you sometimes, but I stayed calm and rode it out. I would never resort to any abusive language nor have I ever done so, a respectful tone is the basis for mutual cooperation.

As pointed out by JHMM13 about the most recent development, the discussions I had with User:Cfvh to me were hardly conflicts, because I think that that user still has knowledge and good intentions, that only need to be directed into the right direction, meaning discuss controversial things first. then move or change. Compared to the storms I have weathered before, I would hardly say that I "argued" with him. We politely discussed our different viewpoints in a gentlemanly fashion, that's all :-)

I invite criticism (if it's constructive) from anyone on anything, since I do aim to be a perfect user and sysop. For that purpose I created my own RfC page.

How do I deal with stress? I try to find support with other users first of all. See if they see it similarly. Thank goodness I have been able to build my trust into some users now at this point, where I know I can rely on them and we see things similarly, therefore if I ever need something, I turn to them for support, or to Esperanza. I am excited to see how working with other sysops battling vandals and reverting vandalism is going to be, because right now I am "handicapped" if you will. Doing it all by yourself will not work, good teamwork is the most important thing here on Misplaced Pages. Should the going get so tough that and I sense that the situation is getting completely out of control (constant personal attacks, vandalism until no end, verbal abuse, stalking, etc.), I normally take a step back, just to clear my mind a little and let things settle a bit.

I hope this answered your questions a bit. Feel free to ask me anything else, I will gladly answer, thank you. Gryffindor 05:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Additional questions from Rob Church

1. A considerable number of administrators have experienced, or are close to, burnout due to a mixture of stress and vitriol inherent in a collaborative web site of this nature. Do you feel able to justify yourself under pressure, and to not permit stress to become overwhelming and cause undesirable or confused behaviour?

   Answer Burnout syndrome, hm that's really not good. I think if you reach critical levels of burnout, then you must be doing something wrong, because no work no matter what should start affecting your health and your overall performance. This is not too belittle the hard work that has been done, however it is my conviction that one is able to perform and serve much better and of higher quality if you are rested and your head is cool. This would entail exposing yourself only to levels of stress that are relatively stable and do not start affecting your general performance because one feels overwhelmed. Sometimes situations for a moment can be tough obviously, but it should never last for so long that in the end you burn out, that's really not good. If I feel overwhelmed, I would start seeking help from other users, because there will always be someone who is willing to help if it's a valid situation. If this is an exceptionally big problem, I would obviously have to reduce the amount of work spend on other projects and concentrate on the more pressing issue first. If it still becomes too much (let's say a very persistent vandal who is totally nuts and stalks me in the end or something out of control like that), then take a break in order to cool down the overheated situation. Sometimes it's better to take a step back instead of fighting out a war all by yourself. And then return to it later.

2. Why do you want to be an administrator?

   Answer As an administrator I want to be able to help and assist Misplaced Pages more efficiently. Many times I have had to ask a sysop for help when cleaning up a certain thing (images, articles, categories, etc.), or about merging or splitting articles, fighting vandals, etc. I also get approached by users who need some assistance, however it is frustrating at points not to be able to help more. As I have grown into and with Misplaced Pages, becoming a sysop would be to me the next natural step. As a sysop I will be an asset and not a liability to Misplaced Pages.

3. In your view, do administrators hold a technical or political position?

   Answer Difficult to say, define "technical position" and "political position". I am assuming "technical" in this case means being something like a technocrat, to assist in the daily runnings of our common project (cleanups, blocks, deletions, etc..) so yes, obviously a technical position. I am not sure how you define "political", I am assuming it means on questions of how would you see the content of a certain article, the topic it talks about, the tone of the article, how objective is it, etc...? I am utterly devoted to the neutrality and neutral tone of an article. Now that can obviously be a bone of contention, but a certain modus vivendi can always be found by having a discussion and coming to a compromise and a solution. This can be difficult sometimes when confronted by a number of users (let's say from a specific country) that simply overwhelm you with their votes and views as opposed to the other side who might not have so many users number-wise. Nevertheless an article still has to be neutral, for everyone and I stress the "everyone" part. Misplaced Pages should not be a forum (a)bused for political or even nationalistic agendas, as a matter of fact for any agendas of any kind. We need to be matter-of-fact so yes, to answer your questions if there is any "political position" administrators need to have, then it's to be neutral. This is difficult to differentiate sometimes from personal feelings obviously, for example I am strongly opposed to racism, fascism, anti-semitism, human-related phobias of any kind, etc. But I don't think we would ever find an article proclaiming the merits of fascism purely written from a POV, even such an article on issues we feel strongly about can still be written objectively and in a neutral tone, regardless of our personal opinions.

Thanks. Rob Church 15:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Gryffindor 17:25, 30 March 2006 (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 talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Tv316

Final (41/17/11) ended 07:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Tv316 (talk · contribs) – I have run into Tv316 several times while on recent changes patrol and at WP:AFD and he has always done an excellent and quick job. He has been an editor since October of 2005 and I think he could make good use of a mop and bucket. --Hetar 06:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:I graciously accept your nomination. Thank you. tv316 07:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. Answers to questions could be better, and possibly too new, but I've seen this user around and haven't seem him do much wrong. So (first and faster than nominator) support. -- Jjjsixsix /_(c) @ 07:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

   I'm going to clarify myself; for the first part of my statement, it was directed to standard question 2, where he states he has not made a significant contribution to an article; that said, my (unwritten) voting standards don't hold it against him, and in recent similar cases, I have also supported. So as not to confuse anyone, there's why. -- Jjjsixsix /_(c) @ 07:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

2. Support: per my nom. --Hetar 07:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
3. Support. I like to see more edits in main that aren't anti-vandalism. That said, I think adminship would make 'em more effective at what they do well. Nephron  T|C 07:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
4. Support. Went above and beyond the call of duty to protect my userpage from a vandal. The rest of his edits look impressive, and he has my vote.--Danaman5 08:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
5. Support. A great choice for administrator. - Richardcavell 09:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
6. Strong Support Fantastic vandal fighter and all-round editor. Chairman S. 10:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
7. Support --Terence Ong 10:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
8. Support per nom. Excellent vandal fighter. --kingboyk 11:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
9. Support: He made many reverts of vandalism. --Ahonc (Talk) 11:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
10. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 11:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
11. Support. I am unsure about this but am leaning towards support. JIP | Talk 14:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
12. Support; the imbalance of edits (nearly two-thirds come within the past month) is something of note, but I'm still going to support as you appear to be a great resource, especially with vandal fighting, here on Misplaced Pages. joturner 15:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
13. Support per nom. Also a good editor. --Siva1979 15:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
14. Support Tv316 is a resource in the counter-vandalism effort. He would greatly benefit the project with a mop. --Jay(Reply) 19:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
15. Support meets my standards! - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 20:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
16. Strong Support. It looks like Tv316 would make a fantastic addition to the admin team. Lots of wiki edits (nearly 300), and a ton (literally) of user talk edits, which shows that he has great communications with the Misplaced Pages community, which is a big plus! If that isn't enough, he has been battling vandals tirelessly. The best of luck to you, I hope you make it! Weatherman90 21:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
17. Weak support but support nonetheless. Take care with content disputes, would you? Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 22:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

    I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what you mean by that. Could you please clarify? tv316 22:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

    Low Talk edit count means that the candidate might not be suited to mediating disputes over the disputed content of articles. Just saying, that's all. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 01:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

18. Support comes close to (or meets) my criteria, so of course I'll support :) — Deckiller 00:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
19. Support Just look at his RC patroling! He sure needs the revert button!--Exir Kamalabadi 00:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
20. Support as per Kingboyk. SouthernComfort 00:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
21. Support A proven vandal fighter, he gets my support TruthCrusader 15:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
22. Strong support, Tv316 regularly reverts vandalism, showing a willingness to combat this problem. McPhail 15:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
23. Weak Support. Meets my requirements 100% and all but has about 3,500 total edits and 0 images uploaded. Some user! Should edit more and upload some pictures. CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail)
24. Support. pschemp | talk 02:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
25. Strong support per McPhail, Exir Kam, and Master Jay, inter al. Joe 04:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
26. Support per all above -- Tawker 06:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
27. Weak Support Would be better if nominated again later Leidiot 12:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
28. Support Go go gadget vandalism fighter! ⇒ SWATJester Aim _Fire! 16:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
29. Support. I've seen good things from Tb316, and I'm impressed by the answer to question 3. Thryduulf 21:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
30. Support. Looks good to me. --Rob from NY 02:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
31. Support - A very good user. Well done. Kilo-Lima| 15:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
32. Support, no problems here. —BorgHunter (talk) 17:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
33. Support - I can't see this user abusing his powers, causing mayhem or the like. <Insert sadly no longer relevant phrase about big deals in relation to Adminship here>. --Celestianpower 18:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
34. Support. Good editor, would make a good admin. --Rory096 21:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
35. Support. Knows what he's doing, helped me get on my feet after my "censor" episode, in fact... I didn't even know he wasn't an admin yet! :) Funnybunny 03:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
36. Support--JB 07:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
37. Support--Jusjih 09:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
38. Support Looks good, no major concerns TigerShark 17:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
39. Support good candidate --rogerd 02:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
40. Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
41. Support --Edwy 15:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose per this. Very low Talk namespace edits. Aucaman 13:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

   I said it before, and I'm going to say it again: A user doesn't need 400 or 10% article talk namespace edits to suddenly be "good at managing disputes". A user could be great at managing disputes, and could help involved parties reach agreements with just a few talk page edits, or a user could do a poor job at managing disputes and could extend the dispute longer than would normally be needed, resulting in tons of talk page edits. I think setting an arbitrary number or percentage on such a thing is a case of editcountitis to the max. Rather than just looking at a fickle number and making a relatively uninformed decision, why not examine Tv316's talk page and see what he's been involved with and how he has handled everything? Also note that not all disputes are settled on talk pages (e.g., WP:AN, WP:RFC, WP:RFAR, WP:AFD, and so on). — TheKMan 14:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

   Many users require a minimum number of (Main) namespace edits to support a nomination. I happen to believe the number of Talk namespace edits better reflect how active a user is in contributing to articles. Aucaman 16:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

   Interesting. I think I can understand (but disagree with the use of a number) your stance on why this is important regarding the person's discussion skills and ability to negiotiate and work under pressure, but I'm not sure how this is a measure of article involvement. I've written 4 FAs and have over 6000 article namespace edits, but have managed only 288 Talk edits. Furthermore, many of those are on articles that I haven't significantly edited. Am I just an anomaly? It's possible, I guess. —Spangineer (háblame) 06:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

   Tv316 is interested in making contributions articles related to wrestling, and has been involved in discussion on related pages, and does appear to have spoken with several other editors multiple times. Tv316 also stated in his answer to the 3rd question that he was involved in an editing dispute on Talk:WWE Undisputed Championship. I do prefer administrator candidates to have article editing experiece, they should be involved in discussing their edits, and behave themselves in editing disputes, but I agree with Spangineer that setting an absolute numerical cutoff in this case is not the best indicator of a user's conduct or ability. — TheKMan 01:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

2. Oppose, per above. Only three months of active editing, needs more time. Another three and a few hundred more talk namespace edits and I'll vote for you. Be patient; your time for sysoping will come.--HereToHelp 13:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
3. Reluctant Oppose per User:Aucaman --Andy123(talk) 14:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose per HereToHelp. Editor has only three months of significant activity. I'm sure he'll make a great admin soon, but there is more to the wiki than can be learned in such a short time. Xoloz 15:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose. Participation in the (X) Talk: and Misplaced Pages: spaces is important so that we are able to judge for ourselves on the evidence that this editor is good at those kinds of things. The community-pages operate in (perhaps unfortunately) idiosyncratic ways and understanding how best to engage in them is very important in an admin. For every admin surely finds themselves having to get involved there, whether voluntarily or not. -Splash 18:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose per Splash. Ëvilphoenix 23:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose Prefer admins to have more experience throughout the project and more time editing.--Looper5920 00:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose Per Zoloz. --Mmounties (Talk) 01:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose Per above. --Masssiveego 05:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
10. Weak Oppose The lack of talkspace and projectspace unfortunately does me. Gizza 11:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

    Oppose 3 months' membership isn't long enough for us to have a good idea of how you are likely to react in various situations Cynical 21:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC) From below comments I was under the impression that Tv316 had only been on Misplaced Pages for three months - guess I should have read the nomination more closely. Changed my vote to Neutral Cynical 21:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

11. Weak oppose per above --Doc 11:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
12. Weak oppose per above --Ugur Basak 13:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
13. Oppose, needs more experience first. Thumbelina 23:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
14. Oppose, too soon --Jaranda 01:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
15. Oppose at this stage, could support with broader experience. Jonathunder 03:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
16. Oppose Fad (ix) 19:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
17. Weakest of weak opposes: I weakly oppose, as the candidate is a very, very good contributor but a bit shy of my expectations. Come back in, hell, 1 month and I'd gladly strongly support (then again, he did steal my {{status}} template... :P) _-M P-_ 07:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Weak Neutral Heavily leaning towards support. Tv316, you know I'm your friend but I really can't support 3 months of editing; just wait a couple of months and your will surely make admin. I might change this vote to support. Moe ε 14:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
2. Neutral would be support if it wasn't for the relatively small number of articlespace edits Cynical 21:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
3. Neutral, leaning towards support. I'd like to see a little more experience, especially in project space. --TantalumTelluride 05:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
4. Neutral. Would likely support this guy in the future. — Rebelguys2 00:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
5. Neutral A couple more months around the place at current energy levels and no worries Deizio 01:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
6. Neutral due to lack of experience. Try again a month or two from now. Stifle 17:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
7. Neutral leaning towards a weak oppose... most editors cross my radar screen at some point - perhaps you are too new to have done so, but I can't shake the feeling that you are not quite there yet. BD2412 T 01:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
8. Neutral. People whose opinions I respect are opposing. Hiding talk 18:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
9. Neutral. Do I think this guy is admin-worthy? Yes. But I don't think he's had enough experience YET. However, if he continues like this for another few months, I'll nominate him myself. Although he's proven himself to be worthy, I think the experience is a little lacking. Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 20:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
10. Neutral, leaning towards support. I think you may make a good administrator, but I mirror the feelings of others that you need a tad bit more time. Spend the next month or so getting versed in Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, learn a bit more about AfDs (other *fDs, and the admin-backlogs), and make some quality contributions, and I'll make sure to strongly support you in your next RfA. — TheKMan 06:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
11. Rob Church (talk) 00:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• Edit summary usage: 99% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 07:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• See Tv316's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages in this capacity. Please take the time to answer 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 always have a tab in my browser open to WP:AIV and CAT:CSD and would take care of any vandalism and clear-cut obvious speedy deletions posted on those pages. I have added most of the frequently vandalized pages to my watchlist, and in addition to the pages already on my watchlist, I now have over 2500 pages watched. I would continue to go through all these changes and check for vandalism, in addition to now monitoring the WP:AIV page. In time, I would slowly monitor the AfD process, and then help out closing out obvious AfDs and then slowly moving on up to more complicated AfDs.

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

A. I haven't written any articles from scratch, nor have I really contributed anything big to an article. As it relates to contributing to articles, I've been fixing errors in articles that I have knowledge about, as I come by them. I'm pleased with my contributions, in the way that I may not be strong on adding content, but whenever I edit an article that's not blatant vandalism, I leave an edit summary. I see most users on Misplaced Pages leave no or a little summary. I'm proud that I write out why I'm making the changes that I'm making, so when people look over the edit history, they can know what I've done without clicking on the diff. Also, recently, I have been going through the list of commonly misspelled words and fixing the errors. There are a lot of them out there, and I'm only up to a(d). It does not relate to anything having to do with being an admin, but I thought it should be known that I still do contribute to this encyclopedia.

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

A. Yes, I have been in an editing conflict before. On the WWE Undisputed Championship page, I got into an editing discrepancy with another user over the detail of what date an event had occurred on. I tried to talk through the conflict, but got pulled into a whole big mess of sockpuppets and personal attacks. I tried my best during that conflict to remain calm and objective, and I think I did well, for the most part. At times, it did cause a slight amount of stress on me to continue to do my regular vandal fighting during that time, but that only lasted for a few days, and I've been back on since. When the conflict was getting heated, I realized what was going on, and I attempted to mend fences with the other party and move on past it. I know that I may have a strong opinion at times, but I remain objective through the conflict and try to work it out. In the future, if made admin, I would not use adminship to further my side in a potential conflict. If I were to ever get into an edit conflict again, I would seek out an impartial admin to deal with the situation. The only times I would block someone if I've been in an edit conflict with them would be for repeated personal attacks or incivility, and for blatant vandalism.

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 talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

HereToHelp

final (75/1/2) ending 23:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

HereToHelp (talk · contribs) – HereToHelp is a very experienced user, and over the time he's been here he has made a very large number of edits, and assisted many people with various things on Misplaced Pages. After reviewing the community standards, I believe that he deserves adminship. Alex43223 13:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:I humbly accept the nomination.--HereToHelp 21:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. Sure. --TantalumTelluride 23:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
2. Very Strong Support. HereToHelp has a very large number of edits, and they are steadily increasing. I think that he could help Misplaced Pages a lot more if he has the additional sysop tools. Also, the way he has invited, welcomed, and assisted other users on Misplaced Pages is amazing. Definitely deserves admin, and has a bright future ahead. Alex43223 23:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
3. Strong Support. He is certainly Here to Help! — Deckiller 23:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
4. How could you oppose a user named HereToHelp? I like what I have seen of this user. A deft, gentle touch in vandal fighting is just the thing. Support ++Lar: t/c 23:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
5. Support Absolutely, per above. joturner 23:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
6. Support Personally, I think the majority of edits should be in the mainspace. Looking past that, it appears they are here to help and worthly of adminship. :) Nephron 23:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
7. Support: hes here to help!--Urthogie 00:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
8. Support Per above. Gizza 00:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
9. Support Although technically he doesn't quite meet my minimum standards for edits to the main article space, I'm impressed by his demeanor. Also, since a large number of his edits to project pages have been to create something, rather than simply debate and vote, I'm happy to add my support. —Doug Bell 00:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
10. Support Just barely made my minimum standards qualification. Moe ε 00:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
11. Support. Per above. Fetofs 01:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
12. Support. I have recently been working with this user on the Scientific peer review project and found his attitude to be excellent. He is up to being a good admin. --Bduke 01:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
13. Support - Richardcavell 02:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
14. Support sounds good to me. savidan 03:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
15. Support C'mon should already be an admin... mmeinhart 03:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
16. Very Weak Support Meets most of my requirements but has only about 1000 edits in the articles in Misplaced Pages. Needs more edits in articles but OK to me. CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 04:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
17. Support The total number of edits is more important than where they are. In this case, the user has a wide variety of edits aside from the mainspace edit total which is not low in any event. JoshuaZ 04:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
18. Support per Deckiller. –Joke 04:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
19. Support. Looks very good. Aucaman 05:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
20. Support Absolutely--Looper5920 08:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
21. Support, 1000 article space should be fine to me. --Terence Ong 10:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
22. Support: Ahonc (Talk) 11:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
23. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 11:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
24. Support. Edit summaries will become a habit with time, I believe. Misza13 11:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
25. Support, cause the user is HereToHelp—This unsigned comment was added by Anirudhsbh (talk • contribs) .
26. Support, it seems as though this user has a quite fitting name. --Deville (Talk) 14:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
27. Support, good user. I know you're HereToHelp. =) I find the oppose vote silly - the discussion HereToHelp removed from Talk:Main Page was obviously some kind of joke. JIP | Talk 14:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
28. Support Trustworthy editor with solid record (and adorable username.) Xoloz 15:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
29. Support A good user. --Siva1979 15:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
30. Support Has experience and has made good contributions; I trust that he will not abuse admin privilleges. --Jay(Reply) 19:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
31. Support A great editor, the perfect user to be an administrator. - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 20:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
32. Support. I was going to nominate wasn't I? To be honest wasn't expecting you to get this much support! Petros471 21:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

    Nor was I! Looks like this username really paid off.--HereToHelp 21:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

33. Support per above. Looks like a great editor. Weatherman90 21:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
34. Support Have had consistently positive interactions with this user. --CBDunkerson 00:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
35. User:Go for it!/Vote Support Once he takes on a page, it's a sure thing that the page will improve. I've worked with him on the Main Page redesign, the Help page overhaul, and lately on Tip of the day. In each case, his contributions improved the project and helped push it along. He's on our side - one of the good guys. A good choice for admin. --Go for it! 00:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
36. Support Someone interested in Math who can write! And seems to be a very nice person! You've got my vote! --Mmounties (Talk) 01:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
37. Support sounds good enough, good luck to you. Gryffindor 01:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
38. Support, good experience with this user; lives up to his username. I hope that HereToHelp understands now though that just deleting comments from talk pages isn't a good idea, unless it's his own (and that's debatable). —Spangineer (háblame) 02:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

    He's nitpicking; that discussion had absolutely NO value besides a laugh at BJAODN. If you remove your own comments, strike them out using <s> and </s>.--HereToHelp 02:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

39. Support, Oh are you now? PROVE IT!:>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 07:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
40. Support I thought he already was one. Jedi6-(need help?) 08:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

    I've had people mistake me for a sysop many times now...--HereToHelp 12:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

41. Support, piling on it seems, I just found out. Clearly a knowledgeable and experienced advocate of this project. hydnjo talk 12:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
42. Support See no evidence that this nominee will abuse admin tools.--MONGO 15:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
43. Support Have worked with very happily. --Quiddity 21:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
44. Unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
45. Support —Quarl 2006-03-26 22:57Z
46. HereToSupport :) Renata 23:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
47. Support. I'd encourage using edit summaries more. However, he's a good candidate by the rest of my standards, has experience in many areas of the site, and (per his answers to the questions) looks like he could really use the tools well. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 00:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
48. Support Good user. - Eagle 00:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
49. Support. pschemp | talk 02:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
50. Support Great user from what I've seen, and deserves to be admin! ~Linuxerist L / T 03:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
51. Support. Excellent experience working with him. He's definitely here to help. --Aude (talk | contribs) 05:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
52. Your not one already support wow, you really desrve it, how can you not be one already? ITS A CRIME!!! American Patriot 1776 14:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

    So sue someone.--HereToHelp 21:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

53. Support. Yep. — Rebelguys2 00:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
54. Support Looks gooood to me. --Rob from NY 02:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
55. Support Fine by my count. --Zifnabxar 03:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
56. Support. Good distribution of edits in various namespaces. Meets my standards. — Mar. 28, '06 <freakofnur_xture|talk>
57. Support --Ugur Basak 13:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
58. Support. Kirill Lokshin 14:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
59. Support. Ramallite 05:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
60. Support, looks good. Hiding talk 13:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
61. Support. --Rory096 16:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
62. Support - very suitable for adminship from what I've seen Aquilina 19:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
63. Support - I've seen him doing good work on keeping Misplaced Pages going behind the scenes. --Danaman5 21:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
64. Support-He's helped me a lot with getting used to Misplaced Pages, including the rock portal...yeahOsbus 21:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
65. Support -Looks good! --Prodego 21:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
66. Support. Mushroom (Talk) 23:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
67. Support, per nom. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
68. Support Excellent work in project space, the username says it all. --Cactus.man ✍ 08:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
69. Support -- suitable candidate. - Longhair 22:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
70. Support -- good candidate.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
71. Support will be good admin --rogerd 02:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
72. Support: Excellent editor so far. _-M P-_ 09:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
73. Will support if there is a committment to use edit summaries for article space edits, including minor ones. Jonathunder 16:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

    Done.--HereToHelp 21:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

74. Support: seems like a swell bloke. Thumbelina 18:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
75. Support, seriously thought he was one. Titoxd 21:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Editing the comments of others. Needs another year. --Masssiveego 09:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

   People remove vandalism from talk pages, but unencyclopedic (I now can spell that!) information is on the borderline between good content and vandalism. I am unaware of any policy about the matter (unless you can point me to one), so I decided to remove that for server room, if nothing else. And that was awhile ago, and one edit: please, look at the boader picture. Still, I respect your opinion.--HereToHelp 12:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

   WP: Vandalism. Removing warnings

   Removing warnings, whether for vandalism or other forms of prohibited/discouraged behavior, from one's talk page is also considered vandalism.

   WP: Vandalism. Changing people's comments

   Editing signed comments by another user to substantially change their meaning (e.g. turning someone's vote around), except when removing a personal attack (which is somewhat controversial in and of itself). Signifying that a comment is unsigned is an exception. e.g. (unsigned comment from user)

   From what I can tell that may be either violation of the above. Please study Misplaced Pages policy and return again when you are ready. --Masssiveego 23:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

   You are following the letter of the policy, not the spirit. I did not remove any warnings (that refers to any of the {

   I bet I could thumb through your contributions and find some of your early mistakes, and also some smaller mistakes you made later on. I won't, but nitpickers could find chinks in even Jimbo's armor. He, me, and you are human. Lighten up.--HereToHelp 23:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

   I like your attitude. We should make "Lighten up" a policy, right alongside "Assume good faith". My two cents. By the way, thanks for the help on Tip of the day. --Go for it! 00:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

   "We should make "Lighten up" a policy". That's called WP:IAR, but that's one of the most contested pages outside the main namespace.--HereToHelp 02:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

   I like this "Lighten up" idea. A user shouldn't under no circumstance "need another year" for a reasonably sensible edit. Maybe it would be better if this is moved to the talk page. Gizza 11:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

   I agree that codemning me for a year because of one edit is bogus, but this conversation seems to be dying anyway (and it will get less attention on the talk page).--HereToHelp 12:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

   Actually, the banner on the Main Page talk explicitly says "Irrelevant discussion may be removed."--HereToHelp 14:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

   "Sorry, you edited a comment left by someone else, so it's one year before you can apply for adminship again." JIP | Talk 07:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral I would support but for the dreadfully low edit summary count for minor edits. That may seem an insignificant issue, but I feel that describing what you are changing on a page is important and indicative of a willingness to work with the community. —Cuiviénen, Friday, 24 March 2006 @ 23:43 (UTC)

   I'm sorry you feel like that. Since, admittedly, I do not make many edits to the main namespace those minor edits could be from many months ago. Though Mediawiki software allows isolating edits by namespace, it does not let us view only minor edits. Look, instead, at my most recent contributions across the board and you will find a much more satisfying percentage.--HereToHelp 00:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

   I wouldn't call it "dreadfully low", there are edit summaries on a majority of minor edits. I doubt this would be an issue if Mathbot didn't display the edit summary percentages for every nomination.--Alhutch 04:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

   Yeah, it's not really low, though I am happy that nen decided to make this a neutral vote instead of an oppose vote. — Deckiller 04:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

   Me more than you.--HereToHelp 04:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

2. Neutral. It would be much better to use edit summaries more often also for minor edits.--Jusjih 08:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

   I've addressed this complaint in my response to the above neutral vote.--HereToHelp 12:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• Edit summary usage: 92% for major edits and 61% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 23:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• See HereToHelp's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.
• For all of you that support (and oppose) me: I will send out the thank-yous after this is over so I can inform you how the nomination went.--HereToHelp 23:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages in this capacity. Please take the time to answer 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. It’s not that I want to be able to do one thing badly so much as it is a bunch of little things. The ability to semi-protect pages would have been extremely useful when Apple Macintosh went live on the Main Page and received a ton of image related vandalism (I won’t elaborate). Page deletion for when I come across an abandoned, empty talk page or stop using my subpages (every little thing helps to speed up the servers). Rollback and blocking abilities to continue the fight against vandalism. I once came upon a template that was deleted despite surviving a TFD; undeletion would have been nice then. And, ultimately, the ability to not have to embarrassingly ask someone else to do stuff that, if I was a sysop, would take less than a minute. I think the Administrators' noticeboard and Vandalism in progress pages are great ideas, but when an article is on the Main Page it is highly visible and so it receives a lot of vandalism, and because it receives a lot of vandalism it is highly visible. During those urgent moments, there simply isn’t enough time to fetch someone else to deal with it. Additionally, the need to go through such systems—which take time, by definition and human nature—may discourage a sysop chore from being done at all. We’ve gotten the big puddles cleaned up, but we’ll need lots of mops to get the last drops.

PS (added during nomination): I can't stand to see the templates on the Main page not have "(pictured)" in them; I'd fix that whenever I saw it.

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

A. As mentioned above, I am very proud of helping edit Apple Macintosh to featured status. But I work mostly outside of the main namespace (that’s the main exception). I helped in the Main Page redesign and I am pretty proud of that (enough to redesign my userpage around it, and I’m pretty proud of that, too). I’ve also helped out in other, smaller things. That includes several Portals (Apple Macintosh, Olympics, Rock and Roll, Nuclear technology), and I have created Category:Portals needing attention as a quick way for users to find where their help is needed. I contributed to the discussion on Scientific peer review and helped out a little on projects like the Misplaced Pages:Article assessment and Tip of the day. I just organized the help system. And of course there are many little things to numerous to list here.

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

A. Recently, I’ve had a dispute with a new user, RememberOctober29, who insists about adding an unsourced, original research, and awfully POVish paragraph to the Steve Jobs article basically accusing him of firing employees of minority groups after promising not to fire any employees. I’ve told him very civilly that unless he finds a reputable source to back him up, the paragraph is original research and has no place here. He wound up reverting me several times (though not quite breaking the three-revert rule) with things like “YOU stop” in the edit summary (and vandalizing my talk page with false accusations). Ultimately, I think he’s stopped and nothing more was needed. That was the only time I was fighting someone who was malignant to our cause; I’ve had a few other disputes on talk pages but they’ve stayed there.

I have never been banned or blocked, nor be the subject of a request for comment, mediation, or an Arbitration Committee ruling.

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 talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Joturner

final (65/29/7) ending 23:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Joturner (talk · contribs) – Joturner has been with us on Misplaced Pages since June 2005 (actively since December), and has contributed nearly 4000 edits in his spell here. He's contributed to many Islam-related, and current events-related articles. He's also been active in the different aspects of the policy side of the coin, from AFD to RFA, good articles to In The News candidates, the reference desk to Wikiprojects. He's also engaged in warning vandals, getting his hands dirty in that side of the pedia. He also uses edit summaries often. A good, well-rounded user, I expect he would meet most users' standards for an admin, and I don't see why he shouldn't be given the mop. NSLE _(T+C) at 06:42 UTC (2006-03-23)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, with gratitude. Jazakallah khairan. joturner 23:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Strong Support as nominator! NSLE _(T+C) at 06:47 UTC (2006-03-23)
2. Support eagerness to clean up wikipedia - but also prepared to accept councel -- Agathoclea 08:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
3. Strong Support. Has shown dedication to this project in almost all aspects and in all types of space (e.g., user/main/project/talk/etc.). Should be a fine admin and the community won't have to worry that he will overuseabuse his "mop & bucket". Pepsidrinka 11:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
4. Support. Vandal fighter, good length of service and edits. No reason to deny him. Ifnord 23:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
5. Support. Per Pepsidrinka. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 23:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

   Support very good from my observations in the Striver-gate nonsense.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 23:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

   Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 00:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC) No vote pertaining to concerns raised by others. Perhaps later. - Mailer Diablo 17:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

6. Support. Large experience and no evidence he would abuse the mop. Fetofs 00:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

   Support per above abakharev 00:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC) User had removed this vote, striking it out instead NSLE _(T+C) at 00:48 UTC (2006-03-26)

   Sorry, guys, did not want been dramatic. I, personally, do not vote for RfA's with below 3000 edits in the mainspace. Have not look into the edit counter, my mistake. No reasons to oppose or even vote neutral (that is basically the same). Best wishes with your RfA abakharev 01:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

7. Support Joe I 00:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
8. Support - Richardcavell 01:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
9. Support per nom. deeptrivia (talk) 01:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
10. Support Trustworthy editor. Xoloz 02:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
11. Support Looks like a great encyclopedia builder. –Joke 02:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
12. Support - Looks good as per above. Nephron 03:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
13. Support Good editor + won't abuse tools = easy choice. Rx StrangeLove 04:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
14. Support will be an excellent admin --rogerd 04:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
15. Support excellent candidate mmeinhart 04:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
16. Support--Jusjih 05:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
17. Support. Seems to be a good editor that will not abuse admin tools. JHMM13 (T | C) 05:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
18. Support Gread editor - Knows what he's doing. Information Center 06:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
19. Support, looks OK. Salaam aleikum! JIP | Talk 06:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
20. Support A great contributer. --Siva1979 08:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
21. Support Has done great work here even outside Islam related articles. Gizza
22. Support per nom. - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 08:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
23. Support, great editor. --Terence Ong 12:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
24. Support: --Ahonc (Talk) 12:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
25. SupportDanielDemaret 14:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
26. Support - Joturner is a honest and reasonable guy. I'm confident he will act impartially in any dispute, or recuse himself if he can't. Tom Harrison 15:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
27. Strong support This user seems to be very level-headed, well reasoned, and makes positive contributions to the encyclopedia. I see no problem in his user page, and having looked over his edits on the cartoon controversy page, I must say that I am impressed. Frankly, I'm somewhat disturbed by what I perceive as the anti-Muslim sentiment shown by some of the oppose votes. I don't want to get into a whole thing, but I don't think that showing your biases on your userpage is a bad thing, and I haven't seen this user's belief's interfere with positively editing the encyclopedia. Makemi 17:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
28. Support Grön 17:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
29. Support. — FireFox • T
30. Support you might have rushed this a little, but support of course. --a.n.o.n.y.m 20:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
31. Support. I feel that he is more concerned with helping to build a npov encyclopdia than with converting us all to his religion (its 2006 and I am embarrassed that I even need to say that). Fair, hardworking, and will make editing easier for all of us. youngamerican (talk) 20:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
32. Support, Meets my 100% requrements. CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 21:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
33. Support - definitely good admin material. Green Giant 21:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
34. Strong Support Misplaced Pages is "Tragedy of the Commons" writ large on the 'net; and, like the mythical 'Cong village, must be first "destroyed in order to save it" (if it is possible to save it at all). Therefore, I heartily endorse every single one of the invading army of Islamist al taqiyya obfuscating propagandists to positions of Wiki authority, on the grounds that the faster they are all approved, the quicker this thing will become a 100% Laughing Stock, and burn to the ground.--Mike18xx 21:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
35. Support - no relevant reason to oppose. We all have our two cents. --Jay(Reply) 21:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
36. Support. Excellent user. Will make a fine admin. --TantalumTelluride 22:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
37. Support Although I don't know Joturner very well, this 'talk' alone leads me to believe that he'd make a very fine admin. Netscott 23:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
38. Strong support. I think that the POV issue is being over emphasized. I've seen this user in action on AfD's and RfC's on issues related to Islam related articles. He takes a very civil and moderate viewpoint on a number of contentious issues. I have been very impressed by his ability to stay cool when the heat gets turned on (may I add, far beyond his years, to the user who mentioned age as an issue below) -- Samir (the scope) 00:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
39. Support: Excellent contributions. This graphic is particularly good, and I was extremely satisfied with his speedy response when I had a question about it. No evidence of "POV-pushing"—in fact it appears to be the opposite. I don't see what the fuss is about his user-page. I found it fascinating. savidan 04:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
40. Support Slight concern over the userpage but his non-userpage edits have been almost uniformily excellent, and his ability to reason with others seems very good. Concerns such as his userpage and personal beliefs should not be nearly as relevant as his edit history which is excellent. JoshuaZ 04:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
41. Support. Looks good. Aucaman 07:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
42. Support. Looks like a great editor. The best of luck! Weatherman90 21:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
43. Support - He is a muslim, so what? I'm an atheist, so what? The only people here showing a non neutral point of view are those who vote against him because of the content in his user page or because he only edits about Islam. I'm Portuguese, am I being non neutral for not creating articles about Brunei? Afonso Silva 22:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
44. Support Observing his wonderful contributions, I feel that he will make a great administrator. Best of luck to you! SouthernComfort 23:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
45. Utmost Support -- I'm highly disturbed by the oppose votes I see here. This editor is outstanding, with enviable energy and intelligence. His edit sums are diligent and clear; his comments on talk incisive. I'm particularly pleased with his cool and neutral participation in a recent RfC (and please see his comments on corresponding talk). He's a tireless vandal-fighter with a good balance of edits in project, template, and image namespaces as well. This user is outstanding admin material. I can only suspect that opposition hinges on anti-Muslim bias -- particularly offensive considering that this editor is a model of impartiality in articles that draw much more than their fair share of biased editors. Joturner should be commended for walking honorably where others fear to tread. John Reid 04:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
46. Support--Mido 06:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
47. Support, Good editor? Check. Most importantly, Good Judgement? CHECK.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 07:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
48. Support. pschemp | talk 02:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
49. Assumption of Good Faith Support. Never heard of you, but you seem to be unlikely to abuse the tools, and your contributions reflect that assumption. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 03:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
50. Support - user is able to seperate his editing from his beliefs (as should we all), which makes him a useful and knowlegable asset. We should strive to avoid systemic bias - Misplaced Pages's coverage of Islamic articles is generally woeful (even the articles that do exist are, for the most part, calamitous). Voting to oppose someone because he has strong personal beliefs when there's no evidence of these ever affecting his work on Misplaced Pages is appalling bad faith. Proto||type 08:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
51. Support as per nom Leidiot 12:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
52. Support. I have seen nothing to indicate that this editor will misuse the tools. He is entitled to air his personal beliefs in his own user space without retribution. -- DS1953 18:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
53. Strong Support --Jibran1 00:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
54. Strong Support looks good to me. --Rob from NY 02:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
55. Support per DS1953. Angr (talk • contribs) 10:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
56. Support, user says he won't let his POV interfere with his judgment. I see nothing to suggest that his word is not valid. —BorgHunter (talk) 18:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
57. Support. Diversity of background and opinion is what makes Wikis work. Religious beliefs and editcountitis are absurd grounds for opposing a RfA. Adminship should be no big deal, so I support any established user experienced with structural and procedural tasks and with no history of abuse or misbehavior. GT 20:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
58. Support. As per GT above. RicDod 20:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

    Strong Support! -- Go Team Taliban! "It was not until the summer of 2004 that I started to find the solution and the meaning of existence in Islam, the true religion....My proudest achievement did not involve back-breaking work or an excessive amount of intelligence. Instead, my proudest achievement required getting a new sense of faith. (Ah, yes: A critical-mass of admins is almost within out grasp! Soon, yes, soon, we will own Misplaced Pages and the top ranks of Google search returns for every political and historical query! Mwahahaha!) --Mike18xx 23:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

    Thanks, but you can't vote for me twice Mike. joturner 23:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

    Au Contraire! The dead shall rise from their graves to poll; and the chads shall hang -- it is the democratic way.--Mike18xx 23:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

59. Support. That he won't allow his faith to interfere with Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy is a reason to support, not oppose. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 23:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

    I have all the personal anecdotal evidence I need to conclude that not only will his faith "interfere with Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy", but that it is the primary reason he is here in the first place (as it is the reason for every Islamist editor presently making the place a shambles regards anything resembling accuracy as opposed to neutured pablum). Thus my Monty Pythonesque s-s-arcasm.--Mike18xx 23:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

60. Support, I've taken the oppose votes on board, but they don't really build a smoking gun. Hiding talk 13:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
61. I was going to sit this one out as I don't have any personal interaction with Joturner, but the ridiculousness of TruthCrusader's oppose demands a support just to cancel it. That may be the most blatant "I do not trust you because you believe something I do not"-statement I've ever seen on an RFA, and the "I wish you the best" is just patronizing coming on its heels. Shaking his head in disbelief, BanyanTree 19:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

    I am entitled to my opinion, that is a God given human right that neither you nor anyone else can take away from me. TruthCrusader 13:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

    Yes, but you're not necessarily entitled to exercising it on Misplaced Pages. Johnleemk | Talk 14:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

    That is a typical liberal tactic, scream about free speech but than try to deny it to others who do not share their views. Perhaps if you READ my comment, I never said I wasn't supporting him due to his Islam, I said I was not supporting him because I am nervous about ANY OVERZEALOUS adherant to ANY religion from being a Wiki admin. Muslim, Catholic, Jew, Hindu, I don't care, The last thing Wiki needs is another admin who cannot maintain a NPOV and I'm sorry, I am not so sure Joturner can be this. And your comment about not exercising free speech on Wiki is totally mis-read. Thank you, drive through. TruthCrusader 15:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

62. Support. Generally quite impressed with this editor (and quite appalled by some of the justifications for oppose votes); one big question mark for me was the Koran picture controversy, where I utterly disagreed with has calling an RfC, but I think on the whole his judgement is sound and he appears reasonable and fair-minded, more than suitable to be an admin. Palmiro | Talk 20:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
63. Support: seems like a nice bloke. Thumbelina 23:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
64. Support - would be a great admin. Gflores 23:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
65. Support I'm sure he'd make a good admin no matter what his religion. Pegasus1138 ---- 02:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

    The vote from Pegasus1138 was posted after the posted close time. I object to it as being out of order. Merecat 05:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong Oppose. I am concerned that this editor, if granted adminship, might have trouble avoiding a biased or prostelytizing attitude. A review of his personal page reveals a very deep Islamic zeal which I feel does not belong on a wiki user page. However, some reassurances and explanations from him about how he intends to stay neutral on matters of faith, so avoid any editing or admin bias, might cause me to withdraw this oppose. The Bible teaches us that Jesus said "I am the way the truth and the life, no man commeth unto the Father except by means of me" and Islam teaches us "there is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet". Joturner, what do you say about the issue of keeping faith-based arguments out of the wiki? What can you say to assure me of your standards towards NPOV in this area? Merecat 05:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

   I responded in the comments section. joturner 11:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

   I've spoken with Joturner on my talk page regarding this. That dialog, which can be read here leads me to change my vote from "conditional oppose" to "strong oppose". I might support Joturner in another 6 months or a year, but definately not before then. Merecat 20:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

2. Oppose -- "for now". I've had differences of opinion with Joturner over what constitutes NPOV in Islam-related articles. As he has spent more time on WP, I think his attitudes have mellowed and his understanding of the "Wiki way" deepened, so some of our earlier differences might not happen now. Still, I'd like to wait a few months before handing him the mop and bucket. This is, after all, a fairly early RFA. I hope that this doesn't hurt his feelings, or reduce his commitment to WP, because he is doing fine work now. Zora 06:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose per above --Masssiveego 08:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

   - - - -This user obviously has nothing better to do than to oppose RFA's all day while only 10% of his contributions this month have actually went to main namespace edits mmeinhart 04:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

   I have for now a right to an opinion. I meet all requirements for voting. I see it best to use my efforts here at this time.

   It suggestable one should try to limit your comments to the RFA on hand about the canidate in question, and not attack the voters. --Masssiveego 09:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

   Mmeinhart, you would be best advised to let bureaucrats evaluate votes. Masssiveego has the right to vote on RfAs, whether we like the way he goes about it or not.--Alhutch 01:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

   I have apologized to the voter on his user talk page and struck out my comment. mmeinhart 01:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

4. Strong Oppose. I'm an agnostic and so far didn't bother to make that an issue - nor did I expect there'd be a need for it. However, an user page that is almost in its entirety bend on furthering one religion, and, to my agnostic sensibilities, fringes on the zealot, is outright disturbing. Jimbo spoke against user boxes lately, as he feels that display of bias might be contrary to wikipedic goals. I haven't made up my mind so far, as bias while editing is certainly to be avoided - elsewhere it's... just human. So while I don't mind you to shape your page in a way that's appalling to me, your fellow wikipedian, I'd feel more than uncomfortable to see you as admin. Seeing that your editorial interest is centered on the same subject doesn't make it any better.
   
   As for Striver's edits, I don't share the view that his "reasonable ones" are "of significant" number. As for the "many short stubs" he has created, if they have been put up for deletion only "in some cases", I'm afraid that only happened due to despair and frustration confronting the overwhelming task at hand. Hundreds, if not thousands merit so. When once trying to add cleanup tags where needed, trying to avoid the hassles AfDs would entail for me and others, I halted after some dozen. I don't share your evaluation and I'm not pleased when finding you among the members of his guild. --tickle me 09:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose - a 16 yr old fundamentalist? Sorry, but there is no way I can give my support. Ageism...in this case yes.--Looper5920 10:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

   That is ridiculous and would border on incivility, or personal attacks - "comment on content, not contributor". NSLE _(T+C) at 10:57 UTC (2006-03-24)

   Just a correction - According to the chronology on his user page he was 16 when he began researching Islam and is apparently now just short of 18. --CBDunkerson 12:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

   It is not ridiculous, was not incivil and was not a personal attack. I am actually amazed that you would claim that. I hope that isn't the standard response to those that do not agree with you --Looper5920 21:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

   Could someone explain to me how Joturner's edits or userpage show him to be a "fundamentalist"? I see nothing that would show him to be any more or less than a serious adherent to the faith of Islam. Makemi 22:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

   A "serious adherent to the faith of Islam" *is* a "fundamentalist".--Mike18xx 08:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

   Most of my family are Christian fundamentalists and describe themselves as such. Are they unwelcome on Misplaced Pages? Thumbelina 23:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

6. Strong Oppose. The nomination is premature, unwarranted, and appears to have been rushed through. The edit count reveals only 3 months of active editing with 1,297 out of total 3,808 edits made in March, possibly to boost the count ahead of the nomination. Look at the contribution tree to see that Joturner has made very few substantive contributions: the most actively edited articles are 2006, January 2006, Current events, February 2006, 2005 etc. It is quite revealing to hear that he is most proud of his contributions to Prophets of Islam, which is essentially a list of people with brief descriptions. This is not the editing record that enables one to qualify for an admin. The other hugely problematic issue with Joturner is, of course, his religious zeal. Joturner uses his user page to describe how he became a Muslim, but Misplaced Pages user pages are not intended to flash around our personal religious experiences, which smacks of preaching and is utterly against the spirit of Misplaced Pages. Here we are all first and foremost Wikipedians, not Muslims, Christians, or atheists. We are here to record human knowledge, not spread religious beliefs. Unsurprisingly, Joturner is a notorious POV-pusher on Islam-related articles, where he seems to have clashed with nearly every non-Muslim editor. To sum up, this is one of the least-justified nominations for adminship I have ever seen. Pecher 11:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

   WP:NPA. You are to stop trolling both journer and myself. Furthermore, if you were to read his talk page, I've nt communicated with joturner until the last 48 hours, he couldn't have been "boosting his post count" when he didn't even expect a nomination. NSLE _(T+C) at 11:02 UTC (2006-03-24)

   What specifically makes you believe I'm a notorious POV-pusher and that I clash with nearly every non-Muslim editor? joturner 11:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

   Some of the people with whom you clashed have already voted above; one can add Mike18xx, for example. This case when you assumed bad faith strikes me as particularly strange for an admin nominee. WP:AFD is a basic policy that new editors must learn in their first days in Misplaced Pages. Pecher 13:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

   Might as well give up, Pecher; Misplaced Pages is inexorably circling down into the supermassive sucking black hole gravity well of the Iron Law of Oligarchy (AKA O’Sullivan’s First Law).--Mike18xx 08:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

7. Too many conflicts based on religious zeal. Zeq 20:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose To many issues concerning NPOV right now, would support otherwise. Moe ε 23:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose: this editor shows great promise, and I don't agree his user page is inappropriate (I found it interesting, actually) but I would like to see more than three months of serious involvement. Would likely support in future with a little more experience. Jonathunder 02:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
10. Very Strong Oppose, not because I dislike him or his edits – he is a nice editor. However, I agree with all the above comments pertaining to reasons for “oppose” votes. I may also add that I am afraid that Joturner’s has not afforded the wiki-community a bigger canvass of his contributions, and thus the community (at least me) find myself clueless, and is left with only guesstimate as regards Joturner’s live experience to judge his reactions to different scenarios, scenarios in which an administrator is expected to act, react, and decide. In case, edits done by him during March 2006 are excluded, he has hardly 3000 edits, and that too to very restrictive areas. For the first six months (June-December 2005), he remained almost inactive (total 684 edits average 3.80 edit per day), and in during the current month, he became hyperactive (congrats!), compared to those months, and has accumulated around 1375 edits. In the remaining two critical months of January and February 2006, he contributed respectively 933 and 937 edits. I wish that he remain similarly active for next few months; endeavor to expand his contributions to a variety of name spaces; and try to engage himself in situations requiring discussion and interaction so that the fellow editors may clearly understand his maturity and ability to wield the administrative tools. Moreover, the reasons indicated by him to be elevated to the level of administrators are not very convincing: did he any time face difficulty or delay in getting any thing done which required any administrator’s attention? Persons have continued editing, including me for longer period and with persistent continuity without even thinking of being an administrator. I suggest him to continue for few more months, and I assure him as an administrator that in case he requires any administrative assistance there are 100s of active administrators to assist him. --Bhadani 14:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
11. Strong Oppose per Bhadani.  Grue  16:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
12. Oppose. See Talk:William Hogarth, where this editor notes "I failed this article because it is insufficiently referenced."16:47, 25 March 2006. How does one "fail" a Good Article, especially one with nine references? An ill omen for a future Administrator?--Wetman 04:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

    For future voters, I responded to this matter on Talk:William Hogarth. joturner 05:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

13. Reluctant Oppose - not long enough editing history to be admin. Trödel 11:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
14. Oppose I agree with Jonathunder and Trödel. --Mmounties (Talk) 14:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
15. VERY strong OPPOSE I am sorry but your zealous devotion to 'Islam', while perfectly ok in your personal life, has no place in the Wiki community. Despite your best assurances, I would not trust you, nor ANY religious zealot, with maintaining a NPOV. I wish you the best TruthCrusader 15:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

    Better a religious zealot who makes his POV known than one whose bias can only be discerned from biased edits (which I have seen none from this user anyway. Comment on the contribs, not the person.) —BorgHunter (talk) 16:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

16. Oppose I think you deserve a medal for having the strength to follow your religious aspirations. However, I do not think our userpages should be personal dairies of these events. That said, this actually is not the reason I am opposing you, as I think you have great potential. My opposition is due to an overall lack of experience. Please try again in a couple of months.--MONGO 15:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
17. Oppose. Seems to be a mostly impressive editor based on a perusal of his edits. However, I have a very hard time supporting anyone for admin that is this hardcore in their beliefs, whatever the issue. I also remember him making somewhat of a mess out of a mass of religious list AfD noms that rapidly degenerated. The user page is also a bit over the top, but maybe that is not important. Could possibly support in the future. -- JJay 23:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
18. Oppose changed vote, as per other concerns.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

    Not as a response to Blnguyen, but in general, I responded to several of these allegations of inability to maintain a neutral point of view in the comments section (it's the shorter statement at the top). joturner 15:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

19. Oppose per radicalist concerns. ⇒ SWATJester Aim _Fire! 16:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
20. Oppose I'm concerned about the short time he's been here (I sympathise with the concerns about bias, but since I've had no negative experiences of the user I can't comment). The JPS 18:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
21. Oppose - Nothing personal, I just don't think the edit history is developed enough. --Cyde Weys 02:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
22. Strong oppose per above. I don't think Misplaced Pages should have ugh... radical admins. MaxSem 10:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

    Oppose I'm happy with admins with strong POV, and I'm even happy with folk humble admiting their POV in the interests of openness, but I'm not happy with editors that feel the need to use their userspace for advocacy. --Doc 11:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC) withdrawn on reflection --Doc 08:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

    What am I advocating with my userpage? joturner 22:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

23. Oppose, possible issues with POV among other things. Stifle 17:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
24. Oppose, three months of active editing insufficient.—thames 05:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
25. Oppose. I agree that joturner is a good contributor, and although I am also uncomfortable with the zeal displayed on his userpage, I'm not sure I want to hold his honesty in openly displaying his views against him personally. Still, it might not be in the project's best interest for him to be made an administrator; it takes little to imagine a number of newbies or vandals blocked or reverted (quite correctly) by him, looking at his userpage and clamoring in the blogosphere that "Misplaced Pages has been taken over by the Taliban" or the like. I agree that this would be wrong and pointless, but since there are many other admins who can't be defamed in this way, and since adminship is neither a right nor (IMHO) a trophy, there's no reason to even risk embroiling Misplaced Pages in pointless online fracases. Together with his low time on the project, this leads me to oppose his nomination at least at the moment. Sandstein 05:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
26. Oppose —Locke Cole • t • c 17:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

    When I asked for his rationale on his talk page, he said "Some of the POV concerns expressed by others left me with the feeling that you may not be ready just yet." joturner 17:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

27. Strong Oppose BlueGoose 19:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
28. Oppose -- Karl Meier 23:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

    On his talk page, Karl said he voted oppose because " not convinced by the neutrality of edits." joturner 00:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

29. Oppose Purpouses of being an admin not too convincing, seems unexperienced. I have a problem with his userpage and unconforable with this diary thing in a userpage. Sorry. Fad (ix) 19:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral Editor holds strong views - nothing wrong with that - but as far as I can see is most definitely not a POV warrior (quite the contrary in fact). So, I've no problem there. I would however prefer this editor waited a couple more months and had more involvement in project namespace. I've no idea if this RFA will succeed or not, but if it doesn't I may well lean to support next time. --kingboyk 11:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
2. Neutral, A dedicated 'pedian but agree with Kbk, spread yourself around a little bit more and this would be support in a couple of months. Deizio 01:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
3. As per kingboyk. My interaction with joturner has been very limited (and not exactly positive), but I find most of the reasons given to oppose rather...groundless. (And I say this as someone who interacts with Muslim fundamentalists almost on a daily basis.) My main concern is the short amount of time he's been here and the limited number of articles he's focused on. (It doesn't help that most of his edits to those articles are relatively minor.) The edit count is not an issue; I became an admin with slightly over 1000 edits. Neither is his userpage; I found it quite interesting. However, I'm leaning to oppose because his contributions aren't exactly confidence-inspiring. I'm sure he's a great guy, as his comments below show. But I'm not confident that he's spent enough time here yet. Like kingboyk, I'd probably support in a couple of months if joturner could expand his editing horizons. :) Johnleemk | Talk 11:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
4. Neutral Joturner does not appear to be a POV warrior as others have stated. I would support this editor for admin except that the editor needs a few months more experience (IMHO). I also want to dispute the claims by others that there is something wrong with his user page. To Joturner's credit, he has been very open about who he is and what he believes. There is no evidence that Joturner has made POV edits to Misplaced Pages and if anything he has been a very good editor. I hope he will come back for another RfA in a few months and that people will not hold his personal beliefs against him. --Alabamaboy 18:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
5. Neutral A little too much of a Muslim bias, but to nice too oppose. Jonathan235 04:03, 29 March 2006
6. Neutral. I think, contrary to the best intentions, explaining one's worldview on userpages makes avoiding edit conflicts about neutrality more difficult; it becomes a magnet for accusations of bias. That said, those who self-consciously recognize and make known their potential biases are generally better at staying neutral. I encourage Joturner to remove most of the religious content from his userpage, but that shouldn't be a cause to vote against him. I would support based on his responses here, but I haven't dealt with him as an editor so I refrain.--ragesoss 07:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
7. Neutral Honestly the anti-Muslim sentiment here is shocking, how is this relevent to Misplaced Pages? You don't preempt trouble by saying this user might violate policy in the future, there is no reason to believe that! However, Neutral, I would prefer one more month of steady editing. Prodego 22:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 23:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• See Joturner's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.

• In my request for adminship, above, I said "I try my best to make sure that I judge all articles and edits not on the character of the author but on the content of the edit." It's unfortunate that others will not do that for me. Up until this point, I've received only positive comments on my user page, but now it looks like it is causing large issues. If they continue and appear to be significant enough, I will change it, although I feel the prohibition of point of view and bias, even on user pages, shouldn't extend to a ban on individuality. We are all Wikipedians, but we are all people too.

Although I am personally passionate about my religion, that zeal has never extended to my contributions to Misplaced Pages. I realize that as an encyclopedia and website that is supposed to appeal to all people around the world and all faiths and backgrounds that we are supposed to remain neutral.

Last month, during the early days of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, I voted to keep the cartoons on the article page, at the top, with no special notification despite my personal objection to them (see poll results). I talked to users who repeatedly removed the cartoons from the article, most notably in User talk: Erdemsenol (, , ). My rational speech on that page even caused me to earn a barnstar.

My sixth most edited article is Depictions of Muhammad, which again is something I personally oppose, but yet find useful for Misplaced Pages. For that article, I uploaded several pictures of the Prophet ((1), (2), (3), (4), (5), and (6)), including one that depicts him in hell (that would be number six). Again, my personal religious objections didn't extend to Misplaced Pages. In addition to uploading those images, I contributed to writing that article.

I have always done my best to correct shows of piety, especially in Muhammad where it is most prevalent (, ) as well as in other articles (). I've attempted to improve the neutral point of view in Islamic articles, as recently as just a few hours ago when I brought up the potential bias created by presenting so many articles that shout hosannas toward Muhammad (). I also around the same time talked to a user about his reasoning for repeatedly deleting the picture of the Prophet.

I will continue to show that neutrality if I were to become an admin and even if I were not to. Your concerns are certainly very valid, as religious bias (as well as all bias) would impede to delivery of information. I may be confident about my religion or a pious (or if you must, "fundamentalist") Muslim, but you will see that those beliefs do not extend into the article content of Misplaced Pages. My user page, which has not up until this moment been an issue, simply documents an ongoing event in my life. I don't intend to proselytize, as it simply documents facts and does not do anything to lambaste the views of other religions. Although I may have committed to one religion, I find all religions fascinating (hence the userbox saying "This user believes the world is a happier, safer and saner place because of religion."). The introduction of my religious views into articles will not be an issue as an admin or otherwise. joturner 11:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Notes to the Closing Bureaucrat

• Note to the closing crat Mike18xx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who has a support vote above(bordering on NPA) seems to actually be an anti-Joturner editor, and the vote should probably be discounted or treated as an oppose vote. JoshuaZ 23:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think his vote should be discounted. He in fact voted for me twice, both times supporting. I would like to make another note to the closing crat, but I will say that later, after the vote closes on Thursday (or Friday depending on your time zone). joturner 23:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

However, his comments are a bit contradictory to his votes. And yes, they are personal attacks (but is he really the only one making personal attacks?) joturner 23:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• To closing bureaucrat: Now is the time for you to earn your money. When you ran for your office you promised to exercise good judgement and not merely act as a number-counting robot. Please fulfill your promise and put in the extra effort demanded by this RfA. Support for the candidate is wide, deep, and well-considered; opposition (for the most part) narrow, shallow, and -- may I say it openly? -- bigoted. John Reid 01:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

  It would be incredibly nice if you could avoid making personal attacks, and further, avoid lumping every opposer together. So like, please don't do that? —Locke Cole • t • c 02:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Note to closing bureaucrat(s): Echoing what I said on the Bureaucrats' noticeboard, I hope you (or maybe you all, if this becomes reviewed by several bureaucrats) can take a good look at the votes on this page before making a decision. As you most likely can see, there are more than a few oppose votes that could be, and have been by me and others, interpreted as personal attacks or inspections of religion rather than discussions of my merits as an editor. Furthermore, many of the oppose votes speculate on actions in the future, such as violations of NPOV, that have no backing presented by voters. And even still, there are other oppose votes or withdrawal of votes that hinge entirely on votes that fit in one the previously mentioned categories (i.e. they simply cite that others have these concerns). I invite any and all voters to present evidence of this radicalism, fundamentalism, and constant inability to maintain a neutral point-of-view that so many oppose voters spoke of, for I know there is none. I realize that there are also several decent oppose votes that state concerns that I could possibly address, but like I stated on the Bureaucrats' noticeboard, it is impossible for me to address those concerns (such as radicalism and NPOV) for which there is no evidence of.

Once again, I ask that the bureaucrats really take a hard look at what has happened throughout this RfA and the rationales and comments left by support, oppose, and neutral voters, as well as the other comments under this comments section, before making a decision on what happens next. I wish you all the best and trust your decision is well-intentioned, even if it is not the one I am hoping for. joturner 22:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

It's all well and good that the "yes" crowd here wants to eliminate the votes of the "no" crowd... However, the reasons stated above basically say "we don't like the support information supplied with the oppose votes, so we want those votes stricken". I interpret that to mean it's better to simply say "oppose" with no explanation at all, if one wants one's vote to be non-discounted. Where is the logic in that? I made every effort to dialog with this editor about my vote and I came away convinced that Jotuner has rigidity of thought. This is a trait which I feel does not bode well for an admin. Now whether or not he's biased due to his self-professed relgious zeal, frankly, I don't know. And the reason I don't know is, as evidenced by the link to my dialog with him (see 1st "oppose" vote), we never reached that point in our conversation. Rather, our conversation stopped because Joturner insisted that there was "no alternative" to an edit he was pushing. Such thinking is not what I agree with, especially since I was offering an alternative - delete the edit in question entirely. Suffice it to say, dogmatic thinking need not be religious, but sometimes it can stem from religiosity and at the same time, sometimes less experienced editors can be dogmatic without realizing it. That, I feel, is why I am opposed to Joturner. And also, I gain no comfort from an editor who insists on trumpeting his closely held personal views so publicly. The wiki is not a church, or a club or a fraternal organization. Rather, it's a loose confederation of editors who seek to create a freely accessable NPOV encyclopedia. The less we do which detracts attention from that central mission, the better. To sum up, the risk of zealousness affecting Joturner's edits is being closely scrutinized because he displays zealous tendencies. Right, Left, Christian, Muslim - makes no differences to me. What I care about is people keeping their personal views in check - that and I want to see flexible thinking. I do not see enough proof of that with Joturner yet. Maybe later, but not yet. Merecat 05:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Although saying this may be futile and pointless, I can't just let the above go, especially because it could potentially be used against me in the future. To begin with, my last statement was not necessarily alluding to Merecat or anyone in particular; I acknowledged the fact that there were plenty of decent oppose votes. Anyway... the most notable part of Merecat's statement is the part in bold where he cites me talking about "no alternative." That statement was taken completely out of context and I already explained it on Merecat's talk page. In addition, he talks about "offering an alternative - delete the edit in question entirely." That never happened as we weren't talking about a specific edit but an entire article. Given that I started off my first response to him with "Yes, I am interested in hearing your concerns" and "your concern is very clear," I have no idea where Merecat is coming up with this rigidity. Simply put, Merecat distorted the dialogue entirely; you can see it and judge it for yourself on his/her talk page. joturner 05:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

While I strongly support Joturner's RfA and I think that what happened here for the most part smacks of intolerance (there were more reasoned opposes), the final count appears to be below that of bureaucratic discretion. The closing 'crat should follow the process as unfortunate as that result may be. JoshuaZ 05:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's unfortunate, but I hope what happened here can be used to improve requests for adminship in the future. I'm sure there have been others who have been subjected to this type of treatment, but I want to make sure no future potential admin is declined for adminship because of these types of attacks. If this RfA fails without any further process or action, you can be sure to see me back here in a couple months. Hopefully, the tide will turn or at least the tide will turn enough to result in a different outcome. joturner 05:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages in this capacity. Please take the time to answer 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.

My time spent patrolling recent changes would benefit significantly from the rollback and blocking features. Instead of just giving out warnings about blocks I know I cannot carry out myself, I would be able to quickly rectify vandalism and, if necessary, block repeat vandals. In addition, deletion capabilities would allow me to speedy delete articles that clearly don't belong on Misplaced Pages, instead of just posting speedy delete templates.

Capabilities I look forward to, although often not anticipated by potential admins, include editing the main page. My activity on pages involving current events has made the ability to add items to the In the News section valuable and a privilege I would use cautiously. In addition, I am also looking forward to the ability to semi-protect pages. Although I know semi-protects are not normally done liberally, there was one time that stands out where I witnessed extreme vandalism, but could do little but continuously revert (see the history of Battle of Badr).

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

Although it has not reached good article or featured article status, I would have to say I am most proud of my contributions to Prophets of Islam. For a very long time, the article was one of the longest on Misplaced Pages (the fifth longest in fact), as it managed to reach a length of 273 KB. While some editors did see a need to cut down the size of the article, others believed the large number of links (which accounted for the vast majority of the article’s size) were necessary and therefore the article could not possibly be truncated. Nevertheless, I moved the links that used to exist in the article into the individual articles about the prophets and replaced the simple mention of names of the prophets of Islam with short summaries of their contributions to Islam . My work on that page eventually extended into interest in improving articles on the prophets of Islam. Subsequently, I opened WikiProject Prophets of Islam, which hopefully one day will work to improve articles about the prophets and balance out information about them in other religions.

I can also say I have made a significant contribution to 2006, which incidentally is my most edited article. I have made an effort to make sure the article, as well as other current events articles, maintain the world point-of-view that is often forgotten.

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

I have on more than one occasion been involved in editing conflicts, but those almost always are quickly resolved by brief discussions on user or article talk pages. Given my interest in Islam-related articles and given User:Palm dogg’s law that it is "easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than to write a good NPOV article on Islam," the occasional editing conflict is something I have learned to deal with. In terms of other editors causing me stress, I would have to say User:Striver has caused me the most stress. While I acknowledge he has made a significant number of reasonable edits, he has also created many short stubs that have, in some cases, been put up for deletion. His response when articles of his are put up for deletion, most notably in the Muslim athletes AfD, tend to rub me the wrong way, but I feel I have done a great job maintaining civility while still expressing my opinion. I try my best to make sure that I judge all articles and edits not on the character of the author but on the content of the edit.

Questions by Cyde Weys

1. What editing activities on Misplaced Pages do you most enjoy?

I most enjoy working on adding information to articles as it is so rewarding to see that my knowledge and research could potentially benefit the world. That is especially rings true on the current events page as it tends to be one of the first places on the World Wide Web to document happenings in the world. Although I realize Misplaced Pages is not a news source, I try to contribute to articles involving current events whenever possible. Making Misplaced Pages the most current, up-to-date encyclopedia in the world is important to me. In addition, RC patrolling tends to be just as enjoyable as I feel like I am part of the effort to maintain the integrity of Misplaced Pages and fend off the allegations that Misplaced Pages's willingness to let everyone edit it degrades the quality of the encyclopedia.

2. Pretend you're now an admin. A vandal creates a new account, uploads a Goatse image, and posts it on a Featured Article. He also blanks various sections on science-related pages saying stuff like "This theory is false." What do you do?

This presents an interesting situation in that there is clear, offensive, and provocative vandalism involved and yet there is still the desire to warn new users before taking severe action. In this case, however, after reverting the affected articles, I'd have to suspend the traditional warnings as there is clearly the potential for some continued harmful vandalism (especially if the featured article in question is linked from the main page). I'd block the vandal for a period that isn't especially long (probably no more than twenty-four hours) and post a comment on his or her talk page regarding the vandalism stating that the edits he or she made would not be tolerated on Misplaced Pages and that further unconstructive edits could result in longer blocks.

The original block period may seem a bit short, but some people make stupid edits like those mentioned in the question simply because they can and think they would not receive any repercussions. After realizing that one could be blocked (especially for a longer period) from editing Misplaced Pages, they may reconsider their actions and turn to more constructive edits. If the vandalism were to continue however, even to a lesser degree, I would block the vandal for a greater amount of time.

As for the unnecessarily offensive image the vandal were to upload, I would make sure that was deleted immediately.

3. Pretend you're now an admin. A page is protected under office actions but you see another admin reverting the page to its previous content. What do you do?

The first thing I would do is revert the protected article back to the version accepted under the office protection. Before taking further action, I would first make sure that the {{Office}} template was indeed on the page in question and therefore the admin was clearly notified of the office protection (and the consequences clearly outlined on the policy page). In the more than likely situation it was indeed on the page in question (and probably even if it wasn't), I would notify Jimbo Wales of the incident immediately via his talk page. In the meantime, while awaiting his response, I would notify the admin of his violation of the office policy, explain the potential consequences of his or her actions, and also point him to the notification on Jimbo's talk page (in case (s)he wants to defend the actions). I would continue to monitor the admin's actions for a bit to see if (s)he continues to make significantly inappropriate edits. If that does happen, I would have no choice but to institute a block until Jimbo addresses the office revert as well as the subsequent inappropriate edits.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Zanaq

Final (5/23/5) ended 22:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I am active on nl , es , and commons . I aspire to become an administrator because I want to be able to do some things myself.

I combat vandalism using my watchlist (so I'm not a really fierce vandalfighter). Recently I encountered some blatant vandals for which I put out blockrequests, but I think it would be easier if I could singlehandedly dispense blocks.

Also on the dutch and spanish wiki's I encountered difficulty in getting the pages in the mediawiki namespace modified to get in line with the w3c (some scripts were broken): first I had to explain what the w3c is. This has not yet been an issue for me on the en.wiki.

My RfA on the dutch wiki failed because I "vandalized" the spanish wiki in december 2005. Since then I made more than hundred additional small edits there (I hope good ones), so I think I have rehabilitated myself. I will try again in a couple of months. I'm not sure I will succeed then, because I am a little bit controversial over there: User:Waerth for one thing has totally no confidence in me.

I usually am kind and warm to new users , but I despise linkspammers and pov pushers. I have sometimes engaged in editwarring over trivial matters but I would never abuse my admin powers in such conflicts.

I hope to help the community in ways I cannot possibly imagine. I will certainly watch the Admin request pages and try to assist whenever possible. I accept the guidelines and fully support the principles of our wonderful encyclopedia. Zanaq 11:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC) (self-nomination)

• Closed: looks like I didn't make it. I'd like to thank everyone for voting. I will try to make some good use of the recommendations: see y'all in a couple of months. Zanaq 12:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Support - He has many thousands of edits across at least 5 languages. It is preposterous to suggest that he doesn't have enough experience. What does bother me is that his English grammar and usage are clearly fluent but carry enough mistakes that his English edits require a second look by a native speaker. - Richardcavell 12:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
2. Support per Richardcavell. And we need more admins! --Siva1979 15:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
3. Support, he has a history of good editing, seems a passably swell guy, speaks solid English, has no black marks against him that I can see, and, of course, editcountitis is evil. I'm peeing into the wind at this stage but I can still make a statement. Lord Bob 02:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
4. Support per Lord Bob. - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 08:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
5. Support per Lord Bob. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 03:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose, a little too few edits on the English Misplaced Pages, answers to standard questions are missing. JIP | Talk 12:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

1. Oppose Too few edits for a self-nomination; More experience on this 'pedia is needed. Xoloz 12:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose per edit count and unexplained lack of answers to standard questions, although I like the admittance of past problems in the nomination. Kusma (討論) 12:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose Impressive commitment across the board but just not enough involvement in the English wiki right now (and it wouldn't be reasonable to expect me to go check out other wikis, I only speak English, lest anyone suggest I do just that). I say come back when you've built more of a profile here and/or achieved adminship on the Dutch wiki, and I may well support you. Good luck. --kingboyk 13:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose - Very few edits. Only 231 distinct pages edited. - Aksi great 14:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose - inexperience --Mmounties (Talk) 14:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose - Per my own standards I prefer admins to be more than just vandal fighters--Looper5920 18:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose - inexperience + answer to standard question 1. Mikker 19:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose, Still lack of experience, need to do some more work before to be an admin. Shyam 20:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose, Too few edits (About 700) but just the right number of time on Misplaced Pages, according to my standards. Comment: EDIT MORE! Crna _e Gora 20:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
10. Oppose Self-nom is usually not a good thing. Thousands of edits spanning across multiple languages/wikis doesn't make you qualified for adminship on Misplaced Pages. Good vandal fighter but theres more to wikipedia than that. Keep up the good work though. :-) Moe ε 21:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
11. Oppose lacks experience on the enwiki. Computerjoe's talk 22:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
12. Oppose per Computerjoe, among others; not enough experience on the English Misplaced Pages. Try again after reaching about 2000 edits and I'd probably support. joturner 00:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
13. Oppose for insufficient experience here.--Jusjih 05:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
14. Oppose insufficient en: activity — xaosflux 06:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
15. Oppose Per above. --Masssiveego 08:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
16. Oppose The reason why you need more experince at the en-wiki is because you need to understand our policies, which differ slightly and also not have edit-wars with the people here. Gizza 08:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
17. Oppose per Kingboyk. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 22:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
18. Oppose per above.--HereToHelp 13:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
19. Oppose per above, sorry. Weatherman90 21:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
20. Oppose more time bud. --Jay(Reply) 17:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
21. Oppose per above --Ugur Basak 13:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
22. Oppose. I would prefer to see more en-article and en-WP involvement, particularly for a self nomination. --Alan Au 23:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
23. Oppose, I'm concerned by the vandalism/lack of trust issue on the Spanish project. Hiding talk 13:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Vote changed to neutral after seeing the answers to the standard questions. However I still think there are too few edits on the English Misplaced Pages. JIP | Talk 14:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
2. Neutral. Zanaq mentions "My RfA on the dutch wiki failed because I "vandalized" the spanish wiki in december 2005." Since many of us don't read Spanish, perhaps Zanaq could explain what this vandalism was and why he/she puts the word in quotations as if he/she disagrees with having been labeled as a vandal. My vote will depend on what Zanaq states about this episode since I take possible vandalism by people wanting to be admins very seriously.--Alabamaboy 14:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

   I started out with renaming es:Jabba the Hutt to es:Jabba el Hutt (and updating links accordingly). Then I uploaded a automatic translation of Kumbaya laden with some humour (It is that in popular culture the song is associated with closeness and cuddling, singing the song by the campfire playing the typically spanish guitar.) and merged 2 articles erroneously. Furthermore I brag about it in my user space on the dutch wiki.

   The spanish were a bit more lenient than the dutch. When a dutch user complained one spaniard explained: Pues no entiendo el vandalismo de Jabba el Hutt, es como se llama en español. parafrased: It is no vandalism on Jabba: that is his name in spanish. Nuria (a spanish admin) was a little bit more upset with me, but we talked about it a bit, I apologized, and he didn't even block me. Zanaq 14:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

   Thanks for the prompt response. While this account is only your version of events, I agree that it doesn't sound like vandalism. Unfortunately, what the event sounds like is an editor who needs more experience before becoming an admin here. You seem like a good person and a good editor. I'm leaving my vote a neutral and if you come back in 6 months with a lot more editing experience here then I will support you for admin. Best,--Alabamaboy 15:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

   Thanks. for the opposite side you may contact nl:User:Jcb, but I hope I was a bit NPOV ;-) Zanaq 16:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

3. Neutral - Despite having many edits across many different languages, the low Misplaced Pages editcount on en is troubling. Would support with increased project space edits. --lightdarkness 15:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
4. Neutral: enwiki is a different animal than most others, though i will say both nl and es are high-traffic sites as well. Edit more on the enwiki, and it'll be fine. -- Jjjsixsix /_(c) @ 02:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
5. Neutral, too few English edits Alex43223 04:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• Edit summary usage: 94% for major edits and 96% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 12:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• See Zanaq's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.
• ...

Standard questions for the candidate

• I thought embedding the answers in my declaration of candidacy would be enough.

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.

I mainly want to do blocking of persistent vandals myself. I will watch the Admin request pages and help where I can. If called upon I might mediate edit wars and temporarily protect pages in the process.

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

List of iconic smokers - an objective list of an inherently POV subject. I am also pleased with my technical changes in tritone, but I think maybe it had been better to have moved the complicated stuff further down. Zanaq 13:17, 23 March 2006 (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?

Yes. When revertwarring I try to improve the article further with each edit so the article will be better when the war is over. I never editwar without using the talk page. I only get frustrated when people clearly didn't read the arguments.

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 talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Turnstep

final (58/5/1) ending 01:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Turnstep (talk · contribs) – There is a theory out there that the longer one is an editor, the harder it is to become an admin, as the chances increase that somebody will find a problem with one of your posts. Thus, this self-nomination, as my edits are starting to pile up :) (I have around 3000 or so). I normally don't even like self-nominations, but the thought of someone else describing my work here did not seem right to me. So please feel free to hold me to a higher standard because this is a self-nomination: I know I would. It's been a little over a year since I started editing here (I did not edit very long before creating an account), and I think I could be even more useful to Misplaced Pages with the Mighty Mop of Protection and the Bucket of Banning.

(I accept, just in case it someone wants it explicitly stated) - Turnstep 01:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Support: Turnstep's grammar and spelling are sometimes lacking, but otherwise he's a good editor. No reason not to make him an admin. - Richardcavell 02:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
2. Support, I really liked his answers to the questions. NBD. -- Samir (the scope) 02:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
3. Support Yes, I am holding you to a higher standard. But you also clearly are showing initiative and desire to serve the community. joturner 03:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
4. Support Just right for Admin. Meets my requirements, 100%. Good luck on your campaign to become Admin. Crna _e Gora 04:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
5. I Want Candy!!! (question 4, bullet point 4) Support... hmm... 3,000 edits and getting worried that's too many, there's a twist! ++Lar: t/c 04:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

   OK, I better clarify this before it causes this good nom issues... The "I want candy" is a flippant remark, intended to be amusing. I don't support bribing for votes and I do not think Turnstep is engaged in such. It's flippant because I don't think/know the date thing is a big deal. (because I don't know enough about it or don't want to get more deeply involved...) The rest of it is a comment on Turnstep's comment about edit counts. I think it's a true observation, actually... the longer you are here, the more there is to scrutinise. That may be good, or bad, I dunno... but it is what it is. Finally, I see these votes as both serious (I think carefully and examine histories, evidence, diffs, and so forth before I voice support or opposition) AND fun. They're fun in that I, like many others, often inject a little levity in our support votes. I think it's a chance to show my personality to long timers and to see theirs, which is appropriate for pages as deep in the inner workings of the 'pedia as this one is, I would not use such flippancy on comments to newbies, for example. I would be MORE flippant in comments to people I consider good friends (see some of my comments on talk pages of certain people, they are context heavy so you may not get the jokes but they are jokes). So to sum up, I don't really expect any candy, and I support Turnstep because in reviewing his candidacy I find it to have significant merit. The 'pedia will benefit from his being an admin, in my considered judgement. Hope that helps and sorry for the length of this, I didn't have time to write a shorter one... ++Lar: t/c 14:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

6. Support. I don't remember ever encountering this user before, but I can't find anything wrong with him. He has plenty of experience (regardless of edit count) and the perfect attitude for adminship. --TantalumTelluride 05:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
7. Support per Tantalum and consistent with Turnstep's suggestion of a syntax for dates such that they will display consistent with a user's preferences without being links where such links are altogether unnecessary. Joe 05:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
8. Support. I'm much impressed by his answers to the questions below. Bucketsofg 06:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
9. Support, seems OK to me. JIP | Talk 06:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
10. Support Gizza 07:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
11. Support Mihai - 07:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
12. Support Ahonc (Talk) 07:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
13. 100% support! - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 08:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
14. Support--Jusjih 08:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
15. Support Kusma (討論) 12:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
16. Support I like the answers. Reasonable edit spread across namespaces. I'm sold! (I also want candy.) --kingboyk 12:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
17. Unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 13:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
18. Support Clearly has thought a lot about the state of things and come up with positive suggestions. --Mmounties (Talk) 15:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
19. Support A good editor. --Siva1979 15:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
20. Support Good editor.--Deville (Talk) 18:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

    Support. Meets my requirements in edits and time in English Misplaced Pages. Crna _e Gora 20:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

    Duplicate. --kingboyk 00:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

21. Support - he states valid reasons for the mop in the nomination, in addition to comments from TheKman. --Jay(Reply) 21:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
22. Support -- DS1953 22:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
23. Support - good user.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 23:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
24. Support. Answers to questions well thought out. His rationale for self-nomination is even better and he makes a great point - the longer you edit, the more likely you are to be human and slip up. Ifnord 23:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
25. Support per above. I don't agree with all, or even most, of what the nominee says below, but it is clear that he is a thoughtful, reasonable, experienced editor. I particularly like his statement about what makes Misplaced Pages different from an encyclopedia. –Joke 00:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
26. Support Joe I 00:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
27. Support seems to be a reasonable editor. The number of the mainspace edits 2400 is slightly lower than my personal limit of 3000, but I like his answers to the questions abakharev 01:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
28. Support. Looks good. Nephron 04:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
29. Support --Terence Ong 12:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
30. Support. I don't agree with everything you've said, or even some of the other supports ;-) But I do believe you can be trusted with the admin tools, that you will make good use of them without abusing them. As a nice bonus great use of edit summaries. Petros471 12:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
31. Suppport, everything looks good. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
32. Support. — FireFox • T
33. Support. Hall Monitor 21:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
34. Strong support. One of the best candidates I've seen. User has good edits, good ideas, good sense of humor, and various other qualities that could be preceded by the word good. No doubt will make a good admin. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 21:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
35. Support. I've never run across the user until reading this. I find the edits solid and the answers to the questions down below to be satisfactory. The self-nomination is a bother, but perhaps no one noticed the user and/or ambitions. Users in good faith with a record, give 'em the key out of good faith. TKE 06:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
36. Support. Good ideas, good approach. -- JJay 15:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
37. Support.  Grue  17:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
38. Wha? He's not an admin? Johnleemk | Talk 17:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
39. Strong support undoubtedly would improve the encyclopedia as an administrator. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 23:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
40. Support -- Good worker with a good attitude. John Reid 05:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
41. Support - Definitly a trusted user, though I don't like his theory much (it might be true though). Jedi6-(need help?) 07:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
42. Support. pschemp | talk 02:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
43. Support, always endeavours to justify his keep votes on AfD, and understands what 'verifiable' means. Oh, if all inclusionists were the same. Also always polite, sensible, etc (the usual). Proto||type 10:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
44. I want candy too. KillerChihuahua 18:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
45. Support, good attitude about adminship and good experience. Mangojuice 18:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
46. Support looks good to me. --Rob from NY 02:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
47. Support per above. --BWD 03:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
48. Good egg. —Encephalon 08:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
49. Support --Ugur Basak 13:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
50. Support. Kirill Lokshin 14:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
51. Support. Answers to questions seem fine. --Alan Au 23:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
52. Support the name seems familiar, but I can't place it. I also can't find too much fault with the editor, although I disagree with the assertion that adminship is a big deal. But if people I respect will support you, and given adminship is no big deal, I will too. Hiding talk 13:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
53. Support. Mushroom (Talk) 23:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
54. --Jaranda 01:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
55. Support. Good user, sensible responses to questions. -Colin Kimbrell 18:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
56. Support. Looks good to me — TheKMan 00:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
57. Support, just in case it takes an extra one to get this closed. ;) —Locke Cole • t • c 01:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
58. Support looks good --rogerd 02:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose A tad bit too hasty. when the subject in question does exist. --Masssiveego 07:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

   This may be a bit embarrassing for you Massiveego, but that articles states "Turboman" is male and he removed it from a list of superheroines! (Smiles) Gizza 07:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

   I find it odd he didn't place it where it belonged. --Masssiveego 07:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

   If there had been a legitimate existing article at that time, I probably would have moved it. Instead, all I had to go on were things like this. Turnstep 12:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

2. Oppose per this. Too soon. Better safe than sorry. Aucaman 09:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

   That's your choice of course, but one out of every ten edits should be to a talk page? I'm afraid I will probably never reach that ratio. :( Turnstep 12:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

   Not sure what you both mean. I added up the talk page posts and came up with 502 (as of this post). That more than qualifies this candidate per your rules, Aucaman. Or do you not count all the talk pages? This would seem strange since number of talk page posts is an indicator on how much a candidate interacts with others. And for that determination you really need to take all of the talk pages into account. --Mmounties (Talk) 15:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

   I think the idea is that anyone can put lots of {{welcome}} and {{test}} templates on user talks without actually having interacted significantly with other editors. Mainspace talk edits would then be a much better measure of collaborative editing ability. I personally don't like set rules for supporting, but I can definitely see the logic here. — Laura Scudder ☎ 16:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

   On the other hand, a user could be great at managing disputes, and could help involved parties reach agreements with just a few talk page edits, or a user could do a poor job at managing disputes and could extend the dispute longer than would normally be needed, resulting in tons of talk page edits. I think setting an arbitrary number or percentage on such a thing is a case of editcountitis to the extreme. Rather than just looking at a fickle number and making a relatively uninformed decision, why not examine Turnstep's talk page and see what he's been involved with and how he has handled everything? Also note that not all disputes are settled on talk pages (e.g., WP:AN, WP:RFC, WP:RFAR, etc.). — TheKMan 18:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

   At risk of flogging a dead horse, I have to say that strict numerical criteria such as this 10% rule are disturbing and perplexing to me. What if a user makes a ton of minor edits (grammar, vandalism), but also contributes extensively to articles and their talk pages. By the above rule, he might have to decrease his copyediting activities to qualify for adminship! –Joke 00:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

3. Oppose Has been doing some great editing but has a strong lack of communication with other editors which is essential for adminship tools. Editcountitis doesn't really apply here since he's made many contributions over an extended amount of time. The links provided above also make me worry. Moe ε 21:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

   Links above don't bother me as much as the lack of communication thing. Moe ε 21:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

4. Oppose based on answers. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia and should strive to eliminate the turgid dreck that often masquerades as an article. Hamster Sandwich 01:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose based on answers and intro statement. Thumbelina 23:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral still thinking about this one. Don't like the intro statement, surely people should apply because they feel they can add by performing admin work, not because they might want to be an admin in the future (not a reward or promotion) but better get it now. Also some of the questions I'm not convinced of, how does being an admin enable you to better write a patch? Or is this some sort of bargaining? Comments about RFA don't inspire confidence either (although I agree te process could be better) "voting for the wrong reason" which perhaps not what was meant but comes across as voting for a different reason (and presumably a different way) to me is "the wrong reason". --pgk 08:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

   I do feel I can help Misplaced Pages out more as an admin; I was not totally serious about the number of edits theory. While that theory probably has a grain of truth to it, I'm not particularly worried about my edits now versus six months from now. I've been editing here over a year, and feel I have a pretty good grasp on how Wikpedia works at this point, and those two factors are the ones that really influenced the timing of my decision. The patch (and the candy, which everyone seems to be focusing on) was a light-hearted gesture, and has nothing to do with my becoming an admin or not. Voting for the wrong reason refers to those who vote with a reason that does not express why the person would or would not make a good admin. Examples include voting because of the person's nationality or background, voting to "cancel" another side's vote, voting solely because of who nominated them, voting because the user has a lot of edits, voting because they are a good vandalism fighter, etc. Turnstep 13:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

   Neutral. Pgk raises some interesting points, and I haven't had chance to properly look at your contributions. I've also added some questions, which might helped me decide how/if to change this neutral. Petros471 10:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

   Now support. See above. Petros471 12:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 02:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• See Turnstep's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.
• I like a lot of your thoughts on your user page, but I wonder if you could explain this bit a little further: "I don't like calling it an "encyclopedia", as that word has a lot associated with it that does not represent what Misplaced Pages is."? Dmcdevit·t 08:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

  Calling it an encylopedia boxes Misplaced Pages in. While we are technically an encylopedia, we are also much, much more than any previous paper encyclopedia. People tend to have preconceptions about what an encylopedia should and should not be, and it never matches exactly with what Misplaced Pages is. For one example, it tends to minimize the important "Misplaced Pages is not paper" principle, which allows us to have a depth and a breadth that traditional encylopedias cannot ever hope to match. For another, we have a unique community built up to support the articles. Encylopedias don't have communities, they have paid editors and customers. We are also going far beyond the traditional structure of an alphabetical list of entries, with a few cross references. We have an extraordinarily interconnected set of articles, with categories, lists, templates, and talk pages all expanding us way beyond anyone's definition of "encyclopedia". Eventually, we should find a better word, or perhaps over time the general definition of encylopedia will become stretched enough to accomodate us? Turnstep 14:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

  We have a better word: Misplaced Pages.  ;) --Deville (Talk) 18:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• "Misplaced Pages is using MySQL and PHP. Bleh. Nuff said." Don't tell me you're a Microsoft fan! What's wrong with MySQL and PHP...? ~MDD4696 17:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

  No, not a Microsoft fan. I would prefer PostgreSQL and Perl, or perhaps Ruby. This is not the place to have such a discussion, but in a nutshell, MySQL is not a very good RDBMS, and PHP is not a very good language. Turnstep 18:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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. Ah, the standard question. What this is really asking is "why do you want to become an admin?" I'll preface this by saying that I do not agree with the precept that being an admin is "no big deal." Not only do admins have the responsiblity to police, protect, and cleanup Misplaced Pages (and the powers to do so), but they are the public face of it as well, insomuch as they should be held up as the ideal to which all editors should strive.

I'd certainly like to help clear out the mess that is AFD, for one thing. Being able to block troublesome users and protect pages would be very useful as well, plus of course the canonical "check out any admin tasks that need doing" answer. I'm also starting to wade into the image arena a bit more. One thing I will *not* be doing a lot of is vandalism fighting. I fight it when I see it on my watchlist, or when I hit a random page, but I don't actively patrol for it. There are a lot of other people who are doing that; I prefer to spend my time improving articles, debating policy ("keep all schools!" ;), and making Misplaced Pages better in ways that don't involve watching RC. Although I consider myself an inclusionist, I have no problem deleting articles when they deserve it. Besides, what's an admin inclusonist going to do - hit the "Keep" button too often? :) Turnstep 01:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

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

A. Nothing in particular: I love that this is a collaborative effort. If pushed, I would say the articles that I have helped to save from AFD. If pushed further, an article I've done a lot of work on is Films considered the worst ever, which is a fun article that is now completely referenced, and is often held up as a counter-example when cruftophiles are trying to delete a valid list (oops, I said the "L" word). I tend to roam here and there, doing lots of WikiGnome-like edits. I enjoy using the random article link and improving pages that come up, whether they need a little work or a lot. There's probably more articles I could mention, but I don't particularly feel they address my admin potential. Suffice to say I am very comfortable editing articles, from creation to featured candidate. Turnstep 01:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

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

A. Sure, I get edit conflicts all the time, especially on busy pages. I've dealt with them by copying and pasting my original answer to the first textarea box. :) Seriously, I don't let myself get worked up over things on the Internet. One of the first pages I came across as a new editor was Ashida Kim, which was more amusing than stressful. It also introduced me to the AFD process. The largest disagreement I've had is probably over the List of villains article, but I think I made a great effort to stay calm and civil, and managed to get the anonymous IP to register an account and start talking things over on the talk page. Turnstep 01:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

4. If you could change one six things about Misplaced Pages, what would it they be and why?

(Disclaimer: I like this question, so I've added it in and modified it a bit. Feel free to add others). Turnstep 01:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• AFD (and deletion in general) is a mess. Too many articles end up on AFD that should not be there at all, and too many obviously bad ones have to wait out the entire multi-day process before being legally deleted. The daily pages are way too large. It should at the least be broken up somehow into sections such as "hoax", "non-notable person/group", "vanity", "schools that will probably result in a keep", "lists that will probably result in a delete", "web forums that will undoubtably have dozens of badly-formatted anonymous IPs voting keep", etc. However, I think the new "prod" system is working pretty well so far, so kudos to all involved in getting that running.

• RFA is a mess. We had some other proposals bouncing around for a while, and tried some alternate formats, but in the end, here we are. I still see a lot of votes given without reason. I still see people voting for the wrong reason. I still see a lot of vote counting (since it's not supposed to be about counting, let's make the nominations "*" instead of "#"). In addition, many people's standards seem too low, or they seem to be looking at only one factor. As a recent web page I saw pointed out, it's easy to become an admin - create an account that does nothing but vandalism reverts, let it go for 3 months, and instant admin. How soon until we see them sold on Ebay?

• Misplaced Pages is using MySQL and PHP. Bleh. Nuff said.

• The problem with date formatting and links using the same syntax. A very annoying problem. If I become an admin, I pledge to write a patch to fix this. (Yes, I've written MediaWiki patches before, so this is not an empty claim). If a good one has already been written I pledge to lobby hard for it. If it's already in an upcoming release I pledge candy for everyone who votes for me.

• Decisiveness. I'd like to see some more decisiveness on the part of the higher powers sometimes. Community consensus only goes so far. Exhibit A: userboxes. A clear mandate from on high a long time ago would have averted a lot of trouble.

• Vandalism tolerance. I'm seeing more and more vandalism occur on my list of watched pages. The amount of vandalism from anonymous IPs is growing disproportionate to the size of my list. I'd like to consider lessening our warnings for obvious vandals, and become a little less tolerant of vandalism in general. I'd also like to see more willingness to semi-protect pages. Nothing makes Misplaced Pages look worse than seeing a vulgar vandalism on an otherwise decent page. It kind of negates the thousands of hours of work done to that page up until that point, in the eyes of a random passerby viewing the article at that moment.

Turnstep 01:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

5. Could you please further explain what you mean by suitly emphazi the fourth bullet in the previous question (the part that Lar is so excited about)? I'm not familiar with this problem. --TantalumTelluride 05:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Given a date such as the first day of January, in the year 1970, the WP way to write it is as ] ] or ] ], which will format the date to the user's date preference. Both of the above will appear as to you as 1 January 1970. This has the unfortunate side effect of making both January 1 and 1970 links to pages which are almost always not really relevant to the article in question. Far better to have a separate syntax for date formatting, such as ||January 1 2005||. Turnstep 05:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Followup: This also encourages people to start linking anything resembling a date, so lone years such as "2006" are often linked, as well as words like "Thursday" and "November". Turnstep 13:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

6. Do you think you have made any mistakes on Misplaced Pages? How will you deal with mistakes in the future? Petros471 10:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure I've made mistakes. No doubt I've made some that I'm not even aware of. I'm sure this RFA will draw a few of them to my attention! :) I try my best to follow all WP guidelines. I do use the preview button judiciously to try and limit my spelling/formatting errors, and reduce the number of edits I make to a page. If I feel very strongly about something, I tend to type it out and then wait a while before posting. I've made mistakes on AFD before - when someone points them out, I strike my vote, write a new one, and move on. I'll deal with mistakes in the future by accepting and fixing them when they are pointed out to me, and hopefully learning something from the process. - Turnstep 13:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

7. "Decisiveness. I'd like to see some more decisiveness on the part of the higher powers sometimes." By 'higher powers' do you mean admins, Jimbo...? What is your view on consensus, and how would you apply that to your admin actions? How bold would you be in using your admin powers? (Sorry for asking several questions together, but I wanted to give your flexibility to talk about the subject as you want). Petros471 10:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Mostly the level above admins, and yes, specifically Jimbo. I think consensus is a great thing, but when it cannot be reached, especially among admins, an executive decision needs to be made. I think at the admin level, respecting consensus is very important, and should only be overriden when something is in clear violation of a Misplaced Pages policy. I don't see myself as being particularly bold with the admin powers - boldness is more for editing, which is easily undone by almost anyone, and not for things like deletion, which is not as easily undone (due mostly to the small number of people that have the power to undelete, and the fact that undeleting is seen as a much more serious action than simply editing an article). - Turnstep 13:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

8. Bonus question: when would you see yourself (un)protecting articles? Petros471 10:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Unprotect: when the need to protect them was no longer needed of course. Hopefully, the person protecting the article left a clear reason as to why it was protected, and under what circumstances it would be removed. I don't foresee myself unprotecting many articles that I have not myself protected, as the original protector should be watching the page themselves.

Protect: Pages that are under assault by roaming vandals, mostly, or the subject of severe edit wars. Also pages that reach a certain level of popularity as a vandalism target (e.g. George W. Bush) - Turnstep 13:26, 23 March 2006 (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 talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

DaGizza

Final (93/1/2) ended 23:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

DaGizza (talk · contribs) – DaGizza is a very experienced editor from Sydney, Australia, with more than 5500 edits since May 2005. Having self-identified as being a Hindu person of Indian origin, DaGizza has provided us with large amounts of knowledge of very high quality pertaining to matter such as Hinduism, Indian cinema and Cricket. This has resulted in him earning 3 barnstars, one cookie and a DYK, two of whom are from admins with 7000+ edits, and the other from another wiki-veteran with 8000 edits. At all times he is polite, warm, and welcoming to other regular users and also to newbies who make casual edits to articles related to the WikiProjects (project invites) in which he is participating (19 in all). His civility is remarkable, especially seeing as religious topics often stir emotions the most. DaGizza regularly cleans up vandalism, and interacts regularly on the projectspace, as well as AfDs and RfAs. I think this is why he and all of us at the Misplaced Pages community would benefit from DaGizza having access to admin tools. My first interaction with DaGizza was when he fixed up an error I had made on my userpage when I had just arrived, which shows that he possesses an appropriate level of assertiveness and helpfulness which is a good trait for administrators. My fellow Wikipedians, I nominate DaGizza for promotion to adminship.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 08:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thanks a lot. I accept Gizza 08:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Strong Support as above.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 08:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
2. Strong Support - DaGizza has proven to be a valuable contrubutor and deserves this position. mdmanser 09:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
3. Support A very worthy candidate - go for gold! Brisvegas 09:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
4. Support Contribs and talk look good. I'm not a fan of RFAs being "advertised" on WikiProjects but it's par for the course at the moment and not a reason to oppose. --kingboyk 09:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

   Excuse me Kingboyk, you mentioned that my RfA is being "advertised." I can assure you that I didn't do it. May you please tell me where it is advertised so that I can delete it. I'm not a fan of it myself. Gizza 10:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

   May be, he's talking about this. I'm not sure if that would be advertisement. -- Sundar 10:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

   Yeah, listing on noticeboards. I probably shouldn't have mentioned it as it's just my opinion; I'm happy for the thread to be moved to the talk page rather than clutter up your RFA. --kingboyk 11:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

   Oh, I understand your point. I'll remove it. Done Gizza 11:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

5. SupportDolive21 11:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
6. Strong Support An excellent candidate who will do well as an administrator —This unsigned comment was added by Richardcavell (talk • contribs) .
7. Support A good candidate and editor. -- Sundar 10:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
8. --Jaranda 11:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
9. Support - Aksi great 11:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
10. Support - Why Not! - Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 11:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
11. Of Course. - Mailer Diablo 13:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
12. Support A good user. Deserves to be an admin. --Siva1979 14:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
13. Support - Ganeshk (talk) 14:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
14. Support, of course.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 15:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
15. Support--Jusjih 15:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
16. Support: It is a great pleasure to me. --Bhadani 15:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
17. Support Really a great contributor. Shyam 15:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
18. Support Excellent editor; superb nomination also. Xoloz 17:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
19. Support Absolutely; all around great editor. joturner 22:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
20. Support Would like to see more communication with editors, but the all around good attitude of this editor is enough to make admin. Moe ε 22:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
21. Support As above. Nephron 00:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
22. Strong support, an experienced editor, courteous, civil, level-headed and would make great use of the tools. -- Samir (the scope) 01:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
23. Strong Support Unbelievably, you meet my requirements 100%. Good Luck on your campaign Crna _e Gora 01:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
24. Strong Support - Obvious support here, a fantastic editor. Weatherman90 02:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
25. Jumping on the bandwagon like a 2001 Yankee fan Support -M 02:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
26. Support - Trustworthy and level-headed. --Muchness 02:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
27. Support - absolutely. Fine editor who has earned the responsibility--Looper5920 03:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
28. Support! fine editor, nice guy. ¡Dustimagic! 04:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
29. Support —Quarl 2006-03-22 05:33Z
30. Support great edits and a thoroughly nice guy. Gwernol 05:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
31. Support, he looks good. JIP | Talk 06:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
32. Support without reservation --rogerd 06:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
33. Support Tintin (talk) 06:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
34. Support, I trust him with the tools. --Terence Ong 08:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
35. Support So do I. ProhibitOnions 08:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
36. Strong support — superb editor. Feezo (Talk) 08:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
37. Support, looks good, adminship no big deal. Hiding talk 09:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
38. Yes Just another star in the night 10:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
39. Dafinitely. +sj + 10:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
40. Support No worries Deizio 11:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
41. Support Jisha C J 11:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
42. Support as above. Seen this user around, good impression. enochlau (talk) 12:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
43. Support as above; excellent editor --Deville (Talk) 12:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
44. Support I gave him his first barnstar and thought of nominating him for adminship, but decided against it thinking that he was too young. I guess he is ready. --Gurubrahma 13:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
45. Support. Good work. pschemp | talk 14:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
46. Da =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
47. Yup ProhibitOnions 16:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
48. Support-a-rooney. Seems like a great editor who will be a great admin.--Alabamaboy 18:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
49. Support. I go out of my way to support qualified antipodean editors that can mop up while the rest of the Anglophonic world sleeps (or binge drinks). youngamerican (talk) 19:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
50. Support Great contributions. OhNoitsJamie 20:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
51. Support looks good, very congenial. Mangojuice 21:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
52. Support Many good contributions. mmeinhart 23:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
53. Support good contributor --Jay(Reply) 00:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
54. Strong Support — Oops. Sorry. Haven't been following this page for a while. Great editor, would do wikipedia immense good with admin powers. deeptrivia (talk) 01:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
55. Support --Mmounties (Talk) 01:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
56. Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 02:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
57. Support of course. Jedi6-(need help?) 02:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
58. Support. utcursch | talk 06:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
59. Support an awful lot of experience that can be put to good use by the community. Bucketsofg 06:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
60. Support --hydkat 06:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
61. Support Ahonc (Talk) 08:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
62. Support per everyone else! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wezzo (talk • contribs)
63. Strong Support Girik has obvious commitment to Misplaced Pages, is willing to contribute heaps, and is a good guy. He deserves it. Sastrawan 10:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
64. Support Deserves to get the mop. Cheers! --Andy123(talk) 21:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
65. Support Looks like a good candidate. Jayjg 22:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
66. Support Joe I 00:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
67. Support Good hardworking editor abakharev 01:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
68. Support Per above. AreJay 02:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
69. Support Have seen a lot of contributions from him in my time on Misplaced Pages, a good asset to the wiki, definitely support. Nobleeagle (Talk) 03:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
70. Support Merecat 05:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
71. Support. Need more publicity, not less. ImpuMozhi 05:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
72. Support Competent. michael 08:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
73. Strong Support His contribs speak for themselves. अमेय आर्यन DaBroodey 12:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
74. Support. Why, certainly. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
75. Support. Thought he was one. — Mar. 24, '06 <freakofnur_xture|talk>
76. Support. — FireFox • T
77. Support. Looks good. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 21:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
78. Strong Support Rama's Arrow 06:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
79. Support great contributions--Aldux 11:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
80. Support -- Saravask 20:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
81. Support - Would make a fine addition to the admin, great editor. Weatherman90 21:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
82. Support from down under? g'day mate... Gryffindor 01:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
83. Support -- especially with new and improved sig. John Reid 05:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
84. Support - a trusted user. Jedi6-(need help?) 07:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC) Already voted
85. Unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
86. Strong support for a hardworking and committed editor. Sorry I didn't get here sooner. -- Ian ≡ talk 03:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
87. Strong support Man, I can't believe I nearly missed this RFA! Amazing & extremely helpful. Deserves the mop. -Srikeit 16:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
88. Support. I have no problem with granting him a well-deserved mop. --Alan Au 19:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
89. Support. Looks good to me. --Rob from NY 02:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
90. I think he's a good guy, having looked through his contribs. The incident with anonymous is slightly concerning. The reason it's not a deal-breaker, however, is the way DaGizza responded: he apologized immediately. That the subject of those remarks accepted the apology in quick time suggests to me that this was a reasonably good resolution. Support. —Encephalon 08:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
91. Support Good candidate, no hesitation in supporting. --Cactus.man ✍ 12:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
92. Support --Ugur Basak 13:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
93. Support --Fang Aili 16:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Makes too many mistakes still. Needs more time to adjust to the rules. For example.. WP:PA "Care to explain" --Masssiveego 09:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

   That issue was dealt with here and . Like I stated below in that situation, I "remove my edits and apologise to the user." In that case I did it ASAP. Gizza 12:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

   Another comment. I am a bit of a pedantic guy and you mentioned "too many mistakes." In recent months, I am certain that my accidental attack on Anonym has been my only trouble and thought in the back of my mind that it would it brought out in my RfA. However, I can't think of anything else I have done ever which was worse than that. I still regret saying such a thing to Anonym, who is a great contributor at Wiki. Gizza 12:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral: Don't think it's time yet. Also, per apparent campaigning. The comment inviting people to demand explanations for edits is both pleasing and troubling; on the one hand, the user encourages feedback, a good thing. On the other; are there a lot of edits where the justification is not apparent? Not relating to this forum, but slapping it here; your signature's a bit bright...consider changing it? Ta, Rob Church 19:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

   I don't think posting the fact that one was nominated for adminship on the project page where one is active is "campaigning". It merely lets those know who know you best. He did not say "Come vote for me" but rather "Hey, there is a vote going on, please cast yours" (...any which way). And your personal preference against bright colors does not present a valid argument against this candidate. In fact, it would speak against him if he did go and change his signature simply because it doesn't please you. --Mmounties (Talk) 01:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

   Different people interpret things in different ways. As for the signature, that was just a request given that it was a bit bright for me to read. This wasn't necessarily the appropriate place to ask it, but oh well. 86.134.49.239 11:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

   I have changed my sig and I removed that "advertisement" ASAP. Gizza 04:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

2. Neutral: not sure because I'm still concerned about the personal attack that he made against me when I hadn't even talked to him before. --a.n.o.n.y.m 20:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

   anonymous man, nothing personal in it – if you wish you may take this as a joke! anonymous, sometimes, such things are not personal attacks – did I ever take all your attacks on me personally? I have become used to this… did I ever try to delete talks from my talk page like you deleted mine from your talk page at least twice within 24 hours. Do I keep my talk page and user page locked and protected like you for fear of personal attacks - never. Please be considerate man, and take things in the right perspective, please do not be so touchy of small things, and always assume good faith. --Bhadani 07:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)OK, I regret. --Bhadani 08:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

   Bhadaniji, you don't have to start anything now. It would be bad if RfA turns into an argument between a couple of users, especially when everything is going well right now. Anyway, out the the three people who didn't support me so far, the only person who I feel is justified to do so is Anonym. Gizza 08:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• Edit summary usage: 99% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 08:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• See DaGizza's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages in this capacity. Please take the time to answer 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 like to help in all ways possible! Obviously everybody at Misplaced Pages encounters vandalism and the rollback button would be of great use, especially since I am a Recent Changes Patroller. At the moment, I would try to focus on WP:AIV, CAT:CSD , WP:PP WP:RM and WP:CV. I would gladly perform any admin-related request given to me. Later on, I may close out various deletion debates. I am likely to participate in more areas after I have become more experienced.

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

A. My Userpage has some good lists for this. In short, one of the articles that I have worked on the most is List of nicknames used in cricket. I have cleaned up, wikified and added content to many Hinduism-related articles. I kept on updating the ICC Super Series article while it was a current sports event and currently keep on updating Sydney Grammar School, my school. Recently, I have been concentrating on Project namespace pages, such as involvement in WP:AfD, WP:TfD, WP:FPC, WP:RfA etc…

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

A. I haven’t been in too many Wikifights! Whenever a user has complained about my edits to a particular page, I would first check over my contributions again and then either explain to him/her why I made the edits in more detail or remove my edits and apologise to the user. I also always assume good faith. So far it has prevented any major edit-warring! There have of course been anons who have insulted me on my talk page for deleting some of their vandal/POV edits. I treat them in a similar fashion to well-established users, except most of the time they don’t respond back! Btw, if anybody comes across an edit which I have made and needs some "explaining," please mention below in comments or below.

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 talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

See also Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Carnildo and Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Carnildo 3

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

Carnildo

Final (65/57/9) ended 23:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Carnildo (talk · contribs) – This is one of the rare times I'm nominating someone for adminship, but I believe Carnildo deserves it. He's contributed greatly in tackling the problem of unfree and/or incorrectly licenced images, and is overall a great asset to the 'pedia. There was that nasty problem with the pedophile issue, but I believe that one brash mistake in a heated moment is not enough to mar Carnildo's overall worth as an admin. Allowing him to help out with the deletion of unsourced images and the like is a good thing. (First RfA is here.) Johnleemk | Talk 14:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Sure! --Carnildo 21:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

In response to the concerns raised by many of the people responding to my RfA, I will not block anyone for at least a year after I get admin privileges. --Carnildo 04:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. I've been waiting for Carnildo to accept and am honored to be able to be the first support vote; surely he ought to regain his adminship, especially in view of his bot work and his attendant need for sysop privileges. I concur with and in the sentiments of the nominator, but I should say (hoping not to engender more argument on the issue) that I don't think Carnildo's actions vis-à-vis the "pedophile" blocks/bans to have been untoward or improper. Even assuming arguendo that they were, though, surely one oversight oughtn't to disqualify an otherwise excellent Wikipedian. Joe 21:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
2. Support Yeah, is rather quiet for an admin but anyway besides of few wierd blocks I think he does a decent job. And the bots are awesome. And he's helped numerous people with the sticky fair use issues. Just another star in the night 22:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
3. NEVER!!! Oh, wait, this is Carnildo - well why didn't you just say so... STRONG SUPPORT. (but, per your response to Q3, Sam does a lot of good here). bd2412 T 22:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

   Support Whatever mistakes you made during last month's incident can most certainly be forgiven. I hope your answer to question four will confirm that. joturner 22:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

4. Strong support. His work regarding image copyrights is most invaluable and necessary to the project. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 22:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
5. Support per Rune. good user.--Alhutch 22:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
6. Support def KI 23:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
7. Strong support. —Guanaco 23:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
8. Strong Support Needs adminship because of his work with images --Jaranda 23:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
9. Support, shouldn't have lost it. — Mar. 21, '06 <freakofnur_xture|talk>
10. I resupported Karmafist. No reason not to you. NSLE _(T+C) at 00:45 UTC (2006-03-21)
11. Support, dealing with copyright issues needs to be done, yet it creates enemies. I respect his work in this area. NoSeptember 00:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
12. Support. He does great work, and when he was deadmined he behaved with maturity and professionalism and continued to do great work. Obviously, he is far more effective and useful to all of us as an admin. We've demonstrated that we know how to deadmin people when there is a problem, and he's demonstrated consistency and reliability in the face of the difficulties of being human. However you vote, realize that every day Carnildo spends without the mop is at our expense, not his. --Gmaxwell 01:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
13. Support The incident that led to his desysopping was an anomaly, and everyone involved behaved badly. I cannot imagine a similarly-charged situation arising again, because everyone has learned lessons from that painful first experience. Otherwise, Carnildo's work is exceptional, and his adminship is clearly a benefit to Misplaced Pages. Xoloz 01:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
14. Support. I think the ArbCom decision was fair, but he should have the mop back now.-gadfium 01:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
15. Support per Gmaxwell above and answers below. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 02:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
16. Support per Xoloz and Gmaxwell. Kusma (討論) 02:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
17. Support Forgive (but don't forget), anyone can make mistakes. Prodego 03:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
18. Support, he was desysopped for defending freedom of expression, I have to support him. -lethe 03:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
19. Support - I believe in redemption. --Khoikhoi 03:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
20. Support - Changed from neutral; addressed my concerns in an unusually pragmatic way above. As I said below, I believe any opposition based on Carnildo's image work to be dangerously wrongheaded. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
21. Support per Gmaxwell. Needs adminship for his invaluable image work. ×Meegs 04:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
22. Support. People are flawed as a matter of course. We all make mistakes, and Carnildo's mistake shouldn't prevent him from returning to adminship. It's not like he couldn't be banned instantly if he broke his promises... right? Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 05:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
23. Support. It's time for a second chance. --TantalumTelluride 05:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
24. Support. Per above, jacoplane 05:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
25. Support Very helpful to the project - cohesion 06:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
26. Support Arbcom's decision is a double edged sword. From the arbcom page, "For statements he interpreted as hate speech" if he interpreted the statements as hate speech then he may have been right to issue those blocks, HOWEVER that is not to say his interpretation was correct. Mike _{(T C)} 06:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

    Support for work on image copyright issue. --Rob 07:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

27. Support. Lupo 08:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
28. Support I see Carnildo's offer to not block anyone for a year is a good faith effort to calm fears and goes further than I think is needed - but with that commitment and the need for a mop to assist Carnildo's efforts on images I am changing my view Trödel 12:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
29. Support per Gmaxwell. --Siva1979 14:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
30. --Sean Black 15:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
31. Support. -- DS1953 17:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
32. Support Disagree with his actions which led to him being desysopped, but a far bigger asset as an admin than as not. --pgk 18:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
33. Support I have always found this user to be dilligent, polite and mature. Will make a fine admin. The JPS 23:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
34. Support -- SmthManly / / 00:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
35. Support For his work concerning images and per questions. Garion96 01:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
36. Support Carnildo has done his time in the stockade. It's time for him to get back to work, suitably chastised. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
37. Strong support. Carnildo is one of our most dedicated image-watchers. The blocking incident was unfortunate, but he shouldn't be permanently desysopped for it. Chick Bowen 04:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
38. Support Carnildo was one of the best admins Misplaced Pages had. He understands policy, does the really dirty work, and takes the crap for it. Just look at his talk page and see how calmly he deals with confused (sometimes hostile) uploaders of images. Most admins simply revert anon edits (wow). Misplaced Pages would be a much better place if half the admins in that oppose list (some of whom have turned quite disrespectful or ferocious when challenged) were as well-informed in policy and as consistently tactful with dealing with stressful situations as Carnildo. --maclean25 07:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

    Very tactful. Anyone still having a problem evaluating Carnildo's powers of judgement may wish to consider the wisdom of his making a comment here at the present time. Some might call it grasping at straws others may feel that even after all that has been said here - he does not appear to comprehend what it is that concerns people here. Giano | talk 08:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

39. Actions which led to his desysopping were bad, but isolated. Did more good than bad during his tenure as admin, and I agree with Kelly on this one. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
40. Support - no reason to oppose. --Ixfd64 09:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
41. Martin 11:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
42. Support per Greg and Kelly. Rob Church 13:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
43. Support from past experiences, and per random support votes above. --Syrthiss 14:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
44. Support. per Greg and kelly also. pschemp | talk 14:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
45. Support. A close call but as an admin he seems to have done a huge amount of good work. His three blocks seem to have been an anomaly unlikely to repeat itself, especially since he now thinks they were not necessary. Haukur 15:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
46. That's hot. Mike H. That's hot 19:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
47. Support. Per Haukur, I think Carnildo has learned from the mistake. The blocks he made were called an "abuse of admin powers" by the ArbCom, but I think he had legit reasons for blocking right away rather than discussing, and he's adequately explained it. Mangojuice 21:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
48. Support. Mark 23:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
49. Wheel war cabal support. Seriously, we all make mistakes, and Carnildo is a great editor. Ashibaka tock 23:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
50. Support May the first user without one mistake cast the first stone. mmeinhart 23:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
51. Support; the ArbCom did not intend to lock Carnildo out indefinitely. A valued editor whom has certainly learned his mistake. Ral315 (talk) 02:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
52. Support per Kelly. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 02:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
53. Strong Support Impressive number of edits and deletions. I'd say you're perfect for the job. Good Luck though Crna _e Gora 04:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
54. Support. I'm convinced that you would not make the same mistakes you have in the past again, and in every other respect you re certainly admin material. - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 08:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
55. Strong support. Carnildo made one error of judgement, he knows he made an error of judgement, and the unforgiving attitude of many Wikipedians is kinda disappointing. He is an experienced and knowledgable administrator. The argument 'how do we know he won't do it again?' is fallacious - not only could you apply the same argument to any prospective first-time administrator, going through this experience will probably guarantee Carnildo will excise better judgement (and other than this incident, his was impeccable). Proto||type 11:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

    It's not a matter of an unforgiving attitude being disappointing. Even The Pope does not give forgiveness without some form of sincere expression of regret and comprehension - surprisingly I am not The Pope. Not once has Carnildo contacted or appologised, or even explained personally to any of those he wrongly accused and banned for immagined "hate speech". If he had any integrity and understanding of the responsibilities of an admin he would have tried to build some bridges before he came here. He abused his powers once, and still seems to be blissfully unaware of the gravity with which many people view that abuse. Giano | talk 13:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

    We have no Pope but Jimbo!:) And far as I know, Carnildo hasnt apologized to him either.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 00:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

56. Support. He clearly knows he made a mistake the first time around, and it's one I don't think will be repeated. BryanG 22:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
57. Support. Carnildo is a real asset to the project. No reason for us to go without his admin work for some indefinite longer period of time. Jkelly 01:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
58. Support Based on Carnildo's contributions for the past few weeks, I would like to give this user a second chance. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
59. Support based on his work regarding image copyrights. *drew 09:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
60. Support. No-one's indispensible to Misplaced Pages, but some are much less dispensible than others; Carnildo is one of the least. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
61. Carnildo was the one person in the "paedophile" dispute who did the right thing. The Arbitration Committee ruling was wrong. He is a great Wikipedian and should have his adminship restored immediately. Talrias (t | e | c) 20:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
62. Support,, of course. The arbcom case is not supposed to be a scarlet 'S' forever upon his brow - David Gerard 21:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
63. Support - my concern has been addressed and I'm always in favour of giving a second chance -- Tawker 23:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
64. Support give this kid a chance. --Rob from NY 02:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
65. Support. Not much point now, but support on principle per NSLE. I too resupported Karmafist. --Fang Aili 16:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. OPPOSE IN THE STRONGEST POSSIBLE TERMS Let's begin with fact he was desysopped by the Arbcomm for one of the worst cases of wheel warring and displays of poor judgement in Wiki history. All this only weeks ago! Worse, directly or indirectly due to his actions, a number of fine admins were desysopped either temporarily or permanently. Worse still, he refused to admit his mistakes, apologize and step down for them. Though I'm sure he will now, in order to regain the mop. The point is, to his mind he did nothing wrong. Likewise, when he is confronted with complaints about Orphanbot, he ignores them or brushes them off as ignorance of how it works. Or, in the case of Sam Spade below, just the words of cranks. When confronted with his overzealotry in enforcing image copyright policy he takes the road to Nuremburg. He has abused admin powers and shown poor judgement before and he will again. Maybe with a bit more time and a display of sincere contrition on his part, we should forgive and give him another chance. But this is FAR too soon. He has clearly not yet learned his lesson.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 23:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

   Er ... orphanbot edits in accordance to our copyright policy, which is Foundation-level "OMG we are 0wnz0r3d" problems if we fuck it up badly enough. You're opposing him for acting per important policy? I don't understand - David Gerard 21:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

   No, clearly you don't. Orphanbot is not the main reason I oppose him. It is his ACTIONS and POOR JUDGEMENT which led to his rightful defrocking by Arbcomm. If he had done the right thing and owned up to his abuse of authority, the vote here would be quite different. Hell, Arbcomm's ruling even might have been otherwise too! Of course we all make mistakes. The important thing is we acknowledge and learn from them. When this is done, forgiveness is justified. But when the arrogance of power and the excuse "I was just following orders/policy" prevents this, the lesson has not been learned. Besides, he doesnt really need the Op Mop, to perform his self-appointed tasks. Especially not with Orphanbot doing most of his grunt work. And he certainly does'nt need to be a Sysop to continue as a contributor. Adminship is a duty and trust, not a reward. If you want to reward him, give him a cookie or a barnstar...but not the mighty mop--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 06:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

2. Strong oppose. Oh sure, let's give him blocking powers; it's not like he'd do something stupid with them, like indefinitely blocking some admins for no good reason or something! Kirill Lokshin 00:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Sorry, you do great work, but concern over abusing admin tools is the only reason someone should not be given them. When you have abused them there shouldn't be any leniency. If admin tools were really needed to edit here, I'd be more willing to capitulate. If you can't stop, think, and discuss before using them, then just live without them. I appreciate your commitment, but you should have thought about that before you blocked two admins that hadn't done anything yet. - Taxman 00:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

   With some additional time and a sincere apology I would support next time. One serious mistake shouldn't blackmark an editor forever. We do however need to send a strong message that abusing admin tools is not acceptable. I do think it's clear an apology and an understanding that what you did was more than just a tiny mistake would have drastically changed the results here. So again, with some time and some effort to mend fences I'll support in the future. - Taxman 19:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

   Do you really think that Taxman? I think apologies and regrets have to come from the heart they cannot be prompted by others, they are emotions - they exist or they do not. Do you want to know something else I think? What are we all still doing here? - Is this nomination ever going to close what a people waiting for? Giano | talk 20:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

4. Oppose. Not yet. Ëvilphoenix 00:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose. Too soon.Voice-of-All 00:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose No Way. At least not yet, let a few more months pass before reapplying. Moe ε 00:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose. I feel it is too early, considering the circumstances of the desysopping. Will gladly support in a couple of months if no other significant issues show up in between. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
8. Strong Oppose - I'm sorry, absolutely not, and probably never again. —Cuiviénen, Tuesday, 21 March 2006 @ 02:16 (UTC)
9. Strong Oppose : Past behaviour is the surest predictor of future behaviour. If he's abused admin privileges once, he'll do it again unless something intervenes to change his attitude. There are candidates who fail to get admin privileges on this page despite the fact that they would not abuse those privileges. Why should Carnildo obtain ascendancy over them? - Richardcavell 02:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

   Oppose, censorship is a mortal sin. -lethe 03:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC) Apparently he was the guy defending free speech during this whole debacle, not one of the censors. My mistake. -lethe 03:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

   Indeed, so are you saying Jimbo is a censor?--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 03:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

   I said no such thing, but I probably would agree with such an assessment. I don't think it's too far of a stretch to say that Jimbo practices some censorship. Jimbo has his priorities, and freedom of speech is not on the top of his list. Isn't that obvious? It's OK for him to have different priorities, and it's OK for me to disagree with them. -lethe 09:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

   So how is Jimbo's censorship worse than indefinitely blocking someone for merely expressing their views against a practice which is generally condemned and outlawed throughout the civilized world?--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 00:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

   I never said that what Jimbo did was worse. The fact remains that Carnildo was protecting the freedom of some people whose views are condemned, as you yourself say. The hardest test of one's committment to freedom of expression is your ability to defend that freedom for people you disagree with. If you want to argue that Carnildo's actions were not optimal, I won't disagree. If you think Jimbo's actions were fine, that's reasonable as well. -lethe 05:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

   Carnildo's argument wasn't with Jimbo... tTe issue is far too complex to be box people into neat little 'censor' and 'non-censor' groupings. --Gmaxwell 04:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

   But this is exactly what Lethe is doing.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 04:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

   What many people don't seem to understand is that Jimbo MUST have a special position and MUST be allowed to protect himself and the foundation. After all, he is the one who signs on the dotted line and he is also the one who will be sued by people or indicted for illegal or grossly inappropriate content. Frankly, I have the greatest respect for his guts to keep with this project because, you've got to admit, there are a lot of hot heads around. You can call it censorship or anything else you want. Bottom line is he must be able to do what it needed to protect himself and the project. --Mmounties (Talk) 00:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

   Yeah, and it's probably true that if for some reason that Jimbo had been replaced by a hardline free-speecher, or didn't go on CNN to spread wikipedia propaganda, or worse, we didn't have such a figurehead at all, wikipedia would have been sued into nonexistence long ago.</sarcasm> I do not agree with you. -lethe 05:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

   Lethe, I am unsure of the point you are attempting to make. However, at the end of the day someone has to have ultimate responsibility for the encyclopedia, and it may as well be Jimbo as he owns it and therefore has unquestionably it's best interests at heart. Occasionally instant decisions have to be taken (although in this case he did consult two or three others). Its is not always possible to be instantaneous by committee......We are writing this encyclopedia for the benefit of the public not ourselves. As an internet community we have to take each other on trust, therefore we must at least start by appearing as trustworthy members of society. Rightly or wrongly for the public to use and wish to contribute the place must appear whiter than white, and inspire trust. By and large the public do not like paedophiles. They do not want to encourage them. They do not trust them. They do not want to mix with them........Carnildo's instant banning without consultation of three editors for "hate speech" for expressing just that view - sent loud and clear the wrong messages, in fact it sent what could be for the encyclopedia very dangerous messages. That he was instantly de-sysoped pending further investigation was the only correct decision. The outcome of the investigation chose to continue that decision. That he should wish, just a few weeks later, to be reinstated as an admin, having shown no sign or even gesture that he appreciates the reputation of the encyclopedia is paramount and his actions were plain wrong demonstrates he is here far too soon. I've read elsewhere here all the talk of free speech - it's not possible to groom children here - feel sorry for them it is not a life-style choice etc. Some people may consider those admirable statement but the vast majority of society does not. This is an encyclopedia, not a place for changing society and airing views considered not only inflammatory but to many people repugnant. Admins are here to ensure the smooth running of the place nothing more. Carnildo has deliberately demonstrated, and defiantly continues to demonstrate ("a few minutes of not being able to edit Misplaced Pages is worth agonizing over.")that is not his view. Forgive him by all means, (he is quite welcome to be an idealist) but this is too soon for a return, and must remain too soon until he appreciates the gravity and seriousness of his actions to Misplaced Pages. Giano | talk 09:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

   You say "However, at the end of the day someone has to have ultimate responsibility for the encyclopedia, and it may as well be Jimbo". I disagree. I think it would be perfectly possible for a committee (the Foundation, perhaps) to control the wikipedia. I expect this will happen when Jimbo retires or dies in the future. Then you say "Its is not always possible to be instantaneous by committee". This is true. What would have happened if Jimbo had waited a few hours, allowed for discussion? I guess a few more people would have been banned, then an RfC would have gone forward, the arbcom would have ruled, and it would have been settled. The people Carnildo banned were unbanned even without his ban, so actually, exactly what did happen is what would have happened anyway. So I see no evidence to support the idea that we need instantaneous action by Jimbo to resolve disputes. I like our consensus system, and don't see a need to bypass it, and don't agree with people who do so. You say "Jimbo owns ". This is not true, Misplaced Pages is maintained by a nonprofit organization and built with the contributions of volunteers. No one owns it. You also say "Jimbo has unquestionably best interests at heart". That's true in a general sense, but he's gone on record as saying that he wants to work to improve Misplaced Pages's acceptance among academics. To that end, he practices what I consider propaganda, rather than letting the encyclopedia gain acceptance based solely on its own merits. Furthermore, he has adopted a proactive stance about libel, ever since the Siegenthal incident, when in my opinion, no such action is necessary. It is my (possibly naive; IANAL) hope that the general disclaimer protects the Foundation from liability. Finally, he tries to control policy: banning people like Carnildo, telling people that userboxes are unacceptable, when our methods of determining policy through consensus work fine. In short, I view his work: promoting wikipedia in the media, removing libel, and trying to control policy, as completely superfluous. He's a guy doing a job that doesn't need to be done. Finally, (or rather, initially) you say "I am unsure of the point you are attempting to make". Well, actually, I am not now, nor was I before, trying to make a point. I was actually trying to change my vote in an RfA, some people asked me questions about why, and I answered. So in case what you're unsure about the reason for my change, it is this: Carnildo was defending freedom of speech, and as such I want to give him my confidence. I had misinterpreted the synopsis of the affair, which accounts for the mistaken vote. OK, is it clear now? Hope that helps. Edit: I argue above that I don't agree with Jimbo's unilateral actions. Actually, I don't agree with Carnildo's actions either, they were similarly unilateral. -lethe 11:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

   Thank you Lethe. You have explained the reasoning for the support vote very clearly indeed. Giano | talk 11:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

10. Oppose Upon further review of February's incident, I have changed my vote. There are editors whose RfAs have been denied despite not going through an ordeal nearly as significant as yours. Although I'd like to forgive you, I simply can't. I must hold you to the same standards as other potential admins, even though you have made great contributions to Misplaced Pages. joturner 03:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

    Oppose: As a community, we are asked to conclude whether or not a user will abuse admin privilleges - Carnildo has. No matter how good a contributor has been, few are entrusted with the golden privilleges, and even fewer have abused them. The rules that apply to a new nomination do not apply here, for how do I know Carnildo won't do it again. --Jay(Reply) 03:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

11. Oppose: Abusing blocking privilege is too dangerous. Better wait for some time to regain trust.--Jusjih 03:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
12. Oppose: Not after blatant admin abuse. akendall_(talk) 03:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
13. Oppose: Admin privileges should be given to ones whom we can trust. Carnildo had betrayed that trust, and it will be hard to gain it back. Olorin28 04:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
14. Oppose Due to the incidents and issues mentioned above. Gizza 08:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
15. oppose: This is quite a long explanation of oppose, but it is important it is here where it can be seen. I wonder how many of the support votes above are in fact votes not for Carnildo but votes against Jimbo for having the temerity to seize his encyclopedia and instantly de-sysop Carnildo to prevent a possible major scandal in the press. Because lets face it that is what happened. I was one of the three infamous editors who one quiet Sunday evening dared to voice the opinion (my opinion) that paedophiles openly editing was not in the best interests of the encyclopedia. (Full explanation and links here ) For that I was without warning indefinitely banned for "hate speech" I've a lot of friends so the ban lasted about 3 minutes, but Carnildo was wheel waring elsewhere on the subject, Jimbo stepped in an instantly de-sysoped him, and the rest is history. Except in all that time Carnildo has not once contacted me, expressed remorse, or even given me explanation of his views. He would not just be a bad admin, he would be dangerous to the project as a whole. That he comes here just a few short weeks later just displays his complete lack of understanding of what an admin should be. Regarding his work with images: there is a widely held misconception on wikipedia that anyone who does seemingly dull work should be rewarded with an adminship -this is not the case. People only do what they enjoy doing. No one is asked to do anything, and anyone who expects thanks and great reward here is living in cloud cuckoo land, the same place I hope this attempt to regain admin powers is firmly sent. Incidentally, I am not an admin, have never wanted to be, and considering the standards of behaviour employed by many of them - see no need to be. Giano | talk 08:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

    I have moved a very, very long exchange of views from here to the talk page for clarity. Xoloz 13:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC). Yes, and I have moved it right back again. Please do shunt off important facts pertaining to this case to the sidelines. It is important that people evaluating Carnildo's suitability to be an admin have all relevant facts easily at hand. If people don't want the chore of reading the evidence perhaps they should not be passing judgement. Giano | talk 18:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

    You say I "was wheel waring elsewhere on the subject". Could you point out where? My recollection of the event was that I spent the next ten hours or so after you were unblocked several miles away from my computer. --Carnildo 09:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

    No sorry it was not you wheel waring that was the others wasn't it. You were instantly de-sysoped just for banning without cause. Glad you can now at last speak to me. Giano | talk 09:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

    Giano, he wasn't instantly desysoped. The above makes it sound like he would have done more if he wasn't stopped, but thats clearly not the case. --Gmaxwell 13:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

    What he would have done next is thankfully something we shall never know. He was de-sysoped by Jimbo within hours as a direct result of banning me and two others with no justifiable reason .At wikipedia speed that is pretty instantaneous. The whole episode was unprecedented, and if people like you do not want the whole mess dragged up again you should have advised him to keep his head down. Not one word of regret or explanation has been received from him. What if I had been a new editor at the time? - it was just his bad luck, and Misplaced Pages's good fortune he picked on me. As I said I wonder how many votes for Carnildo are in reality votes against Jimbo? Looking at the link herec I see you pop up to say "Jimbo's made a mistake" and you go on to congratulate Carnildo on his actions. Well Gmaxwell many people here do not share your view, you were wrong then and you are wrong now. Giano | talk 18:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

    I really didn't want to respond to you: I can't see anything productive coming out of your hostility here, nor do I understand why you still hold it. But I really must object to your claim support votes here "are in reality votes against Jimbo", I cant speak for anyone else but after posting that I had a long conversation with Jimbo and there remains no disagreement between us. Like any other issue this was a complex an nuanced subject with many possible perspectives. From one perspective we see an action which was obviously right, from another angle we see actions which were in excess haste. The same thing is true of both Carnildo and Jimbo's actions. I don't believe there is any outstanding disagreement between Carnildo and Jimbo, nor should there be, everyone has taken this as a learning experience and moved on. Except perhaps you? We're all here to improve the project, please don't take things so personally. --Gmaxwell 21:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

    I'm sorry but I do take being banned for incitement to hate rather personally - funny that isn't it? And as for you here one minute congratulations then later furious back pedalling - I don't think we can take you too seriously, obviously as confused then as you are wrong now. What exactly is it you are moving on from - where did you fit into this sorry episode? Oh yes you had "long conversation with Jimbo" - Why? Are you some form of special administrator - what exactly had the episode to do with you - that make you so able to pontificate on the subject? Giano | talk 22:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

    I think Carnildo was plain wrong in blocking you, Carbonite, and El C, but I don't believe he will do it again. While I think Jimbo erred in a number of ways in how he handled this ghastly affair, I do not think he erred in desysoping Carnildo. At the time, it was the right thing to do. I am not in the habit of expressing opinions about people based on the actions of other people altogether (e.g. Jimbo). I respect your decision, and I hope this will be reciprocated. (I know El C doesn't want a discussion thread, so please direct any comments about this to my talk, but while I respect his vote, I am highly offended by the insinuation that I was out to get him in a prosecutorial way. Of all Wikipedians, there are few who I respect more than Carnildo and El C, so it is extremely upsetting to be accused in such harsh words by someone I respect so much.) Johnleemk | Talk 18:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

    Well Johnleemk I'm glad you agree Carnildo was a bad administrator so what's changed? I note you think "Jimbo erred in a number of ways " which rather brings us neatly back to my original point - doesn't it? You respect my decision and "hope it will be reciprocated" - what incidentally is your decision? ....To support for adminship someone you admit makes bad decisions? Respect that! what planet are you on?. Regarding El C: You are highly offended! - how dare you be offended over anything concerning this matter? - what has anyone done to offend you? If you had one jot of respect for El C you would not have made this nomination in the first place. You are offended by "harsh words" - you don't know the meaning of the phrase "harsh words" are finding you have been banned bor incitement to hate - try that one morning and see if that offends you! Giano | talk 20:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

    I said he made a bad decision. That does not make him a bad admin. We are human. We make mistakes. While I believe Jimbo made mistakes, I think you totally missed the part where I said that Jimbo's mistakes have nothing to do with my opinion about Carnildo. Your decision is the opinion that (I'm not sure which one, pardon) Carnildo is either bad/evil or too prone to making mistakes. I respect that, so please respect my opinion that all he did was an honest mistake. It was stupid, but it was a mistake. You appear to believe that Carnildo did it on purpose; very well, it is not my place to judge your beliefs. And apparently you missed the part whre El C insinuated I was intentionally non-neutral in my actions as a clerk regarding the case. As someone who takes this seriously, I feel I have every right to be just as offended as any of you are. And as I said, what I think of other people has no bearing on what I think of a particular person. What I think of Jimbo or El C is irrelevant when the person in question is neither of them. Johnleemk | Talk 20:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

    Dead right, it is not your place to judge my beliefs - they are transparently obvious. Please do not insult editors intelligence by claiming to be neutral - you are the nominator here. You have absolutely no right to be offended by anything thrown at you - you have shown a blatant disregard for the feeling of people unjustly accused of "incitement to hate" - a revolting charge, only marginally more revolting than your pathetic attempts to jump on the bandwagon of whose offended most. You nominating Carnildo is offensive. Giano | talk 20:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

    I am the nominator because I believe Carnildo should be an admin now. Furthermore, this is not a zero-sum game. I can respect both Carnildo and El C. You are creating a false dichotomy. (I should also note that this "pathetic attempt" to "jump on the bandwagon" is not new -- I have always held both Carnildo and El C in high regard. That they happened to be on "opposing" sides in the pedo incident is irrelevant to me. Furthermore, I find it amusing that the accusations of bias WRT the arbitration case are coming from the people who the alleged bias would have benefited the most. But that's not relevant to this RfA, is it?) And point out where I have shown "disregard" for people's feelings. If you consider relationships to be zero-sum, don't enforce your worldview on me. Just because you hate X doesn't mean I have to hate him as well in order for us to be on good terms. I already said that Carnildo fucked up big time. What more do you want? Me to punish him for what I view as a terrible mistake but a mistake nonetheless? Make no mistake about it -- if the arbcom had desysoped El C as well, I would have renominated him as surely as I renominated Carnildo. I don't think either of them should be desysoped now; adminship is not a gift to be handed out. It's a tool for improving the encyclopedia, and I believe that an encyclopedia with both Carnildo and El C holding the mop and bucket is a much better one than an encyclopedia with only one or neither of them. If you have any further comments, stop flooding the RfA with this argument going in circles and take it to my talk. Johnleemk | Talk 20:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

    This is not "flooding the RfA with this argument going in circles" it is merely explaining to you (who seem unable to grasp it) why those accused by your candidate of "incitement to hate" (something for which he has yet to express any remorse about) feel strongly why he should not be re-given admin powers. Giano | talk 22:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

    Giano please withdraw the acusation that you were unblocked because you have friends. You were not. Indeed I'm not sure I had even heard of you before I pulled the block placed on you. I try to make such descisions based on logic regardless of my relationship with the edit(s) involved.Geni 03:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

    Oh please have no fear, I am not accusing you (who ever you are)of being one of my friends (you are free of the taint) as far as I am concerned I was unblocked by User: Worldtraveller with whom I have had friendly dealings in the past (yes it does happen!) consider yourself exonerated of any such crime. Giano | talk 19:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

    Nether the less the block log shows that I pull your block first (you were is the unusal position of reciving overlaping unblocks). Thus I reject the claim that your unblock was related to who you were friends with. Fruther more you suggest the blocks would not have been pulled if they were placed on new editors. Again I reject that acusation.Geni 23:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

16. We all remember Carnildo's ghastly behavior. Too soon to forgive and forget. Hence, oppose. --Ghirla 11:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
17. Oppose: The wheel war and its aftermath was a serious drain on the community that far overrides any marginal benefits from a successful candidacy at this time. My feeling is that the de-sysopings should have been permanent, or at the the very least for a period of 12 months before any renom. Nothing said on this page convinces me that this user would benefit the community by ever being an admin again. -- JJay 11:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
18. Oppose, I think he needs more time to reflect on this issue. Come back in six months. - Mailer Diablo 13:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)Strong Oppose per Bishonen and response. - Mailer Diablo 20:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
19. From my limited (singular) and spectacularly negative experience: Unrepentant and unremorseful, unpredictable and impuslive, unconciliatory and uncommunicable, unreflective and uncritical, disrespectful and as offensive as any user I've ever met on the wiki. Untrustworthy. That clerk-cum-prosecutor (unsuccessful, thankfuly) Johnleemk is the nominator does not surprise me, however. I do not wish to have a conversation thread bellow this; please respect that request and direct any and all comments on my vote elsewhere. El_C 15:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
20. Oppose per above, too soon. Weatherman90 15:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
21. Oppose: As per above. --Bhadani 16:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
22. Oppose. Carnildo has demonstrated poor judgement in the past, as extensively documented here, and given the difficulty of de-sysopping people (unless you're Jimbo) I don't think we should be in a hurry to return his admin status. This is too soon. Leithp 18:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
23. Oppose not yet.  Grue  19:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
24. Oppose, agree with Grue. Jonathunder 21:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
25. Oppose, this is too strange for me. It bothers me deeply that Carnildo a) undertakes to not block anybody for a year, but b) doesn't seem to think he did anything wrong in the first place: I can't reconcile them. "In hindsight" the blocks of Giano, El C, and Carbonite become "unnecessary" and "unwarranted" (Q4 below)—words that make a trifle of the whole thing. I don't see any expression of regret, let alone remorse, for doing these unnecessary things, so I assume none is felt. If it were like Gmaxwell says, that "We've demonstrated that we know how to deadmin people when there is a problem", then perhaps; but have we? —Of course not. "We"? The community didn't have anything to do with de-adminning Karmafist, BorgHunter, Ashibaka, El C, and Carnildo. One person did that. '"We" still don't know how to deadmin people when there is a problem, and there was a whopper of a problem with this user. Bishonen | ノート 23:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC).

    I imposed a block and made a few hastily-worded statements. The block was reverted within ten minutes, and the statements were mostly ignored. I'd feel regret if the consequences had been more significant, but I don't see how a heated opinion and a few minutes of not being able to edit Misplaced Pages is worth agonizing over. --Carnildo 01:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

    Ignored? Surely you must be aware of how far from ignored they were by the people they were directed at. One of the people you blocked, El C, was desysopped in consequence of his outraged reaction to your block and your block reason. Another, Giano, as you can see, still feels insulted and upset at the way you described him. There was a human cost. I'm sorry to see you counting only the arithmetic: a few minutes of not being able to edit. Bishonen | ノート 01:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC).

    For the sake of historical accuracy - Jimbo desysopped those admins after conferring with the arbitration committee (those members who were available at that hour; Minspillage, myself, and one or two others I think). So, I think it's unfair to say the community didn't have a say in the matter - their represenatives, the arbcom, did. Raul654 17:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

26. Oppose per all, mainly. Try again in a little while and let the situation that occurred a little while ago neutralize. —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
27. Oppose. Protecting the idea of freedom of speech is an admirable thing to do, but blocking people for something they might do but have not done is not. Yamaguchi先生 00:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
28. Oppose At this time, simply still too much controversy.--MONGO 02:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
29. Oppose After exhibiting such behavior as the user has, I do not think there is any way the community can ever trust or hand this editor the mop again. -M 02:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
30. Oppose. I'd have voted to support if Carnildo had apologized, because everyone makes mistakes in the heat of the moment, but I see from Giano's comment above that he didn't apologize. We lost Carbonite, one of the editors Carnildo blocked and who was one of our best editors and admins, because of that situation. SlimVirgin 07:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

    For the historical record, Carbonite announced his departure and requested voluntary desysopping before he was blocked by Carnildo. The ongoing controversy may have contributed to his leaving, but not the block itself. NoSeptember 14:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

    Carbonite announced he was leaving because of the row over the pedophile userbox, then an hour later Carnildo blocked him indefinitely, which didn't exactly persuade him to return. As Carbonite said: "When I left, I hadn't yet been blocked by Carnildo for 'hate speech'. This is yet another reason why I see very little reason to consider coming back ..." SlimVirgin 18:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

31. Oppose, its too early now. Maybe in future. --Terence Ong 08:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
32. Oppose per above. --Masssiveego 09:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
33. Oppose --Thumbelina 13:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
34. Oppose per Bishonen. --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
35. Strong and Permanent Oppose While I wasn't involved in the wheel warring and such around the previously discussed issue, I agree that the incident came close to permanently harming Misplaced Pages. As such, it will take a lot of time and supporting evidence for me to ever consider supporting Carnildo to again be an admin.--Alabamaboy 16:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
36. Oppose. The misuse of admin powers was very bad, and I also have deep concerns about past disagreements between us. Everyking 20:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
37. Oppose as above. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 23:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
38. Strong Oppose. In my opinion, all of the people who engaged in that petty wheel war and who lost their adminship because of it don't deserve it again. Mo0 23:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
39. Strong Oppose people who blatantly abuse their admin tools (and do so seriously enough to get desysopped by arbcom, which is IMHO far too slow to desysop abusive admins) should never be trusted with the honour of being an admin again. Cynical 23:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
40. Oppose though I wouldn't say "never" and because people do make mistakes and should be given a second chance if they have proved that they corrected their ways. I'd say an appropriate waiting period would be in order - say, a year. If you show us for a year that you have turned into a person that can be trusted not to lose his head or abuse sysop powers, then I'll vote for you. --Mmounties (Talk) 01:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
41. Oppose. Too soon. Come back in a month or two. Aucaman 02:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
42. Strong Oppose. utcursch | talk 06:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
43. Oppose. Far too soon. the wub "?!" 13:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
44. Strongest Possible Oppose Does not understand the true character of wikipedia and insists on cutting off Misplaced Pages's nose to spite its face. This type of user, who insists on following the rules, is more destructive than a user that breaks the rules to better the encyclopedia. OrphanBot sucks, and he knows it. Just wants to enforce it on everyone to feel self-important. No adminship, now or ever, until he gets rid of OrphanBot and begins to show understanding of what Misplaced Pages is. bon giorno #c 06:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

    The above must be the strongest possible nonsense. Notice how this user has received many notices from OrphanBot, so obviously hasn't the ability to source or tag correctly. *dons flame-proof jacket...* The JPS 12:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

    You like Carnildo. I do not. Your opinion is no more valid than mine. If I've had negative experiences with the user, then I am entitled to an oppose vote. bon giorno #c 17:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

45. Oppose! --Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 15:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
46. oppose per mo0 those who lost there adminship thorugh petty wheel warring do not deserve there admin privliges backBenon 19:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

    Oppose - I'm afraid Carnildo would be too hapy with the delete button, he tagged an image with a fair use rational for speedy and I'm worried he would just delete with no warning -- Tawker 23:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

    I tagged an image that was very similar to Misplaced Pages's largest group of clear copyvio images: images grabbed from news sources and stuck in articles on current events. And in response to your concern that I'd just delete such images, I haven't. I've always tagged them for speedy deletion to get a second opinion. --Carnildo 23:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

    Seeing Carnildo's response with my concern addressed, I have moved my vote to support. -- Tawker 23:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

47. Oppose. SushiGeek 04:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
48. Oppose. Not a suitable administrator, as I am not myself. --Wetman 04:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
49. Oppose: There are so many issues here, so many that have not been addressed, so many that aren't being acknowledged by this candidate or the (surprisingly and blithely overly supportive) sponsors, that there is absolutely no way to support the candidate. The candidate's unwillingness to address the issues that he brought up, unwillingness to disavow future actions of the sort, and the supporters' pretense that all will be well if we simply close our eyes and say that the ship is well steered and all the sheep are safe, are so off-putting as to make it impossible to support, impossible to engage in dialogue here which should have been entered into elsewhere, or even consider agreeing. No: all is not well. No: it is no harm, no foul. No: the system has not healed itself. No: the candidate hasn't shown any promise to never cause similar crises. Geogre 14:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
50. Oppose and I think this is my first RFA oppose. To be granted adminship barely 6 weeks after being de-sysopped makes a mockery of behaviour standards. Particularly so that he doesn't appear to have acknowledged fault or guilt. -- Ian ≡ talk 03:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
51. OPPOSE MOST STRONGLY. The most unsuitable candidate for adminship I have ever voted on. Carnildo is one of the most unhelpful, destructive editors on Misplaced Pages. I have yet to see him make one positive contribution to our work as he prefers to snipe and tear down others' work. When one asks him for explanations or tries to address issues he raises he simply ignores others. The fact he has been stripped of adminship only weeks ago shows how wrong this candidacy is. PedanticallySpeaking 17:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

    I can't say I'm surprised here. I've objected to at least six of his featured article candidates, some of them repeatedly, for haveing serious image copyright problems. --Carnildo 20:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

    Even now - you just don't get it do you? Giano | talk 20:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

    I think I get it quite well. Some of the people here are objecting because I was de-adminned. Some are objecting because I blocked you. And at least three of them are objecting becuase of my work with image copyrights. --Carnildo 05:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

52. Per Taxman, above. KillerChihuahua 17:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
53. Oppose. With the issues raised in the arbcom case I lost trust in Carnildo. I haven't interacted much with him since, but I have seen nothing the has caused me to reevaluate this lack of trust. Thryduulf 22:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
54. Oppose - while Carnildo does good work, the lack of an apology and any contrite feelings makes me think now is not the time. Indefinitely blocking of well-known contributors is a big deal; we can forgive and forget, but the first step in that is recognizing your mistakes. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
55. Oppose, after thinking about this for a while, there needs to be a great deal of caution when dealing with users who have been desysopped in the past, especially when it occured in a way as spectacular as the way his desysopping happened; and even then, it is still too soon to sufficiently regain the community's trust. Perhaps later. Titoxd 02:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
56. I agree that some of the broader issues that pertain to the pedo-userbox event are complex. But there are important things about it that are simpler. On February 5th, Carnildo unilaterally banned three veteran users "for hate speech and inciting attacks", because they supported the blocking of individuals describing themselves as pedophiles. It seems that he acted this way out of a concern for protecting the freedom, such as it is, of people to edit and use the features of the encyclopedia without fear of sanction for what "they are (in this case, being pedophiles)."

    I will not say anything about the wisdom of trying to protect the freedom of people to say things by banning some people who simply said things. I am also not interested in here discussing what the encyclopedia's policy on (self-described) pedophile editors ought to be. We are here to consider Carnildo's use of administrative permissions.

    Carnildo blocked Giano at 22:41, Feb 5th. He notified Giano of the block two minutes later. In the ArbComm case, he admits he "probably shouldn't have blocked Giano", because Giano's opinion didn't "seem quite as extreme as that of the other two", and because as a non-sysop, Giano couldn't possibly have acted to block someone—he had just expressed an opinion that (self-described) pedophiles should not be welcome on Misplaced Pages. Despite this admission, however, Carnildo has not once, to my knowledge, indicated remorse for what he had done or apologized to Giano. To this day, Giano's talk page has precisely one edit by Carnildo—the block notification. Ie, not only was the block placed with no prior attempts at clarification, discussion, or warning, Carnildo has not stopped by to try to discuss the issue with Giano, despite admitting he may have erred. On this RFA, he once more admits that the "blocking Giano and El C was unwarranted". Unfortunately, his statement to Bishonen suggests a rather extraordinary indifference to the harm he caused.

    Carnildo's interactions with Carbonite and El C are of a similar quality: sudden bans with no prior discussion or warning, and virtually no meaningful or mature attempts at discussion or conciliation. In trying to look at this through Carnildo's eyes, I can see that the situation with Carbonite is a bit complicated. Carnildo probably sincerely feels that he acted essentially appropriately wrt Carbonite, who unlike El C and Giano had blocked someone for a reason Carnildo sees as wrong. However, this does not excuse the manner in which he banned Carbonite. This misuse of the block permission, and an inconsiderate manner in dealing with those whose views he does not share, is a common thread in Carnildo's actions in this incident. In the light of the preceding, I cannot support this RfA. —Encephalon 21:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

57. Strong Oppose Simply put, Carnildo is a bully. No bully should ever be allowed near Misplaced Pages, let alone admin tools. Give it a few months, and a change of perspective and this vote total may change though, he's done alot. Heck, I of all people should know how ugly these things are, and how everyone should be given the chance to redeem themselves if they want it. Karmafist 23:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

I think that users who raise objections based on image copyright status should be ready to reply to the uploaders and to comment possible changes on the image tags. Specially when uploaders politely ask them to do so. I did that with Carnildo, when he raised objections to the copyright status of pictures I uploaded. He said nothing. Therefore, I am neutral in this voting, I hope I'm not being unfair, If someone shows that I am being unfair, I'll change my stance. Afonso Silva 23:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

1. Neutral. I have no qualms about his fine work with images, but it's a little too soon since earlier incidents. — Rebelguys2 02:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

   Neutral - haven't seen enough to convince me yet to support - but have no good reason to vote oppose either (other than the actions that started the RfAr)- so I'll stay lukewarm for now and observe Trödel 03:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC) changed view to support Trödel 12:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

   Neutral. I very much want to support based on Carnildo's image work. I have the strongest possible disagreement with anyone voting oppose on that basis. But I can't support; his blocks were quite awful, and there is a rather casual attitude taken toward them in Q4 below. I do not trust this user with the Block button. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

2. Neutral because there are strong arguments both for (forgiveness, that you did what you thought was right for the right reasons) and against (a pretty damning ArbCom finding, using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, reapplying too soon). I think you would have been better off waiting a few months to let memories fade, personally. --kingboyk 11:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
3. Neutral while I thought Carnildo was great when I first got to know him, but as I read over time, maybe Carnildo is better suited to not have the mop. User:Zscout370 22:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
4. Neutral. Too soon after the pedophilia controversy. I am not voting oppose because I was not involved in the controversy myself. JIP | Talk 06:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
5. Neutral Ultimately this is still a human endeavor and mistakes are made. Still it is very soon after the incident.....--Looper5920 07:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
6. Neutral; it's just too early to make him admin again. Will support if nominated again after a couple of months. - Liberatore(T) 13:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
7. Neutral. I might be willing to give him another chance later, but right now it's still too controversial. --Alan Au 22:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
8. Neutral. A good user with a rather large spot on his/her record now. Probably needs more time to prove trustworthyness again. Jedi6-(need help?) 07:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
9. Neutral (moved vote from oppose) I am for giving people another chance, and Carnildo has a stellar track record before the incident in question, not to mention his work with the images. Nonetheless, a little more time is needed to let this situation cool over. He has my unequivocal support in a future nomination. --Jay(Reply) 21:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• Edit summary usage: 98% for major edits and 99% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 22:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• See Carnildo's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.
• A comment I'm going to repeat sans vote on the re-RfAs of everyone the arbcom desysops: I would strongly urge that people would consider their decisions to accept or reject a re-request without holding the arbcom decision against the candidate. That is, suppose the person asking for adminship again had done exactly the same admin actions, but hadn't been taken to arbcom: what would you think about that person retaining admin status? I don't think a second request can be handled fairly otherwise. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  I believe that the arbcom decision counts agains the candidate. He was judged by his peers, and the findings of fact weigh against him heavily. If he had not been subject to arbcom sanction, I would presume him innocent and judge accordingly. - Richardcavell 03:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  You are one of his peers, too. I don't think an arbcom decision should be any more damning than the evidence which led to it. If you have looked for yourself at the evidence that we looked at and think you should oppose, then do so; if you don't, then don't. If we wanted to say "Carnildo is desysopped and may not reapply for 6 months/may never reapply", we would have said that; instead we left it open. These comments are my response to those who complain that arbcom desysoppings unfairly prejudice future RfAs or are equivalent to permanent desysopping; that's not their intent. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  As one of those who feels that an Arbcom desysopping is tantamount to a permanent desysopping in most cases, I would point out that the current RfA culture is to focus on one defect in a candidate and magnify that into a spate of oppose votes. Clearly an Arbcom decision will fit neatly into that culture to deny anyone desysopped from being resysopped. Since many current admins could not succeed in a forced reapplication at RfA, it must be said that it is Arbcom that is making the primary decision of who is and who is not an admin whenever it makes a desysop decision. NoSeptember 11:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  To be honest, I don't see anything wrong with that. If someone has abused admin tools badly enough to get desysopped by arbcom, why should they get immediately resysopped without so much as apologising for the misconduct? Cynical 19:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Information on applications for readminship: (List of reapplications)
• As I see it, he displayed poor judgement by blocking people who were expressing their opinions on an appropriate talk page (whether the opinions were correct or not is irrelevant). He was deadminned, tried, and sentenced to two weeks further deadminship. He's served that sentence. As far as I'm concerned, that whole incident is over. The question is, given his contributions to Misplaced Pages before that incident, and since, should he be an admin? My answer to that question is in my vote above.-gadfium 04:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Mindspillage, you are perhaps the most fair-minded and just member still sitting on the Arbcomm. I respect your efforts to try and keep voters' minds open on this and other cases of defrocked admins' reapplications. In this case, though, to answer your request-Even if Arbcomm or Jimbo had taken no action against Carnildo, and Giano had filed an Rfc against him, I would have signed on with Giano. Immediately after the incident, before Arbcomm took any action, I called on Carnildo to apologize and offer his resignation. He did neither. His responses to the questions below show the same callous arrogance and self-righteousness which led him into this situation. It is eerie how many of the the reasons for opposing in Carnildo's original, successful Rfa, were proven correct. If we are to not judge him on his ACTIONS as admin then on what? That GIANO and I agree 100% on this also says something. I very seldom oppose Rfa candidates. I'd rather vote for those few who I feel will make good admins rather than use the brutal math of consensus here, to shoot someone down. That is far too easy, since a single oppose vote is worth 3 supports. Until now, I've only voted oppose 3 times. One of them, I'm proud to say, was Freestylefrappe. I've noticed some interesting parallels in his attitudes and behavior with that of Carnildo--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 03:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • With respect, I think this is exactly Mindspillage's point. You are looking at the evidence and forming your own decision without reference to the AC decision. This is commendable. Sam Korn 23:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm glad we are on the same page, more or less. I'm not out to "get" Carnildo. I just don't see where he needs or deserves reinstatement at this point in time (as per my reply to Mr. Gerard above). I agree with you and Mindspillage, each case should be decided on its own merits.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 06:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages in this capacity. Please take the time to answer 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. Deleting no-source and no-license images and other image CSDs. Explaining to people why their no-source or no-license image was deleted (much easier if I can check the deleted image description page to say "You uploaded it on the 7th without any indication of where it was from, it was tagged on the 13th by User:Joe Bloggs, my bot removed it from the article on the 18th, and it was deleted by User:SomeAdmin on the 21st"). Right now, all I can do is point to the image use policy and refer the user to the admin who deleted the image.

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

A. The increased focus on image copyright problems. I can't take all the credit, but there was a definite increase in attention on the subject after I started objecting to the majority of Featured Article candidates as having problems with the images.

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. Most recently? Sam Spade and others who disagree with my use of OrphanBot to remove no-source and no-license images from articles. Most of the time, the people doing the objecting don't know about Misplaced Pages policy, and it's really quite funny ("Such sabotage is a criminal waste of my time!", "...the site administrators will be immediatly contacted so they can make sure that it never terrorizes again!", etc.) and I simply point out the sections of the image use policy that they've missed when uploading images.

Sam Spade and a few others, however, seem to be objecting to Misplaced Pages policy, and I'm getting complaints simply because I'm the most visible agent of enforcement. I'm not sure what to do about this, other than to respond to any sensible complaints, ignore the ones that aren't sensible, and insulate my bot against efforts to interfere with it. --Carnildo 21:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

4. Could you please give us your take on what happened during the incident(s) that led to your desysopping? (And of your thoughts on the matter now?) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The timeline of events from my point of view:

1. I'm going through my watchlist, and I check the Administrators' Noticeboard. The first thing I see is Carbonite announcing he had banned someone who he considered to be a pedophile on the grounds of "your kind isn't welcome here", and that he would block anyone else he found that met his criteria for being a pedophile. Giano and El C express vehement agreement.
2. Reading through the ensuing uproar, I find no evidence that any of them stating that they will not follow through on efforts to kick suspected pedophiles off Misplaced Pages.
3. To prevent any further blocks or harassment of users suspected of being pedophiles, I blocked Carbonite, El C, and Giano indefinitely, with an offer to unblock if they reconsider their views.
4. Since the block is about as controversial as can be, I announce it on the Administrators' Noticeboard, with the intention of unblocking if there's significant objection. The blocks are very quickly undone.
5. As everyone had been unblocked, there was no reason for me to stick around, so I went off to my uncle's house to watch the Superbowl and cool off.
6. At some point, Jimbo steps in, and, in order to stop the wheel wars going on, de-admins the only person involved who has not wheel warred, and who has not been within ten miles of their computer for the past few hours. I find this pretty funny, actually.

In short, what I saw from my point of view was one user announcing that he would engage in a campaign of harassment against other users, and two other users expressing agreement with this, using wording that indicated they would join in.

In hindsight, blocking Carbonite was unneccessary, as he had already left Misplaced Pages, and blocking Giano and El C was unwarranted, as they had not actively engaged in banning people.

5. What will you, as admin, do for the project that no other admin will do?

Nothing. I'm hardly indispensible to the project.

However, there are a number of tasks that I've done in the past that there aren't presently enough admins doing. Category:Images with unknown copyright status, for instance, has a one-week backlog.

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 talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Laurascudder

final (87/0/1) ending 20:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Laurascudder (talk · contribs) – Laura has been a Wikipedian since August 2004, and has made over 3600 edits. Her edits have been mainly on articles, which have been about a variety of subjects. A significant proportion of her edits have been on talk pages (including user) where she is helpful and civil. Laura already carries out tasks that are administrative in nature, such as participation in projects, reversion of vandalism, and translation. A recent practical example of her abilities was that she was largely responsible for taking an article (Adriaen van der Donck) from scratch to featured article status in fairly quick time, which I think requires not just good writing and editing skills, but also a good understanding of policies and guidelines, and a strong ability to cooperate with others. Alan Pascoe 23:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept. — Laura Scudder ☎ 17:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Haven't really interacted with her but I've seen her work on articles and with newbies and have been impressed. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 20:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
2. Support Sure; seems like a good editor who remains civil. joturner 20:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
3. Support Excellent editor with a long wiki-career and obvious devotion to the project. Xoloz 20:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
4. I see no reason to oppose this user. I have had limited interaction, but in those times have always felt respect for and from her. No need to thank me with a standardized thank you. Good luck. Support. --LV 20:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
5. Support I know her from Wikibooks. She's definitely admin material.--Shanel 21:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
6. --Jaranda 21:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
7. Support, because of my experiences with her. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
8. Support looks good. Excellent, civil editor. ¡Dustimagic! 22:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
9. Support. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
10. Support.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 23:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
11. Support Joe I 23:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
12. Support Moe ε 00:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
13. Support Fantastic editor. Chairman S. 00:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
14. Support. Looks good. — Rebelguys2 02:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
15. Support I believe that 20 months more than qualifies her for adminship. --Jay(Reply) 02:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
16. Support A helpful physics user, always answering questions. I like her. -lethe 03:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
17. Support Good! Prodego 03:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
18. Support Excellent candidate. - Richardcavell 03:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
19. Support--Jusjih 03:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
20. Support; likely to be a superb and cool-headed admin. I especially like the way she handled herself at Talk:Highland Park, Texas. Antandrus (talk) 04:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
21. Support - wonderful user. --HappyCamper 04:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
22. Support of course --rogerd 05:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
23. Support per above. --Khoikhoi 05:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
24. Support excellent editor & communicator. ×Meegs 05:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
25. Support, no reason to oppose. Titoxd 06:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
26. Support Gizza 07:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
27. Support, looks OK to me. JIP | Talk 09:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
28. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 13:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
29. Support A good contributer to Misplaced Pages. --Siva1979 14:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
30. Support per above.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 15:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
31. Support per above. –Joke 16:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
32. Support. Seems like a quality candidate. -Colin Kimbrell 20:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
33. Support - looks like a great user to me -- Tawker 22:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
34. Support --Latinus 23:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
35. Support. An easy choice here. Weatherman90 02:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
36. Support It's nice to see a candidate who shows up just wanting to help make the encyclopedia better, without trying to RC-Patrol-race to the perceived goal of adminship. -M 02:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
37. Support per AKMask. A model Wikipedian. Feezo (Talk) 04:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
38. Support No reason to oppose, perfectly good user. -- Patman2648 21:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
39. Support —Quarl 2006-03-22 05:36Z
40. Support Intelligent and pleasant. Does good work on articles for deletion. Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
41. Support. --Alan Au 06:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
42. More like this candidate please!™ Support ++Lar: t/c 06:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
43. Support see no evidence that this nominee will abuse admin tools--MONGO 06:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
44. Support --Ancheta Wis 08:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
45. Support - strong user, should make a fine admin. ProhibitOnions 08:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
46. Support --Terence Ong 08:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
47. Support per what they said. Hiding talk 09:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
48. Distinct support. +sj + 10:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
49. Support I can remember hearing one of her (if there are more than one) spoken articles. Should make a fine admin. -- WB 11:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
50. Support, for future services to vandalism patrol Deizio 11:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
51. Support - Liberatore(T) 13:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
52. Support,great job. pschemp | talk 14:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
53. Support Great work, no reason not to. OhNoitsJamie 21:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
54. Support per above, and answers to my questions --Masssiveego 21:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
55. Support. youngamerican (talk) 21:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
56. Support —Wayward 21:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
57. User:Go for it!/Vote Support seems sensible. Good candidate. Has my vote. --Go for it! 23:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
58. Support Looks good! mmeinhart 23:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
59. Support. I've only seen good editing from her. - Taxman 00:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
60. Support. the wub "?!" 00:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
61. Support. Looking good to me! --Mmounties (Talk) 01:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
62. Support - Sango123 (e) 02:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
63. Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 02:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
64. Support Bucketsofg 06:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
65. Strong support per nom and everyone else! - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 08:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
66. Strong support - Having known Laura IRL for nearly twelve years, I can vouch for her incredible even-temperedness and unflappability, her keen sense of fairness, and her incredible analytical intellect. She's incredibly dedicated to Misplaced Pages and the pursuit of knowledge in general, and I honestly can't think of a better person to help further the Wiki cause. Strong support from me! aibarr 10:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
67. Support: Ahonc (Talk) 14:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
68. Support. Edit history looks good, see no reason for concern. Jayjg 22:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
69. Support A pointless pile-on support, with the standard Rfa comment #1: Youre not one already? We should {{sofixit}}. KillerChihuahua 11:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
70. PILE-OOOOOOOOON!!! Will make a stellar admin. bd2412 T 16:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
71. Support. -- DS1953 17:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
72. Support. — FireFox • T
73. Support. Hall Monitor 21:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
74. Support. All experiences have been positive, will make a good admin. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 21:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
75. Support Meets my requirements, 100%. Enough edits and right number of months for me to consider her an admin. CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail)
76. Support--Aldux 11:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
77. Support (though the anon voting "oppose" had a good point). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
78. Support - A breath of fresh air. Wish all noms were this easy. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
79. Unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
80. Support Good range of contributions not just this wiki but several others. Green Giant 06:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
81. Support Looks like great admin material. Nephron  T|C 07:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
82. Support per everyone. Jedi6-(need help?) 07:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
83. Support Go for gold! Brisvegas 10:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
84. Support. Great editor; level-headed and intelligent.--ragesoss 01:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
85. Support - not crossed paths before, but contribs look very good. —Whouk (talk) 08:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
86. Supportizzle per nom. ⇒ SWATJester Aim _Fire! 16:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
87. Support. Good, friendly user. PedanticallySpeaking 16:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose For her own economic well being. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.198.110 (talk • contribs) 06:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Anons aren't allowed to vote Gizza 07:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral Average edits per day is less. Shyam 00:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• Edit summary usage: 99% for major edits and 99% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 20:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• See Laurascudder's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters: