Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:56, 7 June 2007

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 the community consensus and the Arbitration Commitee rulings 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.frank116 wants to be an admin because i want to help

Current nominations for adminship

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

TomasBat

Final: (11/21/6); ended 20:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

TomasBat (talk · contribs) - It is my great pleasure to nominate TomasBat for adminship. I first met him on WikiProject Age of Empires, where he helped me greatly while I was still new and noobish. He also does great work on many other WikiProjects, including Video Games, Welcoming Committee, and Military History (just to pick three random userboxes from his userpage). Apart from the great article work, Tomas is also a stringent vandal whacker, and an all round nice guy. I think he'd do great work with the tools! G1ggy! _{Review me!} 22:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. ♠Tom@sBat 21:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: Well, I would like to lend a helping hand at WP:AIV and WP:RFPP, which would get me more engaged in the fight against vandalism, as well as lending a helping hand in clearing the ever-growing backlogs, such as those found at Candidates for speedy deletion, Copyright violations for speedy deletion, Misplaced Pages protected edit requests etc. Also, another important point in which I would like to focus as an administrator would be that of accepting and declining requests at Requests for unblock; I would like to deal especially with users who have harmed the encyclopedia through vandalism, assuming bad faith, that claim to assume good faith now and wish to be given a second chance, so that they can regain their editing privileges and make constructive edits in the future. Another point with which I would like to specefically deal with these reqeusts for unblock would be that of wikipedians who have been blocked for being to social and making no/extremely few contributions to the encyclopedia, so that they can regain their editing rights if they wish to make constructive edits to areas of Misplaced Pages apart from userspace; a reason for which I would like to specially participate in this task is that of the fact that I have seen sometimes social users being blocked indefinitely without any kind of previous warning, making it all a bit unfair, since even vandals are warned before being blocked... Well, that would mainly be in what I would like to serve Misplaced Pages as an administrator, along with occasional recent changes patrolling, which could become a bit easier with the special rollback function.

2. What are your best contributions to Misplaced Pages, and why?

A: Well, I feel I contributed well to a specefic article, Age of Empires III, which is now a good article and is close to becoming a featured article. Also, I would say that the eleven articles I started also aren´t bad contributions, even though most of them are stubs.

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

A: Hmmmm... Well, we could say that the nearest thing to an actual conflict would be that currently found at an archive at requested templates; I had proposed a template, and it was followed by an eventually series of discussion, but it all wasn´t heated up and the entire thing didn´t seem to cause any stress... (you may find the discussion here). And going into the future, I plan to keep cool on any future conflicts; maby on the link you will find that I didn´t keep that cool, but I learned from that and I plan to be more relaxed when "the editing gets hot".

Optional question from Anonymous Dissident

4. You seem to indicate by your answers that you intend to work a fair bit on dealing with vandals. Could you run us through the process of how to appropriately deal with a vandal?

A: Well, I´ll split this into several steps:

1. When you enounter the vandalistic edit for the first time, you should first of all revert it immediately.
2. Once the edit has been reverted, you should follow it up with a warning, having in mind something like this; or in other words, you must evaluate how serious the vandalistic edit was. Usually, if the vandalism consists of removal of content or something of the sort, then we assume, at first, that it consists of a test edit, rather than direct vandalism, and if the removal of content continues, then we start giving more serious warnings. And if the edit consists of an addition of nonsense, then we start light, but not as light as when its page blanking, but we get more serios with the warning templates whilst vandalism continues. So, in resume, we should select the apropiate template for each case of vandalism, and go up the scale as vandalism persists.
3. If the user continues and continues vandalizing, then we should eventually come to a final warning. Also, it may occur that a certain vandalistic edit may consist of very serios vandalism, where the user is assuming total bad faith; in these type of cases, an only warning should be given; but this isn´t that much of an issue since it isn´t so common, due to the fact tha many users vandalize for fun.
4. If the user exceeds the final warning (he vandalizes after the last, or the only, warning), we should immediately report him (or block him directly, if we are in the admistrative position).
5. If the vandal is requesting an unblock (once again assuming we are taking an administrative role), then we should take a bit of time to check it up; but, usually, these requests are declined, since it is very hard for a vandal to prove that he won´t abuse of his editing privileges yet again. Fortunately, a solution for a case in which a blocked user is requesting unblock is available: Template:2nd chance; this way, the user can prove that he/she is willing to contribute in a constructive way in the future. So, we should offer this opportunity to a vandal insisting to be unblocked and then check how it goes, and finally decide whether to unblock or not.

Optional questions from Od Mishehu

5: How do you decide how long the block should be?

A: You decide on how long a block should be by evaluating several factors:

First of all, we should see if the user to be blocked is an IP adress or a registered user; this is important in further evaluation because IP adresses are usually shared by multiple users, meaning that a certain person could engage on the encyclopedia in a harmfull way but other people who are to use that IP address would not consider such actions, but would end up blocked all the same. So, if the vandal is an IP, then we should usually block him for a few time, such as 3 hours or 24 hours, especially if it comes to a registered computer of a certain organization such as a school, a university, an office, etc. where the IP is even more likely to be shared by people other than the vandal. Of course, if vandalism from the IP persists after the not-so-long block, then we should once again block the address, not for an indefinite peroid of time yet but now for a bit more than the previous block, for instance 48 hours the second time, a week the third, 2 weeks the forth, a month the fifth, and so on. Eventully, due to the shifting of IPs and their users, we should also get going down the scale, going back to a week, then going back up again to a month, etc. Not going to an indefinite block. until it is evident that the person(s) under the IP is/are definitely into vandalism (this such "discovery" may occur before than the fifth block, I used as an example); that is when we should block the IP indefinitely. Now, as for users who have registered themselves an account, then we should, first of all, have in mind that the block will not affect anybody else (except in case of an autoblock), meaning that blocks should be a bit longer in such cases. Then, it´s all pretty much the same, except that the indefinite block should certainly come in a lot earlier if the behavior is clearly disruptive.

To put it in another way, we could say that we go "narrowing" the case until we get to the most specefic categorization as possible, and then we consider the severity of the disruptive edits. This such categorization would be something like this:

• Vandal who has disrupted the Misplaced Pages after last warning with harmful edits (block)
  • IP adress with no previous blocks (block between 3 and 24 hours)
    • IP adress with a previos block (block longer than 24 hours, say 48 hours or a week)
      • IP adress with 2 previos blocks (block longer than the previos block, say 2 weeks or a month)
        • IP adress with 3 previos blocks (block longer than the previos block, say a a month and a half, 4 months, an year, even though it isn´t very common or indefinite)
        • IP adress with 4 previous blocks (block of a month of less, then all blocks to this IP should be between a month and a week, but we may venture into more than a month eventually)
  • Registered user with no previos blocks (block of at least 24 hours, considering how severe the edits were; the block may be indefinite)
    • Registered user with previos blocks (block certianly longer than the previos, may be indefinite)

Also, other factors which should be taken into consideration in general would be...

• If the vandal has had a previos history of disruption to Misplaced Pages
• If the vandal has not vandalized Misplaced Pages for a long time since his/her last block expired or since final warning
• If the vandal has had a previos history of contructive edits to Misplaced Pages

Also, another thing which I would like to talk a about a bit would that of duration of blocks on social wikipedians who make no/extremely few contributions to the encyclopedia. Well, before making any kind of block, we should first check that the user has been warned several times in the past. If he/she has not beem warned, then we should, of course, warn them ourselfs. Now, if the user has been already warned several times, then we should consider a 24 hour block to serve as something like a final warning, or a block of similiar duration, before going directly to an indefinite block. And well, if the user continues not con contributing and still only socializing, then we are left to no choice but to block him/her infefinitely.

6: How do you decide whether or not to semi-protect a page per WP:RFPP?

A: Well, if it is an article, then we take into consideration the following factors:

• If the article has been disrupted several times before.
  • If the disrupotion is intense.
  • If the disruption is constant, meaning that it continually occurs
• If the article is a biography
  • If the biography is constantly "de-neutralized"

And if a user is requesting semi-protection of his/her userpage, then we should first check whether the page has been vandalized before; if it has been subject to heavy and/or constant vandalism, then we should appeal the block; but if their has been no vandalism at all, then we should intend to convince the user that their isn´t much need for such action.

Also, article talk pages could be semi-protected, but this usually should not be done becuase it totally prevents IP addresses from participating on discussion. For instance, Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints may be considered for semi-protection since it is sometimes disrupted due to its articles topic, but in this specefic talk page, many anons participate on discussions there, so it really wouldn´t be a good idea in that case. Also, if we were to get to semi-protect a page, then we should of course make it a temporal semi-protection, so that IPs can re-join discussion sometime in the future.

General comments

• See TomasBat's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for TomasBat: TomasBat (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/TomasBat before commenting.

Discussion

• Interesting, you do know that vandalism is not really a 'fight' right? —— Eagle101 23:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

  Woah? How is it not? G1ggy! _{Review me!} 23:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

  Well I say it is a fight... who knows. But remember, Misplaced Pages is not a battleground... it's an encyclopedia :) Majorly (talk | meet) 23:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

  (ec) People always throw in the word "fight" when referring to RC patrol and reverting vandalism. I don't think that's the best way to approach vandalism, since the term appears to connote a negative meaning (WP:BATTLE), and it may give the wrong impression to a new user. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Support

1. Strong nominator support. G1ggy! _{Review me!} 03:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
2. Support frequents WP:ACID. Seems a good editor to me. So, I support. Anonymous Dissident 21:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
3. Support Seems to be a good editor to me too. --Wikihermit 22:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

   Support as his inexperience shines through, I just know he doesn't understand guidelines/policy or how Misplaced Pages works (based on his comments at RfA talk page). Yet as this isn't s paper encyclopaedia I don't mind granting him the tools. Matthew 22:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

4. Support - The user has been very good up till now and should continue this way..The tools would be good in his hands and I give him Thumbs-up..--Cometstyles 22:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
5. Support good editor. Lemonflash 22:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
6. Support. TomasBat is clearly passionate about the project. I have associated with him on the Age of Empires III page, and have been particularly impressed with his contributions there. I am slightly concerned about a lack of familiarity with the project's policies, but I think Tomas will be good with the mop :P ck lostsword||_Suggestions? 23:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
7. Support I am seen this user around Misplaced Pages and I think that he will make a good admin. Captain panda 23:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
8. Support Great user and seen a lot in WP:AICD and welcoming users too.Arnon Chaffin (Talk) 23:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
9. Support - I feel he is ready for the tools. You beat me to nomming him G1ggy. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδιτоr 00:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
10. Support - experienced enough, as demonstrated by editcount stats. I see him around in discussions all the time and am confident that this candidate has a sufficient understanding of policy. Walton 12:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
11. Strong Support - I'm really impressed with the throughness you displayed in your answers to the questions and in your deep understanding of what Misplaced Pages needs. —Juansidious 05:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

    Strong Support He´s edits have been good enough like to give him a try.--Tom 31 11 16:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)— Tom 31 11 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. BH (T|C) 16:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I do not feel that this user is ready, as of yet, to use the tools, as he is (as per Matthew) insufficiently familiar with policy and guidelines. Soon, grasshopper. Soon. For now, I oppose. DS 23:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose. Good editor, but little evidence of experience in policy areas as per Misplaced Pages namespace edits and answer to Q1. IMO he needs to get more involved in these areas before being given the mop. EliminatorJR 23:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose I think a little more experience would help you a lot. Being an admin is hard, horrid work and I personally don't think you are ready at this time. But I encourage you to try again eventually. Happy editing :) Majorly (talk | meet) 23:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose; not enough experience for my liking, especially in dealing with areas he wishes to assist in. The only policy situation I have experience with him in is where he contacted me because I blocked someone who was violating WP:NOT#MYSPACE.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose TomasBat is very helpful in the project, but I don't think he is ready for adminship. In Q1, he mentioned doing some AIV and RFPP work. Judging from his contributions, I see only 3 edits (2 reports) made to AIV, and no edits at all at RFPP. Given that this user is interested in deletion, it would be best to see some AfD participation. All the AfDs TomasBat has participated in are related to the general scope of his edits (AOE and Club Penguin). These ~25 or so AfD edits came during a two-week period in April. There have been no other AfD edits before or after this two-week frame. My particular concern about AfDs is that if TomasBat wishes to participate in deletion, then he must widen the scope of his AfD participation. Limiting yourself to topics that either interest you or you are an expert on, will not be particularly helpful when you are considering the deletion of articles of totally different caliber (perhaps something historical). The number of mainspace edits is a bit on the low side, and your edits seem to be concentrated on a few particular articles, but that's something I'm not really worried about. However, I do encourage broadening your contributions at the mainspace so that you can get an idea of what it is like to work on other articles, and engage in discussion with other users over topics you are not too particularly knowledgeable of. I think if you keep up the good work, and expand your contributions (in the article namespace and the Misplaced Pages namespace), then you should be fine for another RfA in a few months. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
6. Oppose I don't think you're ready to be given the tools yet, based on your edit count. And your answer to question one was confusing; on one hand you want to fight vandals, while on the other you want to get involved with unblocking users (some of whom may have been blocked for vandalism). BH (Talk) 00:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC) Please Note: to save you some of your time, and to save me some of my time, I will not respond to any comments by users who say using edits counts isn't a good reason to oppose.

   Duly noted. Now please stop making uninformed votes. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

7. Oppose This editor needs more time with wikipedia, and a larger number of good, solid, edits.old windy bear 00:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
8. Oppose The few edits made at AfD did not show a good understanding of WP practice or policy, eg. "Are there supposed to be timelines on Misplaced Pages?" . I hope to be able to say differently after a few months.DGG 03:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

   Oppose You are coming along very well. However, I have a hard time supporting anyone who has fewer edits and demonstrates less knowledge of policies than myself. —Gaff 04:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

   So you won't support candidates with less then 7000 edits? That's a lot more then the expected minimum for most editors... G1ggy! _{Review me!} 04:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

   I was afraid somebody would question my rationale. My edit count is quite high, mostly from vandal fighting. I suppose that I could support somebody with fewer edits than I have, if I thought they had shown in other ways that they need and are ready for the tools of adminship. I am not convinced that this user is ready. —Gaff 16:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

   Essentially, my vote is oppose for now recognizing that in a few short months I could easily support. —Gaff 16:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

   Your rationale should be questioned. If you think editcountitis is defensible, you should make your case in the discussion on WT:RFA. If you can't defend it, you should stop doing it. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

   Take a deep breath and read what I wrote. See the comment refering to edit counts and knowledge of policies? If his edit count was the only issue, it would be an easy support. As it is, I do not think that this user has enough of an understanding of Wikipdia policies or enough experience for me to support there adminship. —Gaff 15:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

   I don't have an opinion on your rationale, but perhaps providing diffs for examples of edits displaying a lack of policy knowledge would prevent the questioning of your rationale in the future. Leebo /C 16:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

   I'll remember that. As for this time around, the diff provided by the user voting directly above my vote left me unimpressed. This Afd debacle has been used by several others as well for justifying an oppose. I am starting to wonder why my vote, which is in-line with consensus, is being criticized now by several editors? —Gaff 16:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

   Evidently, I should have been more precise in my verbiage. Language can at times lead to misunderstandings, such as here. I have recently offered support to candidates with fewer edits than this user. In fact, I typically take edit counts with a grain of salt, having seen users with far more edits than this who clearly are not and may never be somebody I would support as an admin. I did not want to make a huge stink about the AfD debacle several other users have brought up on the RfA, but that was a big facotr in my decision. That occured only a couple months ago and seemed to show a lack of understanding of even what a reliable source is: sourcing sombody's blog is really not that reliable. —Gaff 20:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

9. Oppose per only 781 mainspace edits, and a bit lack of overall experience. But you are well on your way. Gain some experience and try back again in a few months. Jmlk17 06:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

   How are you measuring that overall experience? The fact that you're counting mainspace edits implies that you're taking shortcuts around actually examining his contributions. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

10. Per Nishkid. Daniel 08:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
11. Very Weak Oppose - While I feel you do have potential, I counted around 1,200+ of your contributions were on User Talk pages. While this is not necessarily a bad thing, like other says it brings to question your knowledge of policy - you have less than 500 contributions to Misplaced Pages space (AFDs, RFAs, etc). --Ozgod 11:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

    How does it bring his knowledge of policy into question? I have more User talk contributions than any other area, but it's because I have nearly 1000 mainspace contributions that have been deleted through discussing pages that were pending deletion and tagging articles for speedy deletion appropriately. How does the number alone represent anything? Leebo /C 12:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

12. Oppose - Little vandal-fighting experience (15/past 500 contributions vandalism reverts, with zero warnings given following those reverts, and few WP:AIV reports, when editor is claiming that it is a high priority. PGWG 16:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
13. Oppose comments like he made in this AfD show that he does not understand Misplaced Pages. Kamryn Matika 16:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
14. I'm afraid I have to oppose for now; being an administrator really requires more experience than a lot of people think it does. I'm sure if you just take the suggestions of the opposers to heart, you'll be more than ready for another RfA in a few months. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 17:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
15. Weak Oppose Leaning towards neutral, however my main concern is that you have less than 1000 mainspace edits, it would be nice to see at least 1000 and if you anticipate helping out with requests for page protection and AIV then I suggest getting more involved in reporting there, I think you could definitely pass in the future if you make some improvements. Kindest Regards --The Sunshine Man 17:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

    I could make 1000 AWB in an hour if I wanted. And before I requested adminship, I'd made about 2 page protect requests - and that was one of the things I'd said to do. Majorly (talk | meet) 22:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

16. Oppose, not enough editing experience, particularly with actual articles. — CharlotteWebb 21:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
17. Oppose Your experience is too narrow, and more than half your edits are to user and user talk pages. I know Age of Empires is terrific (my daughter loves it), but it's a great big Wikiworld and you should dip your toes into the rest of the pool. Get some broad experience writing articles and participating in the rest of the encyclopedia, and I'm sure I'd support in a few months. KrakatoaKatie 03:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

18. Oppose based on contributions. Examining a sample of TomasBat's contributions, I found a confusing and uncited addition to Misplaced Pages in culture , as well as adding a rambling paragraph and changing a correctly-spelled word to a misspelling on Wiki . I also found him piling on a user at User talk:AlexHillan, who was blocked once for editing only in userspace and not mainspace. I find the comments Tomas left unhelpful, and he also supported other comments that perhaps were trying to help AlexHillan but which missed the big picture of WP if they were. (I said something worse about that situation here, but I'm withdrawing it because another user informs me I was reading the talk page out of context.) Meanwhile, my sample of his contributions turned up no edits that gave me a positive impression that TomasBat is ready to be an admin.

    Now, that said, I absolutely do not condone the uninformed oppose votes cast by Black Harry, Gaff, Ozgod, and The Sunshine Man. TomasBat has made more contributions than I had when I became an admin, and those thousands of contributions could have easily shown his experience, maturity, and commitment to Misplaced Pages. It happens to be my opinion that they don't, but those who vote based on edit counts have no way of knowing, because they never looked at them. I believe the bureaucrats should disregard those votes, but perhaps that is too idealistic of me. Therefore, I would settle for urging the bureaucrat to not count my vote.

    rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

    I support this idea. Indeed, many opposers simply noted the number. Majorly (talk | meet) 11:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

    Despite the implication, my vote was not solely based on edit count. Please seem my comments above. To clarify, its hard for me to support somebody who is less experienced than myself in terms not only of edit counts (a number) but also in terms of demonstrating they understand the polcies and can handle the job. Please stop assuming that I am some ignoramus voting based only on numbers. —Gaff 15:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

19. Oppose based on unclear style of communication, including at this RfA. The ability to communicate clearly is a critical quality for an administrator, and I am not as of now confident that this editor would be able to do so. This is not an irredeemable character flaw, however, and I would happily reevaluate in a few months' time. Seraphimblade 10:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
20. Oppose per this mess, which suggests that the candidate lacks a grasp on core policies. ShadowHalo 14:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
21. Oppose I think you need a little more time and experience. May I suggest you throw yourself into editing and the work you are already doing, pay close attention to admin related discussions and come back in a few months. I imagine you'll be a shoe-in. JodyB _talk 16:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral per Nishkid. I'd love to support, but there are some significant areas where your experience is lacking. Please try again later, I would support with pleasure. Riana ⁂ 06:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
2. Neutral Editor claims vandalism is a high priority yet I see no significant entries at WP:AIV. I would expect any vandal fighter (sorry about the use of the word fighter, but there we go) to have at least 30 - 40 requests in there, and ones that were approved by the way. Really solid editing otherwise, and as per some editors in oppose, give it 3 months and come back. Sorry I can't support at the moment. Pedro |  Chat  07:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
3. Neutral Looks like a nice person, but if you look at his edit count he had very few or no edits for a long time and then 1000's of edits last month, I think he should try again in a month or two --•Lwarf• Talk! 09:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

   Errr... you're looking at the wrong persons edit count! That's for User:Gaff. You want to be looking here - the edits are well spaced out in fact. Pedro |  Chat  10:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

   Sorry my bad, I would support but he has only been on wikipedia for a few months, apart for that he looks great. --•Lwarf• Talk! 09:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

4. Neutral per Nishkid. I'd definitely support if you work on his advice. Good luck, Tomas. —Anas 14:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
5. Neutral leaning towards Support I think hat I would have chosen a complete support if you´d had made more than on just age of empires three. Any way you have experienced sysoship in many other pages, that´s why, you can help quite alot. That´s why maybe you should deserve a support. --LuC@s BuNcHi 16:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
6. Neutral I have withdrawn my vote, after being accused of "edit-countitis." I thought that I was allowed to have a say in whether or not I felt another user should have admin tools. I'm not going to argue the point any longer, however, exceptt to say that as a non-admin, I feel uncomfortable supporting a user that I feel is less experienced and less knowledgeable than myself. —Gaff 20:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The above adminship 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.

AKMask

Final: (70/25/8); ended 19:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

AKMask (talk · contribs) - It is both a pleasure and an honor to be chosen to nominate AKMask for adminship. To those unfamiliar with him, I'll start by saying he has a long editing history that goes back to November '05, with substantial participation in our project since March '06. Many of you will recognize his name from his regular participation in discussion at AfD and AN/I, where he's a respected and thoughtful voice, often displaying keen judgement at complicated and delicate situations . His continued activity aiding new users understand IP range blocks and signing up account requests on the unblock mailing list, an ungrateful and tedious work, also speaks volumes both of his technical knowledge and his helpful and patient attitude, as does his participation in the #wikipedia-en-help channel on IRC answering questions from new wiki users. AKMask also displays a knowledgeable approach to Fair use, both in theory as proved by his insightful general thoughts commented here, but also through the long, boring, but necessary Wikignomish work of cleaning up dozens of Fair use galleries, as even a cursory look at his contributions can prove . Few of us have the perseverance he has shown in his effort to keep this a truly 💕. All this work, however, doesn't mean he has neglected contributing contents, as Republican Moderate Party of Alaska or Alaska Electric Light & Power, which he created and expanded into the informative articles they are today can attest.
I won't end this without thanking AK for his will to accept the duties of adminship. I have the utmost confidence that his demonstrated abilities will benefit greatly with the tools - just as we all will. Phaedriel - 08:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Co-nom: It's my pleasure to co-nominate AKMask (I had planned to nominate, but he was stolen from me) ;). AKMask has shown a remarkable temperament for adminship, through his willingness to learn about policy, his dedication to performing thankless tasks, and his true desire to use enhance the project. I can attest that he is more than willing to ask for help when he needs it, accept decisions he doesn't like, and seek other opinions and consensus before entering controversial actions. AKMask has been a familiar face to me for some time, and I was surprised to realize he wasn't an administrator. Even before my shock at that was over, my first thought was that he should be nominated for the job. The project will be better with him in possession of the tools, it's that simple. ⇒ SWATJester 01:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I quite happily accept, although I'm blushing from all the nice things said about me :) -M 18:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: I would focus mainly on the work I am doing now, utilizing the extra tools to better facilitate my work dealing with the blocking matters. By this I primarily mean evaluating unblock requests to deny/approve them based on the situation and lifting autoblocks that cause excessive collateral damage after the damage has ceased. I would also appreciate the chance to volunteer with WP:RFPP, evaluating attempts at resolution and placing protection when it seems rational to do so. -M 18:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

2. What are your best contributions to Misplaced Pages, and why?

A: Well, the best contribution in my mind revolves around my clearing of fair use galleries in articles where not appropriate and/or missing fair use rationales. I came to this project from my participation in and use of open source software software projects, so I understand fairly well why we want to use this content only where the use can be defended unquestionably. I regularly look at things as to how they impact the distribution of the encyclopedia to downstream users, and making sure instances of fair use can be held to be unquestionably appropriate so as to ensure the unfettered distribution in all instances where that distribution complies with the necessary requirements. -M 18:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

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

A: Conflict follows wherever people go, so I have had my instances of bumping heads with other editors. In most cases I recognize the absurdity of holding on to a position at the cost of everything else, and frequently use a bit of sarcastic, self-deprecating humor. I find poking fun at my own arguments encourages others to step down from an all-or-nothing approach as well. We can do incredible things when we don't frame the debate as good vs. evil and allow for the debate to take place in a fully amicable environment. When all else fails and I'm stuck in a conflict I cant get to deescalate, I fall back on a user-specific version of the old IAR phrasing, 'When a user makes you depressed or annoyed, ignore them'. There are almost 2 million articles on the encyclopedia, theres no reason for me to stay hung up on one of them, and I go work on something else. The same would apply to administrator actions. From what I hear, plenty of backlogs out there.-M 18:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Optional Questions from Arnon Chaffin

4.What do you think will make a good/bad admin?

A.I'm afraid I must request a bit of a clarification from you on this. Do you mean what would make myself a good or bad admin, or traits I see in others that make them good or bad admins? -M 19:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Explain I mean the traits of them please list them.Arnon Chaffin

A.Thoughtfulness and communication are always good, because it vastly helps assuming good faith when you can understand another's position and explain your own. If Phaedriel has taught me anything, it's that a small amount of kindness returns to you exponentially when it comes to dealing with others, and often keeps things quite civil. One of the bad traits I notice is thin-skinned tendencies. People who let others get under their skin, or quit when a decision goes against them or such tend to be unable to handle stress well, which is never a good trait in an administrator.-M 19:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

5.What does the policy IAR mean to you? (from Matthew)

A. WP:IAR is one of our most important policies. Within it is shrined the concept that the rules lag behind the practice a bit, the principle behind the Be bold motto, and the grease that keeps wikipedia functioning from day to day by allowing us flexibility. In conjunction with Use common sense, IAR can be used to solve any problem you run across when you kick the idea around with others. The other rules provide a handy guide to what others have noticed works when they encounter a situation, and as such need to be respected, but there are always new situations, so there will always be a need for IAR. -M 19:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Sort of idle optional question from TwoOars

5A. Since your answer above seems pretty standard , can you think of any particular instance where you think IAR could have been applied or where you did apply it?

A. Didn't realize it was standard, it was kind of off the top of my head. IAR applies mostly when the letter of the law gets in the way of the spirit. Edit warring with out breaching 3RR is the canonical example, but my personal one is a bit different. There was a user whose name had been a bit iffy for a couple years, it was a British insult to an Irish republican. The irony was that the user was an Irish Republican himself, from Ireland, and was using it to poke fun at himself a bit. In this case it violated the letter of the username policy (no slurs/insults) but not the spirit (dont be an asshole with your name). The discussion ended with him being allowed to keep his name. -M 20:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from Ryan Postlethwaite

6. Could you please explain what this mass AfD was all about? Ryan Postlethwaite 19:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

A. Simply put, I did not believe the pages to be encyclopedic, and noticed that a rather large numbers of keep votes were along the lines of 'it's useful' without much backing. I discovered it about a month after the first AfD had closed, and thought with a better explained rationale, they might be trimmed. This did not happen, the will seems to be that they were encyclopedic despite my concerns, and so I haven't really thought of them since. If the question is trying to get at my reasoning, I assure you there was nothing pointy about it :)-M 19:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Though I support you, I would ask that if you become an admin, that you refrain from closing the AfD discussion if the articles ryan asked you about are nominated for deletion again. BH (Talk) 19:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I completely agree, that would reek of Conflict of Interest. -M 20:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Optional Questions from Arnon Chaffin

7.Why was you banned from the Anti-vandalism channels?(Please explain further and the details)

A. Sure. Just to note here, I requested and had that ban lifted, and participate in that channel at this point at times. We were having a discussion about the CVU in general at the time, and I expressed the opinion that the CVU presented this militaristic, everlasting battle that did not seem helpful. I was also, however, praising the IRC bots that they used, and essjay encouraged me to fill out an app, saying that I'd be able to use them. He walked me through the process, helped me out with questions, then showed me which channel to join, were to submit it, and promptly banned me from the channel and when I asked why he hadn't just told me 'no', he said he wanted some fun. To note, because this incident occurred off-wiki, I don't really want to shove it around, but it is why I opposed essjay's RfB. --M 15:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from AldeBaer

8. Since we all started out as readers of this encyclopedia, I'd like to know what your three (or more) favourite articles are, ideally with a short explanation as to what especially you like about them.

A: Romania, Boris Yeltsin and History of Slovakia. I've been father fascinated with Eastern Europe and politics-as-theater for a while, and all three articles provided great material for late night reading and were incredibly informative. -M 21:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from Matthew

9. When should fair use be used and why? Also, please state your opinions on our present NFCC.

A. Fair use should be used when the article would be severely impaired without such image. Our criteria themselves are perfectly fine for the project, the breakdown with many users seems to be in understanding its purpose. The documents which lay down our EDP do so because we were granted the ability by the foundation to decide if we would accept non-free content under limited circumstances. That there is the key. The content criteria are there to tell you how to add these images when the article requires the image in order to be useful, it's not a list of requirements that you gun for in order to get to put an image in. We base image use on the needs of the text, we dont write text in order to justify an image. -M 07:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Follow up: You state "Fair use should be used when the article would be severely impaired without such image", many celebrities or convicts are possibly not photograph-able, or not easily... do you think a fair use image is appropriate then?

Possibly doesn't cut it. if they aren't photograph-able, like a death row inmate, then fair use is fine. It's hard, however, does not. One of the Five Pillers of our project is that we are a Free Content encyclopedia. Celebrities who don't live on their own islands and are alive should have fair use pictures.-M 07:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from BABOON MAN (indef blocked)

10.In regards to your wikipedia philosophy, where would you put yourself on this chart ?

A. Heh, at least im not getting boring questions. On this one, it very much depends. I have my own feelings regarding issues, but for the most part I'm fairly strongly in the 'let people do whatever' camp in real world politics. The wiki, however, is a project, so that reduces the range of possible choices. Now we're down to 'do whatever you want so long as it improves the encyclopedia'. We then have the issue of the project being run/owned by the Wikimedia Foundation, who have policies, most notably limited fair-use, as described above that some consider detrimental to an encyclopedia. So in the final run down, my personal wikipedia philosophy is 'do whatever you want so long as it improves the encyclopedia and falls within the Foundation directives'.

Comment - Are you asking about his Misplaced Pages philosophy or his political persuasion? MoodyGroove 00:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

Comment - Although this question purports only to be about "Misplaced Pages philosophy," I would not want to see this type of question become ordinary, nor encourage candidates to feel obligated to answer it. I would prefer we get back to issues of character, willingness and ability to engage the community, civility and good and impartial judgment. None of these are politics-dependent. -- Cecropia 16:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

JetLover's question

• 11. Can you explain the 24-hour block you once got? Cheers, JetLover (Talk) (Sandbox) 21:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

A. It was a 24 hr, 3RR block 9 months ago. The only thing in my block log. I really think that's all that needs to be said. It was stupid, I was stupid, it happens. The fact that it only happened once for an editor that frequently edits controversial subjects (originally scientology, now the fair use lists) is probably more then I could ever say about my general ability to let things that don't really matter in the scheme of things go.-M 22:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Optional Questions from Arnon Chaffin

12.Since it has been 9 months do you understand the 3R rule?(Yes/No)

A: I understood it then as well, just got rather caught up in the topic. The whole situation was a stupid mistake on my part, and the reversions got me blocked by the admin who kept reverting it. I was blocked, he was warned, I'm assuming we both got on with our lives after realizing the whole thing could possibly have made WP:LAME. In any case, with it being the only block I've ever had, I believe the proof has shown itself in the pudding with regards to my understanding.-M 22:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment,I'm sorry sir I just wanted a Yes or No so?

And I felt like fleshing it out. Life can not always be distilled to yes and no.-M 22:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment I'm pretty sure he indirectly said "yes" in his first response. Wikidan829 16:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

So I'm asking now do you understand?(Yes or No)

I do, Yes. -M 22:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• 13. What do you think about Category:Administrators open to recall? --AnonEMouse 20:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

  Comment Isn't this RFA over? Wikidan829 20:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

  Reply No. Majorly (talk) 20:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

  A. It's a solution to a set of problems seen in the system, one that is potentially a great asset, but until there are some sort of universal standards for when someone should then stand for recall, it wont be that effective. -M 20:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

General comments

• See AKMask's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for AKMask: AKMask (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/AKMask before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. Ninja first co nom supportSee above co-nom for my reasoning. ⇒ SWATJester 16:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
2. Support as co-nom, happily and without reservations! :) Phaedriel - 19:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
3. – Steel 19:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

   Note: This is a standard "this is really a vote not a consensus building discussion" support. Matthew 19:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

   Think it would have been better to ask them to emphasize? Wikidan829 21:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

4. Note: This is a standard don't make this RFA an extension of the Fair Use Wars support. /me coughs. We could use some more clueful administrators. Sean William @ 19:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
5. Support I believe that this candidate will make a good admin. --rogerd 19:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
6. Support. I've seen this user around a lot and even thought he was an admin a few times. No opinion on the 'fair use in article lists' thing. —Crazytales (public computer) 19:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
7. This user enforces the fair use policy, and I like that. Seriously though... anyone that active on the unblock mailing list needs the tools. Like what I see. Good luck :) Riana ⁂ 19:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
8. Support per answers to the questions. Cheers, Lanky AL_K 19:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
9. Peacent 19:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
10. Note this is a standard I think this ser will make a good admin support, sincerely BH (Talk) 19:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
11. Support per all my questions.Arnon Chaffin (Talk) 22:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
12. Support-Seems to be ready for the tools. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

    Support - all in all, you're a very good editor, knowledgable about policy and obviously dedicated to the project. I've got to say, some of your comments in the Kelly Martin RfC really did p*** me off, I had a fairly serious concern and although you weren't the major player in it, some things you said got to me. Anyway, despite that, and the AfD above, I think you will use the tools wisely. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

    Switch to oppose. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

13. Support - I see no objections. I feel that the candidate's mass AfD referred to above was justified, as the notability of the articles was shaky. --Agamemnon2 20:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
14. Support - If she supports, I support. Mystery message 20:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
15. Support Good answers to questions, trustable user. Good luck Changed to neutral, see below Changed my mind again (last time thats happening) I would trust AKMask with admin tools, and the 3RR I changed to neutral about was 9 months ago, and the admin did it improperly. Good luck! Urdna 21:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
16. Cautious support. Some of your deletionist tendencies worry me, but otherwise you seem alright. Good answers to the questions. — CharlotteWebb 20:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
17. Support, because it's clear that he'd be beneficial to the project. ~EdBoy 20:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
18. Support Adminship is no big deal.--MONGO 20:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
19. Support. Reasonable person, have seen him around in admin-related areas, always had a good impression of him. Willingness to tackle fair-use issues is a plus. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
20. Support User has showed attempts at diplomatic efforts and trying to keep people at a cool tone. Keeping an eye out for other users. This demonstrates that the user will not become outraged with emotion and ban people just because he doesn't like them. I liked all the responses to the answer above. More importantly, being an admin isn't a big deal. I don't feel this user would abuse the tools. Wikidan829 21:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

    Support per above reasons. Whsitchy 21:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC) Switched to Neutral Whsitchy 22:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

21. Support This user has the best interests of the project in mind, should certainly be promoted. GDonato (talk) 21:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
22. Support - per all reasons stated above... :)..--Cometstyles 21:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
23. Support. Good user, but I don't like his userpage – Gurch 21:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

    Comment Could you please explain why user pages are important to Admin?Plus you don't even have 1.Arnon Chaffin (Talk) 21:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

    Don't worry about Gurch. Wikidan829 21:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

24. Support - Looks good to me. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδιτоr 21:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
25. Strong Support - if Matthew doesn't like the guy then he'll make a bloody good admin. Lollipops indeed. Nick 21:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

    So you are supporting because Matthew opposes? Or is there another reason? Majorly (talk | meet) 21:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

    Perhaps there is an unknown statistic that every admin that Matthew opposed has ended up one of our finest. ;P Wikidan829 22:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

    No, that's silly. And guess who nominated me? Majorly (talk | meet) 22:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

    Just a little curious, Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Majorly doesn't seem to exist, nor does it have a deletion log. Cool Blue 23:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

    Try this one. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

26. Yes. Miranda 22:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
27. Support. If a user as fabulous as Phaedriel trusts him with the tools, I can't do anything but support. Regards, —Celestianpower 22:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
28. Support As state above. Good editor. --Wikihermit 22:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
29. Support - good answers & fine track-record. Previous block was long enough ago & things have clearly moved on since - Alison ☺ 22:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

    Support looks like a helpful dedicated user. Majorly (talk | meet) 23:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)Need to think on this one. Majorly (talk | meet) 18:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

30. Support I agree with Majorly. Captain panda 23:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
31. Support Admin tools for an editor user doing grinding policy work as useful as this can only be beneficial. EliminatorJR 23:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
32. Support. -- Phoenix2 03:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
33. Support absolutely, even though I had to deal with the consequences of that mass AfD (assisted by User:Wimt for the last stretch).  ;) — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 03:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
34. Support - I have had nothing but good interactions with the candidate. --After Midnight 03:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
35. Bit foolish thinking he was already an admin... We need more administrators strict on the fair use policy. --Dark Falls 06:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
36. Support. Nothing but helpful and supportive in IRC. Knows policy well. — Taggard (Complain) 07:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
37. Well qualified and helpful. I'm convinced this users has what it takes to be an admin. -- John Reaves (talk) 09:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
38. I'm Moreschi and I approve this message even before Mailer Diablo does! 09:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC) Per silly opposes.
39. Support per Moreschi. No offence, Samir Will 10:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
40. Support —Anas 15:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
41. Support - Nothing to suggest he will misuse the tools. PGWG 16:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
42. Support. I have total confidence in anyone nominated by Phaedriel. Walton 18:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

    Is that so? I mostly agree with you, but not here. —AldeBaer 21:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

43. Support. --Tone 22:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

    Support. Good user, and I don't care about his userpage.--Endo(Exo) 01:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC) User blocked indefinitely. Phaedriel - 13:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

44. Support. His admirable work has forged a name for him on and off the wiki. That is deserving of approval. - Vague | Rant 07:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
45. Support. I trust this user with admin tools. -- Ned Scott 08:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
46. Weak support based on contributions. In addition to the edits highlighted by the nominator, I sampled some of his contributions myself. Here he's doing an admirable job of cleaning up an utterly banal article , here he's doing his best to defuse a conflict , here he's salvaging a neglected Misplaced Pages-space essay from its former crufty, vandalized state , and this one just made me laugh . But I found a couple things I didn't quite agree with. Here he leaves the edit summary "try to sound somewhat intelligent" in response to the dialect word "nowadays" , which I feel was unnecessary, and this edit led me to a dispute of his that doesn't exactly put him in the best light. Reverting with "See talk, I pretty much blew up your argument" is no way to find consensus. I'm also concerned that it's hard to examine his contributions, because many of his edits contain nothing more than an automatic edit summary (and I'm not counting repetitive fair use edits). But in the end, I think the positive aspects of his contributions win out, in particular because all the opposes seem to be based on a social gaffe he made on IRC, which is completely irrelevant to Misplaced Pages. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 09:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
47. Support per Matthew. (Yes, I know Matthew opposed, however, the diffs shown indicate a good understanding of the fair-use policy and its requirements.) The other incidents brought up are long ago, unclear, and in at least one case (IRC) not even on-wiki or available for detailed review. Seraphimblade 10:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
48. Support The IRC issue is a bit concerning but it's not recent and the idea of using off-wiki behavior to oppose or support is tricky and probably should be avoided in most cases unless terribly extreme. JodyB _talk 16:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
49. Support answers show a clear grasp of policy and there's nothing to indicate to me that he would abuse the tools. This appears to be an excellent editor. I can't state how deeply concerned I am about any oppose vote that is based entirely off something that happened on IRC. Misplaced Pages's strength is its openness. Normally with an RFA everyone has access to the same information about a user. Who really knows what happened on IRC? To me this is about as relevant as if the user were banned from KMart for some conflict with the night manager. --JayHenry 20:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
50. Support User:Zscout370 21:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
51. Support - Always pays his bills on time. --Stephanie 22:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
52. Support AKMask has been very forthright with his answers. In particular, I am baffled by why people are bothering him for getting banned temporarily for IRC. I have never used IRC and I never will. I don't really consider it an essential part of Misplaced Pages (though it does come in handy from time to time). YechielMan 23:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
53. Support I think he will make a good admin so why not vote to support him?--James, La gloria è a dio 02:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
54. Support Based on interaction with the user and impression from seeing the user around, and sysop is not a big deal. — Carl (CBM · talk) 06:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
55. Support despite some civility issues mentioned below in the oppose section, i believe you would still make a good admin and your contribs appear good ▓░ Dark Devil ░▓ ( Talk ♥ Contribs ) 12:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
56. Support politics don't concern me so much. I am sobered (maybe) one of the comments in the oppose section, but am otherwise amused by the creativity employed in assuming the worst possible faith. Gracenotes § 14:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
57. Support A great editor. No problems here as well. --Siva1979 15:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
58. Support Your edits are seductive, I mean in the literary sense, because what else could I mean, right? ~ Infrangible 19:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
59. Support, he'll make a fine admin. --Rory096 21:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
60. Support, adminship is not a big deal. Tim_{{critic & speak}} 22:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
61. Support: A good solid editor. « ANIMUM » 20:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
62. Strong support I am sure this user will make a fine administrator. Acalamari 22:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
63. Support - I have weighed the opposes, and reviewed the user's contributions, and feel that it comes out with an overall positive. In addition, I trust the nominators' judgment. Philippe | Talk 01:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
64. Support, seems to be a trustworthy user.--Wizardman 02:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
65. Support - understands fair-use policies, and the reasoning behind them, better than many admins; this is long overdue. I also trust AKMask to take the opposers' (minor, in my view) concerns about civility seriously. (ESkog) 07:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
66. Support, the opposers' concerns do not convince me. --KFP (talk | contribs) 13:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
67. Support, will make a fine admin. —Angr 14:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
68. Support, reasonable and responsible person. -- Cat 16:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
69. Strong Support- His answers were good. He knew what he was talking about. I do agree his demeanor is totally incorrect, but overall he will make a good admin! Politics rule 18:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
70. Weak support per convincing noms over the weighty but not lethal objections below. What's with the last minute avalanche, eh? Just asking... -- Y'a pas de cabale! 22:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

    Just replying, just for myself. I needed to think and decide. Sometimes deciding becomes easier when you're bumping up against a deadline, you know? I have no idea about the "avalanche". Is it supposed to have been conspiratorially contrived or something? Bishonen | talk 23:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC).

    Yeah, that's usually the case. -- Y not? 00:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose — I do not believe granting this user the sysop flag would be beneficial to the project. The user has totally the incorrect demeanor, which leads me to the conclusion that they would not only make stupid mistakes, but harmful ones. It's my opinion, which I know is shared, that this user does not understand our fair use/non-free content policy, or for that matter the recent foundation resolution, this is not counting the fact they're under the impression fair use is banned within LOEs. Nor does this user understand our blocking policy, having made veiled threats previously. Another problem I foresee with this user is that their edit summary usage is low, and when they do use them they give misleading edit summaries, then there's the point they're an edit warrior. Oh, one more thing: is there any need to make repetitive edits to remove images? Can you not do it all in one go? I do believe he is here in good faith and can, if he decides to, be an asset to this project to create a comprehensive encyclopaedia.
   Summary: AKMask has clearly fallen in with the wrong crowd -- and thus fallen on to the wrong path, I do believe that eventually he can become a good Wikipedian... and someday a good administrator. At present, however, granting him the "mop" would be akin to making Cyde a bureaucrat. Also remember that if you're going to enforce "policy" that you must be 100% compliant yourself, otherwise it's just hypocrisy. Matthew 19:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC) (Oppose re-instated per the opposes that are occurring below, a bit too uncivil Matthew 16:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC))

   Note: This is Matthew's standard "this user enforces the fair use policy, and I don't like that" oppose. – Steel 19:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

   It's a standard because I prepared it yesterday? Riiight. Lolipops. Matthew 19:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

   At least he gave specific reasons and actually provided diffs. This is a good precedent. :) Wikidan829 20:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

   And the diffs are entirely uncompelling. Rather, the opposite. AKMask acquitted himself appropriately. The "wrong crowd" bit further supports Steel359's above comment. I've had tanglings with you over fair use in the past. You disagree with our fair use policy. This doesn't make AKMask a bad nominee. --Durin 20:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

   I didn't say they were. I haven't voted either way yet, I was just commenting on the fact that he did look at the candidate, maybe not for ideal reasons, but that he did. His vote was more than "I just don't like him" ;) Wikidan829 20:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

   I note that the "implicit threat of a block" was addressed to Matthew. DGG 03:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

2. Oppose civility concerns. My brief interactions with him have all been negative -- Samir 07:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

   Mind giving us some diffs illustating this please? --Dark Falls 08:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

   Mind giving us some diffs illustrating your support reasons? Majorly (talk | meet) 14:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

   Since you asked.. A brief look at the user contributions will show his strictness towards fair use. Some diffs are , , . If the comment was suppose to be rhetorical, sorry if my tone on the original question was a bit harsh, I was merely curious. --Dark Falls 06:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

3. Strong Oppose Civility concerns are just the beginning here. This user has shown poor judgment, displayed poor respect for other users, and has even harassed other users, especially on IRC. Be sure to see this diff, which shows him as being banned from our antivandalism channels since March of 2006 (this was released earlier this year per consensus of the VCN staff). My interactions with this user, especially concerning channels that are necessary and beneficial to the project's operations, have been nothing but negative. Someone who cannot show respect towards others, attempts to slander a beneficial organization to the project, and resorts to harassing other users, regardless of their ideas, beliefs, or operations, should not and can not be trusted as an administrator on this project. -Pilotguy hold short 14:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

   That's nice. Can you provide an example of any incivility ON-wiki? I think that most people would agree that behavior on IRC should not be poured over into actual, loggable(is that a word?) wikipedia.com. The IRC channel, and the website, are completely different things, and should never be crossed. That's just as good as saying he gave me the middle finger at the store, so I'll oppose. Wikidan829 14:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

   Your still talking to other editors on IRC, if you can't be civil there, then it's not great that you want to be an administor. I wouldn't have a problem with it usually myself, but to get banned for harrassement???? That must have been bad. I'm waiting in awe for the answer to question 7. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

   So I actually took a look at your diff. It's interesting that the ban occured when he was actually a newbie, and not completely initiated in the way this site works. So much for WP:BITE, eh? Wikidan829 14:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

   Not really, I had civility issues with him last month but put it down to a one off, but looking at this - possibly not. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

   AKMask has been here since 11/2005 so that was like 6 or 5 months later.Arnon Chaffin (Talk) 14:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

   Arnon, I think you missed the part right after that, that said he wasn't really participating until March '06.

   To Ryan, diff please? Wikidan829 14:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

   I've been editing on several anon IPs from home, work, wherever I am, for years. I created an account in February 07, didn't start participating in anything until May, and I would still consider myself a newbie. Wikidan829 14:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

   Ok I see now, but anyway go on I waiting for the answer.Arnon Chaffin (Talk) 14:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

   Banned by Essjay, the hypocrite? I am not sure I trust his judgment, esp. after I heard Terence Ong was banned capriciously. My point being, I want users to behave on-wiki and nowhere else, if there is not a single diff to support incivility on Misplaced Pages, then you have not got a legitimate reason to oppose. — Nearly Headless Nick 15:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

   The hypocrite? How about liar? I wouldn't trust his judgment, or credibility. Wikidan829 15:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

   Just to clarify, it was NOT Essjay who banned him, so don't use that as an excuse. See below. -Pilotguy hold short 13:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

   Okay so the link you provided above where it says "Banned by Essjay" is complete BS? Wikidan829 13:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

   You are so naive. If you took the time to read what we're writing, you would've noted that he was banned by Pschemp with Essjay filling out the entry. banned. banned! BANNED! Do you not know the definition of "banned?" -Pilotguy hold short 20:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

4. When we were implementing the change for UAA, we gained consensus at AN, consensus at RFCN and consensus at AIV, we went back to AN to alert everyone that the change had finished, and low and behold, AKMask jumps in and rejects it, . He then precedes to revert all the changes that were made completely going against the conensus that we already had. That meant we had to continue pathetic discussion for more days when we already had the support to go ahead with the proposal. I also don't like the idea of being banned from a wikipedia IRC channel, regardless of the fact it's off wiki, your still dealing with the same editors that you are doing on-wiki so should repect them, harrassment is certainly not a good attribution for an administrator. That coupled with incivility in the Kelly Martin RfC means I now have to oppose (sorry, I can't link to diffs as the RfC's been deleted). Ryan Postlethwaite 16:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

   Oppose- If you read Above I have a question which was,"What do you think will make a good/bad admin?", AKMask say the folowing:Thoughtfulness and communication are always good, because it vastly helps assuming good faith when you can understand another's position and explain your own. If Phaedriel has taught me anything, it's that a small amount of kindness returns to you exponentially when it comes to dealing with others, and often keeps things quite civil. One of the bad traits I notice is thin-skinned tendencies. People who let others get under their skin, or quit when a decision goes against them or such tend to be unable to handle stress well, which is never a good trait in an administrator.-Mask? 19:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC) and which 1 trait was assuming good faith and due to the ban on IRC I will have to oppose.Arnon Chaffin (Talk) 17:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

   I'm staying out of this 1 goodluck:)-Arnon Chaffin (Talk) 14:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

5. Oppose per ignoring consensus and being banned on IRC. —AldeBaer 21:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

   He's been unbanned you know. Not to mention that was in 2006, and he's unbanned now. Whsitchy 21:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

   Then make that "getting banned". That still holds true, doesn't it? —AldeBaer 00:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

   Ehh, I had promised myself not to respond to these, as people are perfectly entitled to hold opinions of me without my badgering them. Just want to note though, that I wouldn't have been banned without applying, and I applied because I was told that my feelings on CVU mattered not for channel access, which is a bit funny when you consider that the reason listed for the ban was 'users who oppose the existence of the CVU do not get to benefit from it', I may have paraphrased the second part a bit, but thats the reason. There weren't behavioral issues behind it. -M 00:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

6. I've found AKMask to fail his own "admin qualifications" as put forth by his answer to Mr. Chaffin's optional question. He is not thoughtful, nor does he possess good communication skills. To wit, this conversation leads me to believe that he does not possess the good natured ability to admit when he's erred. Everyone makes mistakes (myself very much included, hehe), but to act so snarky as to twist around what a sockpuppet is and isn't for the purposes of argumentation is rather silly. I wasn't going to comment, as I thought this might have been an isolated incident, but given the concerns raised by the opposition, it appears as if this fellow does not have the necessary social graces and/or communication skills to effectively work with others gaillimh 22:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
7. Oppose. The incident Ryan flags up above concerned me but not enough to oppose and the IRC ban seemed a long time ago. But I don't like the answer to Q.7, which appears to me less than full. It appears that it was Pschemp who had to kick you from #wikipedia-en due to your behaviour and not Essjay , something that Pschemp confirms . Essjay then made the entry here. No doubt other ops would have spoken up had the kick been unfair and I have difficulty seeing a justification for the harassment of multiple users. The CVU ban makes sense as a result of that. But instead of owning up to this mistake (which was distant and I'm sure the community would have overlooked it) you decide instead to blame Essjay of somehow misleading you into applying, when he is no longer around to defend himself. That I find highly problematic. WjBscribe 04:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

   Frankly, because I did nothing wrong. Pschemp kicked me for enquiring about why I was led along the application process when a no at the beginning would suffice, and essjay banned me from the channel. I frankly hold nothing against either, but it was some WP:BITE things going on. And really, this was all offwiki, so... *shrug* oppose on it if you want. -M 04:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

   Inquiring in a rather uncivil and brutish manner as I recall. But, you haven't internalised that this isn't about your offwiki behaviour. It's about your onwiki claims. pschemp | talk 14:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

8. Oppose The previously raised issues trouble me, especially the borderline incivility. When I went through this AKMask 's contributions, I saw a lot of good work. However, I also saw evidence of disregard for WP guidelines and policies. For example, I am troubled by this comment, where AKMask states that warning anonymous IPs on vandalism "is a pointless edit that does little but bump an editcount." Does this mean AKMask would be blocking anonymous IPs without warning if AKMask became an admin? I'm also troubled by AKMask's opinion that giving warnings in this situation is merely a way to run up an editor's edit count. Don't get me wrong--I don't believe that endless warnings need to be given to anonymous IPs and if someone wants to wait to warn an anonymous IP only after that IP makes more than one vandalism edit, that's ok (I've done that myself). But to state that such warnings are pointless and merely to run up an edit count is wrong. Another concern is raised here, where AKMask reverted an edit by an established editor (User:Minderbinder) and called that editor a "blatent vandal." When AKMask was asked about this, he responded at User_talk:Minderbinder#Revert by repeating that this was vandalism and telling Minderbinder to not "make pointless comments on my talkpage." I am not defending the edit Minderbinder made, but it appears to have been in good faith and instead of being incivil AKMask should simply have explained why the edit wasn't appropriate. --Alabamaboy 14:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

   I think you are poorly interpreting his "anonymous warning" message. I think it's pretty clear that when he says a "one off experiment" isn't worth the trouble of giving a warning, it doesn't equate to "I'll just block them and be off with it". You seem to be just stuffing words in his mouth there. Wikidan829 15:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

   Also to say that the pointless warning only bumps the edit count, which it does, and to say that he's accusing editors of doing it for no other reason than to bump their edit count, are two completely separate things. In all honesty, I would expect better judgement from an administrator. Wikidan829 15:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

   Sorry to disappoint. The block comment was a rhetorical question extrapolating from his comment; I doubt any admin would do such a thing (except in a few, very limited situations like legal and personal threats). That said, it is not pointless to warn an anonymous IP over vandalism even after the first edit and AKMask's comment definately implied that AKMask sees such warnings as only used to run up an edit count. But I can see how interpretations would differ on this, so people can take or leave that issue as they will. But I notice you had no comment on the other concern I raised about accusing an editor making a good faith edit of vandalism, then being incivil to the editor when questioned on the matter. This matter is further explored here on the Admin noticeboard. As you can see, AKMask repeated tried to drive home that Minderbinder was a vandal, even though a other editors said that how AKMask was handling the situation was "clearly not acceptable." It was this recent incident that made me have to oppose. --Alabamaboy 15:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

   I commend your cool response to what I said. Anyone with a sense of humor would understand that he was just illustrating that such a warning would likely fall on deaf ears, and made an exaggerated comment to illustrate this. As in, it would give the user a warning and increase your edit count. Without the user seeing the warning, all that's left is increasing the count. So, the comment appears to be a lot simpler than you made it. I wouldn't look into the meaning behind it so much. Like you said, it can be interpreted either way. I just wanted to make both sides obvious for people to analyze. :)

   As far as the other comment, I didn't mention it because I cannot dispute it.. Simple as that. I'm letting it stand as it is. Wikidan829 18:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

9. Oppose Diffs provided by rspeer ("See talk, I pretty much blew up your argument" and "try to sound somewhat intelligent") may not strictly be incivility but they are the kind of comments that will certainly aggravate situations. The incidents mentioned by Alabamaboy (about labelling Minderbinder as a blatant vandal and the subsequent defense at ANI) and gallimh (about sockpuppets) also make me think twice. Lastly, I agree with WJBscribe about the IRC incident. All (arguably) weak reasons to oppose individually, but together, good enough to oppose. Sorry. - TwoOars 19:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
10. Weak Oppose Majoreditor 19:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

    Hi Majoreditor (cool name btw) could I ask of your reasons for opposing? Yes, I know some of the supporters haven't given reasons, but it's generally considered good form especially for opposers, since adminship is no big deal. Thanks for your time. :) Majorly (talk) 22:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

    My weak opposition is due to civility concerns and bans. He may very well make a fine admin on eof these days; however, IMO, he's not yet ready. Majoreditor 01:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

11. Oppose. I'm sorry. I agree with AKMask's position on fair use, and the IRC thing is no big deal (though Pschemp raises an issue about how forthrightly it has been presented here). But this troubled me at the time, and it troubles me now. We already have a problem with the word "vandalism" being thrown around inappropriately. The "vandal" in question, User:Minderbinder, had a long history of constructive, good-faith contributions. While he was both wrong and stubborn about the particular issue in question, stubborness is not vandalism. Content/policy disputes are not vandalism. On the ensuing AN/I thread, other editors seconded that "vandalism" was an inappropriate charge. I guess we can't stop the user on the street from using the V-word inappropriately, but I'd expect more from an admin. So who cares? Why are incorrect charges of vandalism a problem? Because a) they show a lack of familiarity with a vital policy, b) labeling something "vandalism" puts the vandal beyond the pale and frees the opposing editor to disregard 3RR, potentially block the "vandal", etc and so should never be misused as a lever in a content/policy dispute, and c) it harms the good-faith contributor who's mistakenly labeled a vandal (I haven't seen Minderbinder around recently). I think this user's made a lot of good contributions, but I can't support someone for adminship if they misapply the vandalism policy and refuse to admit their mistake when called on it. MastCell 23:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

    Comment So just because someone has had some minor incivility issues he can't become an admin? That seems a little tough. You have to remember that we are humans and we all make mistakes. Also I have seen no major incivility issues with this person and I know from talking with him on IRC that he can be civil. Forgive and forget.--James, La gloria è a dio 04:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

    I think you've misunderstood my reasons for opposing. I think AKMask's civility is adequate if not exemplary, and the IRC thing is old news and doesn't bother me (though a more forthright presentation of it in Q3 would have been nice). I'm talking about a recent (< 1 month ago) episode in which a fundamental policy was misused as a lever in a content/policy dispute, and worse, AKMask refused to admit he'd made a mistake when called on it. I consider those are red flags for entrusting someone with the block/protect/delete buttons. There are plenty of good reasons to support his candidacy, which are detailed in the noms and support votes, but that's a deal-breaker for me. Nothing to do with civility, ancient history, etc. MastCell 16:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

12. Oppose. I won't address the block for violating 3RR and being banned from IRC as I consider those "old news". However, a few recent edits worry me. None of them individually would make me oppose, but taken together they prevent me from supporting. They are: this overly hostile edit summary telling someone to "try to sound somewhat intelligent"; this edit summary involving an inappropriate label of "blatant vandal"; and this subsequent discussion where AKMask shows no sign of accepting that the use of the label was inappropriate. The dismissive comment of "I'm just giving the process wonks a reason why I reverted his edits when they demanded one." in particular did not sit well with me. I don't know whether these are indicative of a particular pattern of behaviour or not, but since the incident with Minderbinder was only last month, I am opposing for now. -- Black Falcon 00:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
13. Per Gaillimh, Albamaboy, Black Falcon. — Nearly Headless Nick 06:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
14. Oppose - Some of the concerns raised above indicate to me a lack of maturity. Friday (talk) 21:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
15. Oppose(changed from neutral, below) Joe's comment in the neutral section below persuaded me to change. There are still civility concerns. Also your user page is a bit much for my taste. Misplaced Pages is not a webhost for pictures of yourself. AKAF 13:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

    A photograph is clearly listed at WP:USER#What may I have on my userpage? as an acceptable thing to have. —Angr 14:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

    WP:USER is a guideline. This part of the guideline conflicts with the official policy in WP:NOT#MYSPACE. Not everyone agrees with my view on this, and I would never oppose for this reason only, but it's part of the haystack. AKAF 15:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

    From my modest point of view, that view is a little harsh: there's a difference between treating Misplaced Pages as a repository of personal pictures and using one to put a face on one's edits. There are literally hundreds of user who do so, myself included - and many admins, even members of ArbCom as well. Yet, this is a comment on that view, not on your general rationale for opposing, which you are of course entitled to have and which I respect, even tho I may disagree with it. Best regards, Phaedriel - 15:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

16. Oppose I would love to support - someone who understands FU and is willing to do the work is highly valued, and needed. However, due to the diffs and rationale provided by MastCell, above, I cannot possibly support. Calling a productive and valued editor a bv is unacceptable for anyone seeking the block button. And this was no ancient incivlity, but a recent event. KillerChihuahua 14:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
17. Oppose for civility concerns. The IRC ban sounds like a murky mess where AKMask may have not been too out of line, so I will disregard. I do think that off-wiki behavior is pertinent to RFA, but that is a discussion for another place and time. My biggest concern from a civility standpoint is the Mindbender "blatant vandalism" issue. Fair use rules are difficult to understand. As AKMask claims that is one of the key areas he wants to work, its worrisome to see name calling over fair use issues. This is a rather weak oppoe, but several little things kind of add up, and I do respect the hard work the user has contributed. —Gaff 14:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
18. Oppose Admins need to keep a cool head be civil. The incident shown above is too recent to ignore. Sophia 15:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
19. Oppose Overall, as other have said there's no one issue that's a show stopper. But there's been so many different issues brought up here that I think he should wait a little bit. I'm not crazy about the combative and aggressive tone when commenting, truth is, we have enough admins that comment in that way. We should be a little more careful about what we consider acceptable means of communication among admins (and editors in general). "process wonks" is not a meaningful/civil way to talk to each other. RxS 15:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC) (and actually, using social engineering to "get" information and goods is close to a show stopper. That's generally regarded as theft, and admins do represent part of the public "face" of Misplaced Pages.)
20. Oppose. Absolutely not. Simply does not get it, supports wide charters for abuse (Q5). We need less administrators like this, not more. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
21. Oppose on the grounds that he does not appear to actually edit the substance of articles. Skimming his contributions I see a lot of marking articles without refs, a lot of image removal, and a lot of AFDs but very little (at least proportionally) to the substance of an article like adding actual content/prose, adding references, finding free images, or even contributing images. I firmly believe that admins must be contributing editors to the substance of articles and as time goes on I see a lot more admins who don't and I don't think the project needs another one who doesn't. Cburnett 16:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
22. Oppose because of discussion on ANI in which he had falsely labeled edits he disagreed with as "vandalism" in an effort to attack the person making them and to justify harsher actions than he had any right to make. When called on it he refused to admit he was wrong to label the actions vandalism and became quite unreasonable. To be an admin someone should understand basic policies, such as what vandalism is and is not, and work to support them instead of trying to wikilawyer his way into doing whatever he wants regardless of what the policies say. Giving him admin access would just make things worse, in my opinion. This was a relatively recent incident, so perhaps if he reads up on policies and follows them he might make a good admin at some future point. DreamGuy 18:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
23. Regretful oppose. Overall I think this user's contributions are great, and just based on what I've seen from him personally I'd likely have chosen to support. However after going over the diffs provided by some of the above users regarding fairly recent civility issues I have no choice but to oppose. Civility is a prerequisite for collaboration, and Misplaced Pages is at the core based on collaboration. I simply cannot support admin candidates who have demonstrated recent civility issues. Arkyan &#149; 18:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
24. Sorry, but this bothers me too much, and there are other problematic diffs given above also. Please try again in a few months. Bishonen | talk 22:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC).
25. Oppose. Too many concerns for comfort. Zaxem 00:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral. Good user, but I don't like his userpage Changed to support to keep Sean William happy – Gurch 21:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't be a dick, Gurch. Sean William @ 21:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

hehe Wikidan829 21:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice Whsitchy 21:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutral per Gurch. - 68.106.140.79 21:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment Could you please explain why user pages are important to Admin?Arnon Chaffin (Talk) 21:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Leave him be guys. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

#Neutral (changed from support) I just noticed, He was blocked for a 3RR violation nine months ago, this normally would make me vote oppose but I feel that AKMask learned from his mistake and I feel he would be helpful to Misplaced Pages. But a 3RR violation makes me say neutral, sorry Urdna 21:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

1. Neutral While evidence for support is good, evidence for oppose cancels it out. Sadly I can't support, but I also will not oppose. Whsitchy 22:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
2. Neutral I do like most of what I see, but the issues raised above just sorta flatten my support out. Jmlk17 05:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
3. Neutral he has good contribs but as have been mentiond there are civility concerns. I would also like to see a bit more vandalims reversion. -Ĭ₠ŴΣĐĝё 22:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

   Comment If you take a look at the civility issues they are very minor. If someone is a good editor then why should a few minor issues get in the way of him becoming an admin?--James, La gloria è a dio 04:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

   Not that it necessarily applies here, but incivility has a tendency to be coupled with some degree of arrogance, which is definitely one of the things not desired in an admin. DGG 18:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

   and are a couple nice examples of why I wouldn't classify myself as arrogant. Im forthright with admitting I've been stupid when it turns out I was being stupid :) -M 19:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

4. Neutral, both sides make good points. Cheers, JetLover (Talk) (Sandbox) 01:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
5. Neutral, balanced between both sides. Seems like a good editor, but the civility concerns raised above are legitimate, and a bit too recent for me to support just yet. - Zeibura 00:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

   Neutral (Changed to oppose) Per civility concerns. Also your user page is a bit much for my taste. Misplaced Pages is not a webhost for pictures of yourself. Still, it's not enough to oppose you. AKAF 08:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

   haha Why don't you tell this guy that? Wikidan829 16:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

   Jimbo is not an ordinary user, but (effectively) an employee of wikipedia. The picture on his page is already hosted by wikipedia as part of the article on him. When AKMAsk is the subject of a wikipedia article, then I'll have different feelings about using a professional headshot on his page.AKAF 07:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

6. Neutral I cannot recall ever having had occasion to object strongly to anything that AK might have done, and I have generally found him to be a rather affable individual (but does one ever meet a libertarian who isn't exceedingly bright and pleasant?); I find, indeed, much to commend him for adminship. I am non-neglibly concerned, though, about his replies to questions 5 and 5a, from which I apprehend an inclination to IAR a bit too freely qua admin (one's IARing qua editor, and one's acting generally in whatever fashion he might think to be beneficial to the encyclopedia , is quite fine, but when one acts as an admin, he acts only ministerially , to determine for what courses of action exists the support of the community and then to act to carry out those courses of action), which quality is the most pernicious, unfortunately, one can find in an admin. Even, then, as his AK's conduct has given no grand hint of his being likely to rely untowardly on IAR (although his submission that Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/American Airlines destinations/archive ought to have been closed as delete strikes me as perhaps consistent with what I might perceive as overreach), I must, with regret, say that I can't conclude with sufficiently great confidence that the net effect of the project of AK's being sysopped should be positive. Joe 06:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

   I'd just like to make the comment here that despite not taking a side, this is the most thoroughly fleshed out positions I've ever seen on an RfA, and you really deserve some commendation for that.-M 07:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

7. While his edit history is impressive & his nominator is a highly respected admin, his opposers have so many good points that I must withhold from taking either side. TML 23:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
8. Neutral. I asked AKMask a few months ago to lose the image in his signature. He refused; he'd been using the image since before they were forbidden. He's since gotten rid of it, but a wise Wikipedian once said something like if you make a reasonable request and the other person complies, great; if they don't, you've learned something useful about their character. I hold no hard feelings and don't want to oppose because of this little issue, but it does prevent me from supporting this candidate. WODUP 00:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The above adminship 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.

Fyre2387

Final (15/12/1); Withdrawn 15:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Fyre2387 (talk · contribs) - I believe this user looks out for detail and would be a great addition to the ranks of adminship I believe he has the experiance and I think since he helps everyone already he is a good choice for admin status Coallen 13:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:I didn’t expect this, but I’m flattered and will accept.--Fyre2387 18:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)I withdraw the nomination, as it no longer has a chance of sucess and conutning it would serve little. I am truly grateful to all commenters, including the "oppose" section: its always good to learn where one might improve. Thank you, all.--Fyre2387 14:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: Whatever I can, really. In particular, though, Main Page tasks would certainly be of interest to be, since I already do frequent Talk: Main Page. I also do Newpage patrol, so being able to speedy delete pages which fit the criteria myself as opposed to tagging them would be useful. I’d also help out with closing XfD proceedings, particularly Misplaced Pages: Miscellany for deletion. In addition, I’d help out at Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism and Misplaced Pages: Requests for page protection, particularly when they become backlogged.

2. What are your best contributions to Misplaced Pages, and why?

A: Well, any review of my contributions will show a large amount of edits to topics related to Avatar: The Last Airbender. I’ve done some work to improve those articles and a lot to maintain them, and I’m pretty proud of them, particularly the two feature-quality pages (the show itself and the episode list). Though it doesn’t show on my contributions page, I’m also happy with the Newpage patrolling I’ve done. I can’t count how many pages I’ve tagged for speedy deletion, and I firmly believe that’s an important task for Misplaced Pages as a whole. I’d also like to think the help I’ve given at Talk: Main Page has had positive effects.

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

A: I’d be a liar if I said no, and I’d also be one if I said I’ve always handled it as best I could. I'll freely admit there where times I'e said things I should not have. To pretend otherwise would be wrong. That said, though, I’ve learned through my mistakes in the past. For a recent example, I’ll cite the recent debate over allowing fair use images in lists. I rather strongly felt it should be allowed. However, when the community’s consensus shifted to disallow it, I acknowledged that fact and determined to work within the boundaries established. (diff, for reference)

Optional Question from Black Harry

4 I'm probably going to be killed for asking this, however yesterday your nominator unsuccessfully attempted to become an administrator. This alone is unimportant, however he added your name to the list of his supporters. My questions to you are first, would you have supported his RfA? Second, what do you think of him signing your name as one of his supporters? And last, do you think its a little ironic that he nominated you after his attempt to become an admin failed? 19:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

A:That RfA (Coallen's) was...interesting. No, I would not have supported that RfA, mostly for the reasons cited by those opposing there. I'm not sure why he listed my name, although I'd say it was either fraudulent or simply a misunderstanding of the process, perhaps thinking I would support based on our past interactions. Given the interaction I've had with him in the past, I'd be willing assume good faith and call it a misunderstanding, although it was still, obviously, an incorrect action. I assume his nominating me now is because he's just been exposed to the process, although I can't say for sure.--Fyre2387 19:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I assumed good faith too. I would ask though that you try to find why Coallen did add you as his supporter. BH (Talk) 19:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

And looking at your talk pages, I think he nominated you so he could protect certain articles he has an interest in, it also seems to be the reason why he nominated himself. I'd love the nominator to respond to this. BH (Talk) 04:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

If that's the case, I can only offer my assurance that any protections I would do would be strictly according to relevant policy, including avoiding doing so on topics where I may have a conflict of interest.--Fyre2387 04:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Optionals from Diez2 (talk · contribs)

5. When would you fully protect/semi-protect/unprotect an article? (3 part question)

A.I'll answer in three parts, if I may:

1.Full protection: This is something I would use rather sparingly. The strength of Misplaced Pages is open editing, so closing down that editing is undesirable. As for more specifics: the first thing that comes to mind is protecting those pages that are supposed to be fully protected all the time, ie Main Page, Template:Afd, and the like, as described in the first five bullet points at Misplaced Pages:Protection policy#Full protection. While this won't, it all likelihood, be a frequent occurrence by any means, there are the infamous "rouge admin" episodes where they may become unprotected. As for "normal" pages, I would do so in the case of major, harmful edit warring in order to give all parties a chance to cool down and, hopefully, work the issue out on the talk page. I'd probably not give this sort of protection an initial duration of more than a couple days at the longest, but I would keep an eye on the situation and extend the protection if there was no reason to believe things had changed. In general, though, I would never use full protection where semi-protection could accomplish the job equally well.

2.Semi-protection: Still to be used very sparingly, but the standards would be slightly looser than full protection, being that it is a less severe option. The most common scenario I can see would be heavy vandalism from anonymous editors with multiple IP addressees that can't be stopped by banning. Whenever possible, banning the vandals (after they've been properly warned) would be preferable.

3.Unprotection: In short, when the circumstances that led to protection in the first place no longer exist. Again starting with the more obvious cases, this would never be so on Main Page, since it will always have that high visibility. In most cases of any sort of protection (barring those that are meant to be indefinitely protected) I'd prefer that the protection last no more than a couple days, but I'd also avoid too many blanket statements. Instead, I'd look at the pages on a case-by-case basis and determine when to lift protection. When dealing with protections made by an admin other than myself, I'd also consult with that admin on the subject.

6. I'm sorry to ask this (this is because you mentioned WP:AIV), but what is your take on WP:SNOW and WP:IAR?

A.WP:IAR, to me, is basic common sense. Misplaced Pages exists for the purpose of creating and maintaining a 💕. All our rules, therefor, have that as their ultimate goal: making Misplaced Pages the best encyclopedia it can be. If a scenario should arise where they do the opposite, stubbornly clinging to them is illogical. That said, IAR is not something to be invoked on a whim. Misplaced Pages's rules exist as a result of a great deal of discussion, compromise, and consensus by many editors with the goal of improving Misplaced Pages. It should NOT be used simply because one doesn't like a given rule. I'll cite an example I encountered myself recently (this is also mentioned in my answer to question three, with a diff.) In this episode, I was of the opinion that Misplaced Pages's fair use policy allowed fair use images to be used in a list. However, after significant and involved discussion, community consensus was formed than ran contrary to this opinion. Even though I honestly and in good faith believed having those images in the lists would improve Misplaced Pages, for me to invoke IAR and restore them would have been wrong, because community consensus was contrary to my own personal opinion. In regard to WP:SNOW, I'd call that an outgrowth of IAR. Put simply, Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy, and thus we should not be carrying out processes for no reason other than that process demands it.

Optional Question from Black Harry

7 How would you go about banning a user, such as the IP vandals you mentioned in your answer to Question 5.2? 15:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

A:I’m afraid I should have been a little more clear with my wording in that answer. Banning would be applied via blocks. Furthermore, it may (and very often would be) appropriate to block a user without the formal banning procedures, usually for a limited period of time. When it came to anonymous users, I’d be sure to heed the advice/instructions at Misplaced Pages:Blocking IP addresses. In a technical sense, I’d enact blocks as described at Help:Block and unblock.

Optional question from AldeBaer

8. Since we all started out as readers of this encyclopedia, I'd like to know what your three (or more) favourite articles are, ideally with a short explanation as to what especially you like about them.

A:Fascinating question! Here's some that come to mind:

1.Avatar: The Last Airbender-Granted, my appreciation of this one comes somewhat from the work I've put in to it, but that's not all. Its a featured article, which isn't exactly a common thing to see for what, after all, is technically a children's television series. More than that, though, it embodies what I consider one of the true strengths of Misplaced Pages. Here we have extensive detail about a topic that would never see the light of day in a traditional encyclopedia. That's something special, in my book. In fact, my first exposure to Misplaced Pages ages ago (I was reading pages long before I edited anything) was a series of pages about Star Trek, and I remember being very impressed.

2.United States Constitution-This is a topic upon which I like to think of myself fairly knowledgeable, but I can defiantly say I learned a lot reading it. What more can you ask for from an article?

3.History of New Jersey-Much the same as number two. Fascinating article that gave me a new appreciation of just how history this little state I live in has.

General comments

• See Fyre2387's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Fyre2387: Fyre2387 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Fyre2387 before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. Support - The user is very experienced and has been around a long time and I believe can be trusted with the tools but his wikipedia edits is a bit too low and he needs to take part in a lot more of WP:AIV and XfD's as well but apart from that everything else is fine..--Cometstyles 18:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
2. Support - looks like a competent user, can be trusted with the mop. Answer to q1 demonstrates a good understanding of admin tools. Walton 18:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
3. Support I'm impressed. The Sunshine Man 19:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
4. Support Good editor, quite civil and their input on XfDs shows a firm grasp of policies. Peacent 19:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

   Support No big reasons to oppose. You were asked to be more civil in your editor review in Jan 2007 and I have not seen any incivility after that, so I guess you have improved. (And there is a way to know the number of articles you tagged for CSD: although this shows all your edits including your edits to deleted articles, so all of them need not necessarily be CSD tagging. :)- TwoOars 19:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

   Changed to oppose.- TwoOars 05:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

   Support good user, with strong credentials. His answer to my question cleared up the one potential reason I had for opposing. BH (Talk) 19:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC) switched to oppose BH (Talk) 21:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

5. Support - I feel this user is capable of handling the tools. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδιτоr 21:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
6. Support I think the tools will be in good hands. Seems like a level-headed editor to me with a good grasp of Misplaced Pages policies.--Atlan (talk) 22:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
7. Support From what I see, this user will make a great admin. Captain panda 23:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
8. Support, no good reason to oppose. Neil ╦ 09:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
9. Support - no reason to suggest editor will misuse the tools. PGWG 16:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
10. Weak per Y, support per my trust that this user wouldn't inadvertently, let alone purposefully misuse the tools. —AldeBaer 00:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
11. Support Although your counts are kind of borderline for me personally, I see no other reason to oppose. I look forward to your good work.JodyB _talk 16:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
12. Terence 18:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
13. Support Answers to questions satisfy my curiosity regarding policy knowledge, seems level-headed enough to handle the responsibility. Carom 19:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
14. Support Like ths guy's contributions, good plans for the future, honest, wants to clean up the wiki, you got my vote. Cheers, JetLover (Talk) (Sandbox) 21:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
15. Weak support - shows a good edit history thusfar (sufficient experience in project namespace, particularly XfD), but I'm concerned about the lack of civility expressed here. SalaSkan 00:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

    Support I do not see any convincing reasons to oppose him. I'm sure he'll make a fine admin.--James, La gloria è a dio 02:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose, answers to questions don't quite do it for me. ^demon 01:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose I know this will sound like I'm trying to get back at your nominator but frankly, accepting a nomination from someone who had just left this nice addition to my user page is not showing great judgment. Pascal.Tesson 03:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

   I can certainly understand that, and may well do the same in your place. I'd just like to say for the record, though, just in case there's any doubt, that I had nothing to do with that.--Fyre2387 04:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

   I certainly did not intend to insinuate that you had anything to do with that. But it seems a bit careless to accept a nomination without checking your nominator's history a wee-bit. Pascal.Tesson 05:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

   I was aware of some of Coallen's problems, and in fact I actually did consider not accepting the nomination for that reason. However, I decided that I'd like to see what the community's had to say, which is what's happening now. In retrospect, perhaps I should have made a statement to that effect. Thank you for bringing that to everybody's attention; I certainly want everybody to have all the facts when weighing in.--Fyre2387 05:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

   Is it really fair to judge a candidate by the quality of their nomination, or by your personal feelings towards the nominator? – Gurch 10:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

3. Insufficient projecspace participation to gauge familiarity with the relevant policies. Nor do the less than stellar answers inspire confidence. If you do not pass, please try again after you gain some more experience in administrative areas. -- Y not? 13:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose switched from support, per Pascal, and from your answers you seem to not fully grasp policy here at Misplaced Pages. BH (Talk) 21:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose Just too little overall experience for me to support. Get some work done in various areas around the project, and try again a few months from now. Jmlk17 05:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
6. Oppose based on contributions. Fyre2387 is clearly doing some diligent cleanup work, but he lets it get to him too much and doesn't seem to maintain civility while doing it. I found these edit summaries: "Think, will you?", "Idiot.", "What the crap?", "ffs", and the list goes on. Civility is very important in an admin, so I think Fyre2387 just needs more practice at keeping a cool head. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

   Some additional links: Can you read?, Prove it. Oh, wait, you can't. Nevermind, Please learn to read (twice), What exactly do you people not understand? etc SalaSkan 01:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

7. Oppose per Pascal and Rspeers. Civility is of paramount importance for an administrator. A few months diffs of level-headness and you will be ready for the extra tools. —Ocatecir 23:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
8. The above is far too worrying for me to give the tools. We don't need condescending admins. Daniel 01:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
9. Oppose I cannot tolerate incivility. Learn to vent elsewhere, not in edit summaries or anywhere else here. KrakatoaKatie 01:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
10. Oppose Apparently I was wrong when I assumed that the civility issue was addressed after your editor review. The examples given above are too many and too recent to ignore. Sorry. - TwoOars 05:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
11. Oppose For administrators (IMO) civility is just as important as experience, if not more so. Incivility cannot be tolerated. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 09:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
12. Oppose The large number of uncivil edit summaries suggest that at present this user lacks the temperament needed for an admin to be able to relate satisfactorily with his co-editors.--Anthony.bradbury 10:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. He has done a lot of great work but the repeat civility issues bother me.--James, La gloria è a dio 04:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The above adminship 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.

Hersfold

FINAL (15/7/10); Withdrawn 03:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Hersfold (talk · contribs) - I have been on Misplaced Pages for about six months now and feel as though I have become fairly experienced. I participate in several areas of the project, most notably vandalism patrol (including recent changes and new pages), the Help Desk, Articles for Creation, and Motto of the Day. I've logged over 2,000 edits during my time here, most of which are in user warnings and speedy deletion notices. I am quite familiar with Wiki-markup and can build templates easily, as well as being able to help others out with their difficulties with the same. I am more than willing to help people out when needed, and can dedicate myself to a large amount of work if needed. Hersfold 20:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Note: This request for adminship has been withdrawn by Hersfold .

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: I intend to work on removing speedy deletion candidates, the quick reversion of vandalism, and the blocking of those vandals. I hope also to work on clearing many of the backlogs that exist - I have some experience with this from what I have done in WP:AFC - although I do admit I've only been working on that aspect for a fairly short amount of time, I've already picked up the routine and am willing to work on similar areas. Administrator abilities should help me work on the trickier backlogs that exist.

2. What are your best contributions to Misplaced Pages, and why?

A: I completely re-wrote the article at Liberty High School, Carroll County, Maryland, which was suffering greatly from non-NPOV and vandal edits. This was one of my earlier edits, and as such it was still lacking some critical information (such as reliable sources), but I am still rather pleased with how it turned out. I have also done a lot of work with WP:UTM, in tandem with User:SebastianHelm, updating the tooltip codes to make the user warnings more accessible to everyone. Other contributions, which spread over a longer period of time, include answering many many questions at the Help Desk, the {{helpme}} category, and WP:AFC.

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

A: There have been some disagreements - most recently, I created a user notice template for reminding editors about WP:BITE (see {{uw-bite}}), and I had a bit of a disagreement with how it should be used, formatted, etc. Earlier, I had another disagreement with an editor who I felt had been a little mean to a anonymous vandal, whose edit may have been in good faith - the ensuing disagreement led to a few reversions of my talk page. In both cases, I did my best to keep a level head, and I eventually apologized to the editor in the second conflict for my actions. I'm more than willing to learn from my mistakes and admit where I have done wrong.

Please ask me additional questions as you see fit. Hersfold 23:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from AldeBaer

4. Since we all started out as readers of this encyclopedia, I'd like to know what your three (or more) favourite articles are, ideally with a short explanation as to what especially you like about them.

General comments

• See Hersfold's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Hersfold: Hersfold (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Hersfold before commenting.

Discussion

• As of 03:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC), I am hereby withdrawing my request for adminship due to a general lack of consensus. Thank you to all who supported me, and thank you for those who were neutral or opposed but offered comments for improvement. I do plan to make another RfA sometime in the future. Again, thank you all. Hersfold

Support

1. Support, as this user has shown their willingness to jump in and help out at some of the most overwhelming backlogs, as well as a demonstration of skill in the technical side of things and willingness to help others. The edit count will only increase from here!--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 01:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
2. Support - Seems to be a willing, capable editor who won't misuse the sysop tools—arf! 04:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
3. Support why not? Anonymous Dissident 06:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
4. Support, this user looks like he is a honest, well motivated and reliable user who will do all he can to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and Misplaced Pages would benefit from having an admin like him. ▓░ Dark Devil ░▓ ( Talk ♥ Contribs ) 06:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

   That's... a distinctive signature. Riana ⁂ 19:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

5. Support Warnings for speedy deletion indicates edit count would be higher if the warning templates were preserved in the contribution hisotry. Also plenty of reports to WP:AIV. I would have liked a bit more diversity, and less time at motto of the day, but no reason to withold a demonstrable need for the tools. Pedro |  Chat  09:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
6. Support, no reason not to. Neil ╦ 11:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
7. Firm Support 57 AIV reports and 182 Helpdesk edits, amongst responses to {{helpme}} requests and managing to clear out a day's worth of backlog on Articles for Creation? Cheers, Lanky AL_K 17:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
8. Support. Clear and observable dedication to counteracting vandalism and bad edits is evident in the candidate's edit history. What he have here appears to be a hardworking individual with all the right goals and characteristics. --Agamemnon2 17:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
9. Support. User's edit history is sufficiently long enough to determine that they have a good head on their shoulders and have had a positive impact on Misplaced Pages. I see no issues with handing them the mop. Arkyan &#149; 17:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
10. Support. More than enough experience. Errabee 18:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
11. Support - Seems competent, Q1 shows clear understanding of the tools. In response to the opposers, I don't really see why masses of mainspace edits are needed - this user has demonstrated that they understand the admin tools, and has a varied range of experience. Walton 18:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
12. Support From their edits, I see a helpful, very civil and knowledgeable editor. No reason to oppose. - TwoOars 18:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
13. Support He has five months of pretty consistent editing and I see no problems. He seems quite communicative and knowledgeable. JodyB _talk 19:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
14. Support, per oppositon. 5 months editing is great; 650 main space edits is ample. Good luck. —Celestianpower 22:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
15. Support - Nothing to suggest editor will misuse tools, and has shown that the extra buttons will be useful. PGWG 16:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose not enough experience. I'm sorry, you are on your way, but just 650 mainspace edits is a bit too low for me. Jmlk17 07:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose - I think this user is still too new here to become an admin (approx. 5 months of editing - his second edit was on Jan. 5) Od Mishehu 08:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose Certainly a well-intentioned candidate, who will probably make a great admin someday soon -- still, a little low on general experience at this point. It's much better for everyone, including the candidate, if all rough edges are smoothed before getting the mop. Two or three months of solid editing will make this a "no-brainer." :) Xoloz 15:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose too few mainspace edits. And your answer to question 3, while not a reason in and of itself to oppose, is a little of concerning for me (the part where you thought an editor was too mean to a vandal. From your answer it seemed like you assumed good faith for the vandal, but not the editor). BH (Talk) 15:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
5. Very little experience. Most of the user's few edits are semi-automated vandal reverts. —Centrx→talk • 02:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
6. Experience, sorry - you have failed to demonstrate an ability to display discretion, especially in disputes. I need to be confident you can cope before supporting. Daniel 06:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
7. Oppose - I would like to see more experience. Crum375 02:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral This user's doing a good work, but perhaps there's not enough experience yet to attest his preparedness for adminship. Also, there's no much need for the tools as this user's usual tasks don't seem to require admin intervention.--Húsönd 01:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

   Comment - I would point out where I mentioned my anti-vandalism and CSD patrols, but I do understand your reasoning. Thanks. :-) Hersfold 02:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

2. Neutral Seems good, I'm just a little concerned about the lack of experience. In a couple months I'd gladly give strong support; until then, I'll remain neutral. --Captain Wikify 03:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
3. Neutral - Only because your highest mainspace edit is just 6 but your overall total edits is quite good and maybe if you improve you mainspace edits which is below 1000, next time around I will support you :) ..--Cometstyles 10:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
4. Neutral I'm sorry but I'm going to remain neutral for several reasons, of your 2000+ contribs, I think that a good half of them are to WP:AFC, your mainspace edit is low but not bad at 605 and I cannot see much variety of edits, I only see anti-vandalism and no other Misplaced Pages edits (of course this is not too bad!), overall I think your doing great but maybe you could improve on the above factors, however everything else (e.g experience, edit summary) is fine. Good luck! The Sunshine Man 12:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
5. Neutral First of all, you are a great editor. You have done a great job with fighting vandalism so far, keep it up:) You also seem like a all around good editor. The reason why I can not support you is because you do not have enoungh edits here. 2K is not to much for a vandal fighter. I look for a vandal fighter to have 5K or more edits before I vote to support them. I am not going to oppose you because you are a good vandal fighter, and a good editor. Have a nice week and God bless:)--James, La gloria è a dio 13:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
6. Neutral per above; too few mainspace edits. -- Phoenix2 16:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
7. Neutral - I feel perhaps you need a bit more experience. Looks good besides that. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδιτоr 17:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
8. Neutral per lack of experience, doesn't give me much to judge your contributions with. However, you're definitely on the right track - I would support in a few months' time. Don't lose heart if this RfA doesn't work out. Cheers, Riana ⁂ 19:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
9. Neutral per above, please try later in like 2-3 months-Arnon Chaffin (Talk) 20:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
10. Neutral and expect to hgave good reason to support in a few months.DGG 03:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The above adminship 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.

SchuminWeb

Closed as successful by Cecropia 05:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC) at (43/6/0); Scheduled end time 00:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

SchuminWeb (talk · contribs) - SchuminWeb is a long time Misplaced Pages Contributor since April 2005. He is active on several Wikiprojects, understands the ideas of WP:NPOV and WP:CONSENSUS. He's also pretty good at reverting vandals. Kaori 21:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

If I may do so, I am going to put this nomination on hold for a few weeks at this point. So I am going to leave this open and pending for the time being. I am currently in the process of moving, and I will not have the time or the ability to properly take care of an RFA until I get settled and get Internet set up in the new place. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I am now comfortable in my Silver Spring, Maryland apartment, and so I shall now accept. Thank you for bearing with me while I was moving. If you have any further questions for me beyond my responses below, or seek clarification, please say so. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: As I stated in my previous RfA, I intend to work to clear administrative backlogs, and a lot of housekeeping issues. In addition, I plan on keeping on top of speedy deletion candidates. A thorough reading of WP:CSD and then actually tagging articles using TWINKLE while RC and new-page patrolling has given me an eye for CSD candidates.

2. What are your best contributions to Misplaced Pages, and why?

A: First of all, I continue to be proud of those contributions that I had mentioned in my previous nomination: Washington Metro and its daughter articles, Flandre, and Grapette. As of late, however, some of the contributions I'm most proud of are not direct article contributions, per se, but more a matter of trying to smooth out editing issues, and bring about some sort of consensus, and following the policies and guidelines even despite the fact that it was a lot of my own hard work being deleted.

One thing that I've found is that when all else fails in "localized" discussion, inviting a cadre of uninterested third parties via request for comments is handy. This is how we got a rough consensus regarding the inclusion (or lack thereof) of an Infoshop link on A.N.S.W.E.R.. While I was originally supportive of the Infoshop link, once I opened an RFC on the matter, it was clear that "the tribe spoken", and the link was gone. Since then, I've even reverted it back out on a few occasions, and even made a personal appeal to the person who had been adding the link time and again.

Another case where I consider my discussion to shine was in the requested move of John Tsombikos to Borf. I took a detailed look at the article, and articulated my argument for switching to the latter title as being that the article was already more oriented towards the campaign and its results, rather than the still-somewhat-anonymous artist. This seems to have played out well with the advent of the recent art show, as we were able to use well-sourced material which was more Borf than Tsombikos.

And on the note of the last part of my initial response, I think it took a lot of discipline to tag Rude Mechanical Orchestra for speedy deletion after it was recreated following an AFD. The original article (that got deleted via AFD) was mostly my own work. We worked hard to save it, but the sources didn't pan out, and so it got zapped. When an editor recreated it, it could have very well been SpinnWebe all over again, where things got very ugly, and hard feelings were found all around. I tagged it as G4, and it was speedily deleted in due time. No hard feelings, because the sources didn't come through.

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

A: Last October, I got in a bit of a conflict with the highway project people regarding the changing of links to state highways from the main article to redirects. The change involved going from, for instance, Virginia State Route 14 to State Route 14 (Virginia). I saw it as being somewhat absurd. We're switching from a direct link to a link to a redirect? Run that by me again? I think that the newer titles are more correct, but I still find it strange, since the articles themselves were never renamed, and still haven't been renamed, to follow the new naming convention. My argument, which I didn't articulate well, related to Misplaced Pages:Redirect#Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken. In part because of my own poor articulation of the argument, it fell flat on its face. I still regret my final last-ditch effort, where I cited WP:IAR. I regretted that right after I submitted it, but by then it was too late. That was a really poor argument, and in that case, it basically said "I have no good argument" in far more words.

I learned from that conflict a lot, and the bottom line is cite, cite, cite. You can come to an understanding a lot faster if you cite where you're coming from early on and then as necessary. "Per" is our friend, while pointing to relevant parts of policy and guideline pages. I've found that educating new users a little goes a long way.

Optional questions from Elkman

4. Who was responsible for the recreation of SpinnWebe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) after its first deletion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Spinnwebe? The article was recreated at a different title, and it went to another AFD at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/SpinnWebe instead of going through the proper deletion review process. The two page histories have been merged, so I don't know who recreated it, but the whole thing looks fishy to me.

SpinnWebe was recreated by Flaming-tubesock under the original Spinnwebe title, at this revision. The article was then restored to its pre-deletion form here by JohnRussell. The camelcase title which you refer to was properly executed by me using the "move" function, carrying all the history to the new title, and leaving the old title as a redirect.

Thanks for the explanation. I was thinking you had much more of a role in that fiasco than you actually did. That addresses my major concern. --Elkman 20:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

5. As an admin, what would you do if someone recreated an article that was deleted in an AFD?

That actually happened recently with Rude Mechanical Orchestra. After its AFD completed, I kept the title on my watchlist, and it popped up again later on. It was recreated by a user, and when I saw it, I tagged it on sight for speedy deletion using TWINKLE as a recreation of deleted material. It was deleted not long after that.

Optional question from AldeBaer

6. Since we all started out as readers of this encyclopedia, I'd like to know what your three (or more) favourite articles are, ideally with a short explanation as to what especially you like about them.

I wouldn't so much say three specific articles as much as I would say broad categories of articles. Usually, when I just read, I start somewhere and see where I end up. My three favorite broad categories of articles are articles related to the American and Russian space programs, articles about Washington, D.C., and articles relating to activism. I like the space-related articles primarily because space programs fascinate me. I love reading about the spacecraft designs and how they operate, and about the facilities, and the layout of Misplaced Pages allows me to delve into it as superficially or as deeply as I wish. DC articles I like because I live in the Washington area, and I love reading about local things. I was also big on local things in Augusta County, Virginia, where I used to live up until about a month ago. Then activism is something I like reading about because I do get into activism quite a bit, and seeing the specifics of various events, organizations, and movements fascinates me.

Optional question from Nwwaew

7. During a vandalism investigation, you find evodence that a well-known admin has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?

Plan every move I make very carefully, first. What specific action would probably depend a lot on the specifics of the situation, but certainly tagging the suspected sockpuppets as such, while going through the proper channels to get solid proof one way or the other, such as putting in checkuser requests, etc.

General comments

• See SchuminWeb's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
• Links for SchuminWeb: SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)
  • I had my username changed from "Schuminweb" to "SchuminWeb" on April 15, 2007 to correct a capitalization issue. Some of the log items didn't cross over to the new name, so please also peruse: Schuminweb (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/SchuminWeb before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. Support as nominator. Kaori 21:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
2. The more inclusionist admins, the better. Support. Ichormosquito 16:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

   Note: This comment was left before the RfA started. Prodego 01:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

   Yup, and what about it :) Majorly (talk | meet) 02:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

3. Support, looks like user has changed nicely, and sufficiently, since the last RFA. -- Phoenix2 01:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
4. Support - Deserves it . :)..--Cometstyles 01:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
5. Support - Naturally, a good user... see no reason not to flag him. Matthew 07:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
6. Support a good choice...nice find. Jmlk17 08:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
7. Support. I trust he won't inadvertently, let alone purposefully misuse the tools. —AldeBaer 08:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
8. Support OK. Majorly (talk | meet) 09:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
9. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 13:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
10. Support I have full faith that he will make a good admin. Good luck!:)--James, La gloria è a dio 13:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
11. Support Has made many improvements since his last RfA in September 2006. I think he's demonstrated his knowledge of policy, and he shows a need for the tools. Nishkid64 (talk) 13:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
12. Support per answers, comments, and candidate's overall record. Fully qualified, no concerns. Newyorkbrad 14:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
13. Support. Would be a good admin. --Apoc2400 14:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
14. Support. I have worked with Ben for the past 1-2 years on the Washington Metro article, and related articles, with him taking leadership and doing much of the work. Misplaced Pages would benefit from having him as an admin. (and congrats on the move, new job or whatever brought you to the area) --Aude (talk) 14:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
15. Support. I'm mildly concerned by the image atop the user page. But admitting biases up front is probably better than pretending they don't exist, and definitely not a reason for me to oppose somebody with so many good contributions. --JayHenry 16:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
16. Support - I feel the user will use the tools properly. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδιτоr 17:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
17. Support- I attempted to nominate him previously, but he declined. I wouldn't hesitate to give him the tools in a second. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 17:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
18. Support - prolific and experienced contributor, despite his highly insane political views. :-) Anyway, will be a good admin. Walton 18:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
19. Support It's been ample time since the blocks and there is no question this is a productive editor. JodyB _talk 19:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
20. Support looks fine.--MONGO 20:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
21. Support in agreement with the above. Acalamari 20:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
22. Support I supported Schumin last time, and there's no reason not to here. Oh, and I'm a deletionist. (Actually, I'm not a deletionist, because titles are idiotic, but I feel that far more articles at AfD should be deleted than kept.) -- Kicking222 21:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
23. Support It's the reasons given that matter--effectiveness at AfD is the ability to convince others. DGG 03:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
24. Support a long-term, solid contributor. I'd like to observe something that makes me want to particularly support him, even though it's connected to a vote-canvassing issue that got him in trouble for his last RfA: I am impressed that Schuminweb has the detachment and integrity to create a well-referenced, fair article on a site (SpinnWebe) that once attacked him personally, to go to undue lengths to defend that article, and to exchange amicable comments with its author on the talk page. He clearly has a thick skin and a sense of humor, qualities that are very important in an admin. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
25. Terence 06:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
26. Support no concerns here. —Anas 15:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
27. Support - Nothing to suggest editor will misuse tools. PGWG 16:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
28. Support No reason not to. Whsitchy 17:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
29. Support seems a capable user will make a good admin. --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 23:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
30. Support A capable and active editor who, I'm sure, will make a capable and active administrator. Carom 19:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
31. Support per PGWG. I think a candidate's possession of an inclusionist or deletionist philosophy should only matter if one thinks that the candidate will be affected by that philosophy to the extent that it will interfere with his or her ability to gauge consensus. I do not think that is the case here. -- Black Falcon 23:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
32. Support Bucketsofg 03:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
33. Peacent 07:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
34. Support I see no problems here. --Siva1979 15:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
35. Support ricka racka fire cracka ~ Infrangible 19:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
36. Daniel 04:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
37. Support No reason to suggest will abuse the tools. Davewild 11:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
38. Support. Good user, no problems. Doesn't seem dangerously inclusionist. - Zeibura 00:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
39. Support Liked his answers to the questions, inclusionism isn't that bad Metallic95 User Page | Talk 04:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
40. Support. Would prefer to see a little less self promotion, but he has a strong contribution history. --StuffOfInterest 16:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
41. Support - good contributor. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
42. Support A good one to have the tools. Captain panda 01:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
43. Support I had some doubts on his last RfA, but clear support now. -- Vision Thing -- 19:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose not sure I'd want to give an inclusionist the power to settle AfD's. BH (Talk) 15:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

   Is this some sort of practical joke? —AldeBaer 16:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

   This is a legitimate reason for opposing. Some users feel that people who have predetermined deletion beliefs will close AfDs or speedy delete articles to their particular liking. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

   Than you Nikki, it should be noted that a recent RfA failed only because the candidate was a deletionist. BH (Talk) 16:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

   Nikki? (LOL) I'm curious to know how you came up with "Nikki". Nishkid64 (talk) 17:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

   I'm sorry I read the s and h like it was a 'K'. I didn't mean to insult you or anything. BH (Talk) 17:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

   No problem. It just gave me quite a laugh :-P. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

   I remember that RfA, and I supported there as well because say what you will, in my own private opinion this is not a good sole reason to oppose a user. —AldeBaer 17:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

2. Oppose per Black Harry. ^demon 01:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

   There is a peculiar assumption, also present in my Afd, that an admin with some degree of inclusionist or deletionist would likely be seeking the position in order to unfairly close nominations. I haven't seen that tendency in any newly appointed admin., and I think we newcomers know better than that--I cannot think of a type of misbehaviour that would be more glaringly obvious. DGG 03:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

3. Oppose. For me it's not any one thing, which leads to this oppose. The hosting of his picture on his userpage. The userboxes. The extensive explanation of who he is. The curt responses on his talk page. None of these would, in itself lead to my opposing. Even the description of himself as inclusionist (which I find counterproductive) would not be enough. Taken together though, I'm opposing because I'd be worried that his actions as an admin would be more about him than the encyclopaedia. I feel that, in total, his philosophy is significantly enough different from that of the wikipedia to be notable. I think that this is a prime example of an editor who is extremely valuable, but who shouldn't be an admin. AKAF 11:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose has severe issues with WP:OWN when it comes to Metro articles. I attempted to include a photo in an article about two years ago... Ben removed it... several other editors readded it... Ben removed it... Sorry but I simply cannot support this user.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 18:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

   Alkivar, could you please clarify your claim? For those interested, the incident described here starts with this revision, and ends six edits later (here). The history reveals that the only editors involved were Alkivar and myself. The substance of the conflict was in regards to the inclusion or non-inclusion of Image:SmithsonianMetro7-4-00.jpg. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

   Dubious behaviour, certainly. But do we really never forgive users for minor incidents from two years ago? Such as this little tussle between yourself and SimonP, for example? – Gurch 19:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

   Does a person's actions from two years ago mean anything now? If you recall, this user failed an RfA in September 2006. Since then, he has reformed themselves, and is now a better-qualified candidate. Given that, I'm sure he's made a great number of changes in behavior and editing since October 2005. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

   Comment That does not make much sense at all, opposing someone because he is an inclusionist. That is not really a good reason to oppose someone. If he would make a overall good admin the vote for him. Peace.--James, La gloria è a dio 05:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

5. Oppose per user name, image on user page. WP:U prohibits user names that implicitly promote a website (here, http://www.schuminweb.com) by containing its name. Also, I oppose all candidates who advertise their association with any strongly contentious political, religious or other ideological position on their user page. Admitting to one's biases is good, but in case of soapboxing, users of the opposite viewpoint might perceive (usually wrongly, but still) to be unfairly treated by the admin in question. That image is quite over the top with regard to soapboxing (and incidentally, why the badly photoshopped toupée?) I also mostly agree with AKAF above. Sandstein 18:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
6. Oppose --~ Wikihermit _(HermesBot) 03:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

   Why? —AldeBaer 02:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

The above adminship 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.

ElinorD

Closed as successful by Cecropia 00:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC) at (108/1/0); Scheduled end time 22:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

ElinorD (talk · contribs) - ElinorD is a wonderful editor. She is exceedingly clueful and considerate. I first met her at Talk:Christianity during a heated time at the article, when her gentle reason was needed and welcome. She is always kindhearted and civil in her interactions with other editors. She is a very visible and positive presence on Misplaced Pages. Her hard work and dedication to the project has been repeatedly recognized by barnstars, encouraging comments from other editors and several offers for an RfA nomination. Additionally, Elinor's interactions with other editors show her deep concern and appreciation for the interests and ideals of the project. Her time is well-spent and balanced between fighting vandals, building content and improving articles. Examples of her contributions to Misplaced Pages can be seen at Come Rack! Come Rope!, Charles Paget and Fontanini. She helps keep commonly vandalised articles clean such as Popcorn and Animal testing. Her reporting of persistant vandals on WP:AIV and comments on WT:NPA are examples of her clear grasp of Misplaced Pages policy and culture. Elinor is a strong and positive contributor to the content and climate of Misplaced Pages. The sysop bit would be put to good use in her hands. Vassyana 22:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, and I'm grateful for Vassyana's trust. ElinorD (talk) 22:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: My biggest number of edits have been to Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Sometimes, I've even had to leave my own userpage in a vandalised condition in order to report the vandal I was reverting as quickly as possible. It would be nice if I could block vandals directly, after appropriate warnings. I am interested in the whole idea of helping to build a free encyclopaedia, and am constantly trying to make myself more familiar with image copyright policy, which I wholeheartedly endorse. I think admin tools would be very useful in helping with image copyright issues, and I think I would be quite good at enforcing the policy as gently and tactfully as possible (knowing that some violators may just be inexperienced users who want a nice-looking user page and genuinely don't understand that if an image is on one page it may not necessarily be allowed on another), though I would prefer to leave the less clear cases to more experienced administrators. Finally, I have on a few occasions seen some particularly malicious vandalism where an IP or new user starts posting an editor's real name or phone number into articles. I have sometimes reverted such edits, and have seen them disappearing from page histories quite quickly. I would like, with the tools, to be able to delete and partially restore such pages, even before emailing the oversight list, rather than leaving them visible in the history. I am sure that every administrator finds unexpected tasks, and I would, of course, help out in any way possible.

2. What are your best contributions to Misplaced Pages, and why?

A: I have been pleased at being able, on a few occasions, to calm things down at some slightly heated discussion pages, and I feel that that has led to a better article. (I'm thinking in particular of Christianity.) As regards my own writing, many of the articles I'm active at existed long before I joined, and while I have sometimes done copy edits, improved wording, and added (free) images, I think my contributions to many long-existing articles have been more at the level of talk page discussion than of creative writing. A list of the articles I've created can be found at my user page. I'm probably proudest of the striped grass mice articles, not because of their quality but rather because I didn't even know they existed until I visited a zoo and took a photo; and that inspired me to look up information about them and create stubs in my user space — though I was very glad of the help of members of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Mammals in checking for errors before I moved them to mainspace. I am quite interested in historical British figures, and have created a few stubs on characters from the reign of Elizabeth, and have a few more planned.

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

A: I don't get stressed very easily. I've certainly been in situations where insults were flying around, and it was unpleasant; but they weren't generally directed at me! I think the closest I've been to a conflict is at an article about a living person where another editor kept adding some very insulting wording to the opening sentence, and reverting as "vandalism" anyone who tried to remove it. A couple of administrators said I had done the right thing in reverting, and the administrator who disagreed later withdrew his disagreement. Although I can't point to any really acrimonious battles I've been in, I can confidently say that I have a history of remaining calm in real life, and I see no reason why I would be unable to cope with the increased insults and conflicts that may come with adminship.

4. I notice you are a vandal fighter. How do you feel having the tools may affect your participation in policy conflicts? Specifically, how do you view the relationship between ArbCom rulings and community consensus, especially as policy is concerned, with regards to these diffs here:, ,  ? Also, how do you view "edit wars" over policy pages in general? Are these ever a means of achieving consensus, and if not, how could consensus be achieved without participating in them?—AL 02:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

A: I do not see any reason why having the tools should in any way affect my participation in policy conflicts. Obviously, I would not use the tools in any page I was actively involved in editing, except in cases where it is clearly permitted, such as blocking vandals. Regarding the ArbCom rulings and community consensus, policy pages are general, while the ArbCom deals with specific cases. The ArbCom does not make policy, but it is not inappropriate for an ArbCom ruling for a particular case to find its way into a policy page. An example can be found at the meatpuppetry section of the page on sockpuppetry, where a reference is made to a case in which it was ruled that "for the purpose of dispute resolution, when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as one individual." I haven't checked, but I imagine that ruling has been in the policy page for some time. I don't think it was a case of the committee inventing a new rule. My guess is that it was probably a common sense approach, based on what was already happening, and that it continued to happen after that ruling, the main difference being that there was now something written down which could be appealed to.

Except where Jimbo directly appoints someone, the committee members are elected by community consensus, presumably because the community trust their judgment, fairness, and good sense. One could say, therefore, that while the community doesn't necessarily endorse every ruling from the ArbCom, the community has endorsed the right of the committee to make rulings. A seat on the ArbCom is not permanent, and if one member tries to push through a really crazy ruling, it's unlikely that the other members will let it pass.

I have not studied the history of the 3RR policy and certainly haven't waded through all the arbitration cases. So this is purely hypothetical, given as an imaginary example. If the 3RR policy page said that one could be blocked for making a fourth revert within 24 hours, some administrators might begin to block people with a record of edit warring and a history of 3RR blocks who timed their fourth reverts to fall just outside the 24-hour period. There might then be an arbitration case brought against a chronic reverter who timed his reverts. The committee might make a ruling that users with a history of edit warring and of 3RR blocks may be blocked even if they space their reverts so that the fourth one falls just outside the 24-hour period. That would be common sense, and would reflect what was already happening. Administrators would continue to act as they had been doing, and the ArbCom ruling would probably be mentioned on the policy page. In such a case, the policy would have developed organically, by normal practice of respected and trusted users who understand policy well. The policy would not have been made by the ArbCom, but their ruling would be useful to point to, to help people understand existing policy. It would be pointless to argue, "I'm going to make my fourth revert at 17:48, and I can't be blocked, because the ArbCom doesn't make policy."

As for edit wars over policy pages, I view them the same way as edit wars in general. Edit warring is bad; people shouldn't edit war. However, I have seen different kinds of edit wars. The kind that involves a few decent editors with opposing POVs using up the three reverts to which they think they are entitled until an admin comes in and locks the page, forcing them to start communicating, does little permanent damage, though it's still wrong. Everyone rightly feels a bit ashamed at the end, and it all ends amicably enough. The kind that involves abusive edit summaries and toxic talk page posts does far more lasting damage, and the venom that is spewed makes it far more difficult to regain a constructive editing environment than the fact that A reverted B and C reverted A. A few weeks later the multiple reverts are buried deep in the history; the unkind comments and unfair accusations are still visible. I saw an edit war a few months ago which led to a page protection and a few red faces from decent users, but the protection forced everyone to start talking about the article rather than about each other, and consensus was achieved. If it doesn't work, other things can be tried — such as asking a third opinion, an article Request for Comments, or mediation.

Optional question from AldeBaer

5. Since we all started out as readers of this encyclopedia, I'd like to know what your three (or more) favourite articles are, ideally with a short explanation as to what especially you like about them.

A: That's not an easy question to answer, and I'm afraid my attempt will not be very inspiring. Approaching Misplaced Pages as a reader rather than as a writer, I would say that I find some of the articles about different animals to be highly attractive. I have recently been looking at such articles as Cougar and Elk (Cervus canadensis), simply because I saw something about those articles on user talk pages that were on my watchlist, and followed the links. I like them because they're easy to understand, nicely laid out, and with good illustrations (freely licensed, I'm happy to say). I don't edit them, as I lack the specialist knowledge. I also like articles about historical figures, and often find myself just browsing such articles. Hannah Primrose, Countess of Rosebery is one that I consider particularly fine. I also find it very useful to be able to consult articles about things that are relevant to me personally at a particular time, such as Extraction (dental). (As an experienced Wikipedian, I know that it's prudent to check the history for possible vandalism.) But I'm afraid that in many cases the articles that I like to read are chosen more from personal appeal than from a critical evaluation of their quality.

General comments

• See ElinorD's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for ElinorD: ElinorD (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/ElinorD before commenting.

Discussion

• I have removed this from the RfA main page since there are no answers to questions. I may give support once they are answered (leaning towards support now) G1ggy! _{Review me!} 23:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• I haven't had much interaction with this editor prior to this week, so I didn't comment early in this RfA. Since then, the nominee's approached me twice regarding some fair use issues. It's quite encouraging to see a nominee who is willing to seek assistance and recognize when they might be in over their heads. Fantastic quality in an editor, even more so in an administrator. Everything else I've seen gives me zero reason to feel this nominee will make anything but a great administrator. --Durin 01:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
• I commented in support of ElinorD previously, but I would like to comment again. I have interacted with her on occasion, and I simply think she is wonderful. In my correspondences with her, and in seeing her correspondences with others, I have noticed that she is kind and looks out for others. I especially liked when she worked to get a user unblocked who undoubtedly was editing in good faith, but got on the wrong side of copyrights (). She, as she has stated above, is already an active vandal fighter () and would do well with the tools. When she makes mistakes, she admits it graciously ( ). Further, she has contributed to areas surrounding copyright ( ) and, when she has questions, is willing to ask them ( ). I think she will be a great admin and have no concerns about her having the new tools or having the ability to access deleted revisions. Go Elinor!  :) --Iamunknown 00:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • While it would be impossible to read such kind words without pleasure, and they're very much appreciated, I think I should warn you that I did steal a biscuit from the pantry when I was seven. So perhaps you shouldn't be quite so enthusiastic! :) (Thanks anyway.) ElinorD (talk) 22:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Support

1. KillerChihuahua 22:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
2. Sane. And a writing editor as well, which is a bonus.--Doc 23:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
3. Hell yeah. Nick 23:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
4. Support, per nom. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
5. Strong support - well-proven track record. Absolutely no question in my mind - Alison ☺ 23:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
6. Strong support for this experienced editor. FloNight 23:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
7. Support a fine candidate who I thought was an administrator. Good luck! Majorly (talk | meet) 23:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
8. Strong support ElinorD is a talented writer and a productive and fair-minded editor with a solid understanding of policy in both its letter and its spirit. There is no question in my mind that she will make good use of the tools.Proabivouac 23:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
9. El_C 23:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
10. Support Thiscuser shows a broad base of experience in mainspace and namespace, and is the first user I can recall seeing with 1005 edit summary in all article. I would like to see answers to the questions, or a statement of intent not to answer them, but am happy to support without. A good user.--Anthony.bradbury 23:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

    How did that number get there?--Anthony.bradbury 20:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

11. Strong Support I have seen ElinorD around many times before. She is a decent user, and she will be very valuable as an administrator (of course, she's very valuable already). Acalamari 00:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
12. Strong support. An excellent editor, very fair-minded, and shows a good understanding of policy. SlimVirgin 00:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
13. Support Definatly a good admin. Captain panda 00:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
14. Strong Support Kind, helpful editor, who is a tremendous asset to the project. No one deserves the mop more. Xoloz 00:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
15. Strong Support. A great editor! --Mschel 01:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
16. Support absolutely. A fantastic editor who will make a fantastic admin. Sarah 01:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
17. Support. -- Phoenix2 01:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
18. Support Appears to be keen to improve wikipedia and learn more about its policies Sam Orchard 01:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
19. Strong support. Elinor represents the best of Misplaced Pages. Kind, polite and cheerful; and at the same time, serious, thoughtful and respectful critic when needed. I can thing of few non-admin editors currently active more deserving of the tools. Go Eli! Phaedriel - 01:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
20. Support. Has all the right ingredients - smart, mature, kind, knowledgeable and writes well. Will make a great admin. Crum375 01:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
21. Support Bucketsofg 02:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
22. Support a good candidate --Steve _(Stephen) 03:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
23. Michael Snow 03:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
24. Support Good editor, strong contributor. I suspect that we may not see eye-to-eye on issues of politics or religion, but I will support. Seems to recognize the wikipedia is run (or should be) by consensus agreement on verifiable references, not personal viewpoints. —Gaff 03:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
25. Support Have seen her around often. Good contributor. No reason not to trust her with the tools.--Dakota 03:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
26. Support. Seems very level headed. Will make good use of the tools. Jayjg 04:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
27. I rarely comment on non-controversial nominations like this, but she seems like the absolute perfect candidate. I see no reason not to give her the tools. Ral315 » 04:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
28. Strong support with pleasure. 'Exceedingly clueful' is an understatement. I've rarely seen anyone so wise and mature without coming across as pompous and overbearing. Certainly will be an asset. Riana ⁂ 04:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
29. Support -- will be an asset with administrator tools. Jkelly 04:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
30. Now that the questions are answered, I see no reason not to support whole heartedly. Good luck with the tools! G1ggy! _{Review me!} 04:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
31. Support. Editors who are habitually kind — as opposed to just civil or professional — are worth their weight in gold. Editors who remain friendly and courteous while editing subjects that arose strong feelings, and who still find time to counteract vandalism and write well-rounded articles, are even more valuable. Elinor is an asset to this project and will make a great admin. -Severa (!!!) 04:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
32. Excellent editor... Has a good understanding of policies.. --Dark Falls 06:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
33. Hey, isn't she an admin already? Oh wait... TML 06:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
34. Support no problems I can see --Herby 07:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
35. Support I like what I see...will be a good admin. Jmlk17 07:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
36. Why not? Clear case of administrator-awesomeness. As long as she stays clear of the dark side of the broom, I trust her judgement. mceder (u t c) 08:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
37. Support without reservations. —AldeBaer 08:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
38. Support nice editor indeed! Eddie Guimont 09:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
39. _ROARR!! Smart little user.Bishzilla | ROARR!! 09:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC).
40. Genuine surprise, thought already was one. Moreschi 09:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
41. Support - I thought you already were :) .--Cometstyles 10:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
42. Support per all above. Besides familiarity with the admin tools, she's clearly a serious article-writer. Tho' the edit stats reveal an eclectic mix of article contributions: Roman Catholic Church, Milk, Diarrhea and Jimmy Wales - interesting juxtaposition. Walton 10:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
43. Support, definitely. Neil ╦ 11:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
44. Support A fine user. Thanks for your work, now go mop! JodyB _talk 12:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
45. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 13:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
46. Support based on answers and personal experience. Vizjim 13:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
47. Support - fully qualified candidate, good answers to questions. Newyorkbrad 14:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
48. Support certainly won't abuse the tools. --Aude (talk) 14:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
49. Support Good answers to questions, calm and intelligent.--Mantanmoreland 14:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
50. Support - an excellent user, will certainly be helpfull at AIV where she's always filing reports. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
51. Support Her careful and reasonable approach is an asset on RC patrol; writes well on a variety of topics. Tom Harrison 14:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
52. Support Great in difficult situations - will make a fine admin. Sophia 14:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
53. Support A great editor, always serious and sensible. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
54. support proud to help give you the mop and bucket. BH (Talk) 15:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
55. Support. I've often seen this editor being helpful. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 16:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
56. Support -- FayssalF - 16:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
57. Support - Very impressive. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδιτоr 17:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
58. Support hardworker, and serious Modernist 19:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
59. Peacent 19:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
60. Wholehearted, unconditional support! Three cheers to ElinorD! Beit Or 20:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
61. Support -- Gogo Dodo 20:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
62. Support This editor and I disagree fundamentally over part of the wording of a proposed policy. However in all those discussions we have had I have never had the slightest reason to doubt that this person is not well intentioned and would not comport herself to the standards of Misplaced Pages. I further believe she would make a fine admin, hence my vote.LessHeard vanU 21:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
63. Support Those contribs look Shiny to me! OOHHH! JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 00:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
64. Support Solid editor who gets it and has done great work here. ++Lar: t/c 02:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
65. Support; everything looks good here. Antandrus (talk) 03:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
66. Support for Elinor. A very helpful user in my experience. Marskell 08:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
67. Support: Good contributions and reasonable intervention. Geogre 11:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
68. Support Although I haven't had the privilege of interacting with ElinorD before, I have seen her around in what usually are heated discussions, and I was always impressed with what I saw. So, yes, sure. —Anas 14:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
69. Support per full answer to question 4. Reason I asked was, I've seen vandal fighters instinctively use the tools to apparently settle content disputes with less established users who were not obviously trolling, and your quick response in those cases lead me to wonder how you'd react in further instances with the buttons at your command. I hope that we can continue to work together to settle policy differences without resorting to revert wars over minor semantic details.—AL 18:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
70. Support Miranda 20:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
71. Support. We can always use another good faith administrator and someone with skills in mediating and diffusing conflicts within the project. CLA 23:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
72. Support. Will make a good admin. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
73. Support - Have seen her around and see no reason not to trust her with the sysop bit. --Richard 08:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

    Support. Excellent editor, clearly trustworthy — we need more admins like her. --88.109.203.48 10:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

    Anon IPs are not permitted to vote in RfA's. Please either sign in, or open an account, if you wish to participate. Thank you. LessHeard vanU 12:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

74. Support, despite having some misgivings because of her willingness to treat an ArbCom decision regarding 'attack site links' as policy exempt from the normal need for consensus; I'd be hypocritical if I used this as a "litmus test" against an admin nominee as has been done to nominees on the opposite side of the issue. *Dan T.* 13:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
75. Support No reason not to. Whsitchy 16:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
76. Support. Well-suited to the task. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 17:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
77. Support. Good 'pedia builder cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 00:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
78. Support Why not???--James, La gloria è a dio 02:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
79. Support per Phaedriel. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  03:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
80. Support I have seen this editor around and support without hesitation. daveh4h 06:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
81. Support Sometimes we've agreed at WT:NPA, sometimes we haven't. But everything I have seen from this editor has been thoughtful, mature, and with the best interests of building an encyclopedia in mind. I'd be happy to see her with the tools. Serpent's Choice 14:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
82. Support - Just had a very constructive discussion with this editor, and from what I see she'll make a fine admin. SalaSkan 15:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
83. Support A great editor. It is time to give her the mop. --Siva1979 15:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
84. support as someone who clearly understands both the rules and the reasons for them. DGG 19:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
85. Support I'm not too worried about the reasoning provided by the opposers. This user has demonstrated a need for the tools, and clearly understands Misplaced Pages policy. I see no reason not to give ElinorD the tools. Nishkid64 (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
86. Support Are those space pants you're wearing? Because your edits look out of this world! ~ Infrangible 19:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
87. Support I thought you were one. Oh well, that will be rectified soon enough. ˉˉ╦╩ 20:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
88. Support Absolutely first rate. I have no reservations about this candidate. Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
89. Support- Great editor. Eddie 22:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
90. Support FeloniousMonk 23:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
91. You mean ... you're not one? ;) You have my full support. -- Black Falcon 00:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
92. Support' - Good user, lots of reverts, many good edits, lot of barnstars, and armed with Twinkle. Support here. Cheers, JetLover (Talk) (Sandbox) 01:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
93. Support - This is precisely the sort of editor who should have the mop and bucket. Misplaced Pages needs more like her. We're lucky to have her. -GTBacchus 02:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
94. Support - I've seen some of her work with religion-related articles and believe her to be a solid editor. Majoreditor 03:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
95. Support No reason will not make a good admin. Davewild 11:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
96. Support. We need more model editor admins. Sandstein 18:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
97. Support, a trustworthy, hopeful rolemodel admin. :). --SWEETCARMEN♥ 20:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
98. Support Oppose votes below are simply silly. I've seen nothing but excellent contributions by this editor.--MONGO 20:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
99. Support - mostly because of my obsession with powers of ten. I am confident that ElinorD will be a responsible admin. Gracenotes § 22:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
100. Support WP:100, and this user seems to be level-headed and contributes to the article space as well. --Kyoko 23:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
101. Support. I'm liking this user's calm yet willing to learn attitude outlined in the answers to the questions and in Durin's commentary. Would make a good admin. - Zeibura 00:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
102. Support very qualified --rogerd 04:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
103. Support, well done, good luck! The Rambling Man 17:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
104. Support - fine contributor who would benefit from admin tools. I have no worries about this users judgement in the time I have seen their contributions. Cheers! -- moe.RON 18:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
105. Of course I support, per nom. ;o) Vassyana 19:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

     This has got to be the most tardy nominator support to date. --Kyoko 12:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

106. Jaranda 16:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

     Support Pile on, and on, and on. The attitude and courtesy is well received and builds confidence in the users future work. JodyB _talk 18:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

     Sorry, can only support once. (see support #44 above) :) —Kurykh 19:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

107. Support great contributor who would be an equally good admin. -- Vision Thing -- 19:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
108. Support with the caveat that I would like to see ElinorD display more individuality -she has a tendency to usually agree with admins. Not that that's bad, but I look forward to seeing her come into her own and become more independent and assertive once she's an admin herself. Well done Elinor!Merkinsmum 21:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose. I would not vote for anyone with less than 12 months experience. That being said, if you can give me any reason why I should change my opinion, then I will gladly reconsider. But that doesn't mean that I will change my mind. Gold♥ 01:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC) Okay. I'll strike it, and all because of --Iamunknown, for I know from some past experience that he/she is a good and worthy editor, and I'll defer on this occasion. Gold♥ 03:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Please reconsider your position, okay. Your opinion will not likely be given much weight since it is extreme and far outside of the norm for when most users become admins. Better to make your comment specific to the nom, I think. FloNight 01:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Well that's my opinion. It doesn't matter about weight. Why should I reconsider, give me some good reasons. Gold♥ 02:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

"Your opinion is far outside what is the norm," sounds like a good reason to reconsider. You seem to want to debate the issue of time editing as a litmus test, which has nothing to do with this editor's RfA. Consider taking your debate to the appropriate forum. —Gaff 02:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Have you examined Elinor's contributions? I expect that will be enough to be able to make a decision. She has submitted correct WP:AIV reports since February , has contributed to forums regarding copyright , is empathetic and looks out for other Wikipedians and has reverted vandalism . As an administrator, she could correctly utilize the rollback tool to more quickly revert vandalism, delete images that violate our non-free content policy, patrol unblock and help editors in need, and monitor WP:AIV to block vandals. She would perform well as an administrator, is in need of the tools; what more is necessary? --Iamunknown 03:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I have a good reason for you to reconsider: Luna Santin. As you can see here at his RfA, he was here for only three months when that RfA passed; and he turned out to be a great administrator. In his case, the quality of his work outweighed his length of time here, and I believe that the same thing applies to ElinorD as well. :) Acalamari 03:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

1. Oppose- too little experience. RuneWiki777 16:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
   • What, in your opinion, would constitute "enough experience"? --Iamunknown 16:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
   • This user has 6,114 edits, all with summaries, spread over mainspace and namespace and made over six months (less one week). How much experience do you need to see? Because the majority of current admins were promoted on less than that.--Anthony.bradbury 19:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
   • The tally is currently 94-1. We don't need to bug the one opposer, do we? Riana ⁂ 05:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

   Oppose No contributions to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Spam or Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Automobiles. --Calbrina36 20:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC) the preceeding comment appears from a SPA that places this particluar oppose on various RfA's Agathoclea 20:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC) This oppose comment was placed by a now indefinitely blocked user. --Kyoko 21:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

   Oh, Elinor! No automobiles? What were you thinking? Bishonen | talk 20:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC).

   I love oppose votes like this. Every proper RfA has a couple of totally off-the-wall opposes; without that, you're not getting the full RfA experience. -GTBacchus 20:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

   It should be noted that ElinorD would be unfamiliar with the term automobile since in the UK they are known as cars (which I understand you yanks believe are tram trolleys?). Likewise spam is a pressed meat, usually contained within a tin and much favoured as a Monty Python sketch. Her disinclination to join such projects is surely understandable...? LessHeard vanU 22:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

Leaning towards support - unsure with answers to questions, but my leaning towards support is based on past encounters. G1ggy! _{Review me!} 23:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC) Supporting now.

The above adminship 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.

IvoShandor

Closed as consensus not reached by Cecropia 16:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC) at (61/31/4); Scheduled end time 14:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

IvoShandor (talk · contribs) - An excellent user who approached me in April for admin coaching. We decided to put off an RfA until May/June so here it is. He writes articles and is one of the most prolific DYK contributors, he's written 10 good articles and see his userpage for loads more stuff he's done. His talk page is inundated with thankyou's and barnstars. Since September 3rd last year (9 months for the lazy people) he's been making Misplaced Pages a better place. I think he's a great candidate who has the knowledge and patience to help out wherever necessary, giving him the bit just extends his ability to help. James086 13:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Co-nom by Wizardman: I originally tried to get him to run for adminship a month ago, but he declined, deciding to wait until now. He does a lot of great work over at WP:GA, writing article and getting them to GA status, participating at good article review, etc. The 12K edits don't hurt either. He's also part of the National Register of Historic Places WikiProject. This combined with his participation in DYK has really shown that he understands the project. The more admins we have to update DYK the better, so he definitely has a need for the tools.--Wizardman 16:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Co-nom by «Snowolf »: It seems that IvoShandor has now finally accepted a nom ;-). There is nothing that I can add more to what James086 & Wizardman has already said. «Snowolf » 23:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. IvoShandor 14:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: Well, just throughout the course of editing and working in places like peer review and GA I come across a lot of images that claim fair use but don't quite make the grade. I have also come across articles I could have deleted, but not as much as images I think I could be useful cleaning up backlogs in the speedy categories for articles and images, eventually I would like to become involved in closing AfDs and have had some experience in discussions there too. In addition I intend to help out at DYK, updating the template and such.

2. What are your best contributions to Misplaced Pages, and why?

A: I have a lot that I think are well done. Rock Springs Massacre is just a touch away from an FA nom, I think it's a good article and several other users have significantly contributed to it via discussion and edits. I have brought several articles to Good article status. Lately I have been working on some of Frank Lloyd Wright's works in Illinois, I find it especially fulfilling and think that several of the articles are well done (of course they could be expanded). In general I have done a lot for WikiProject Illinois and the National Register of Historic Places WP, but my contributions run the gamut, I have a sub page of stuff here. I take a lot of pictures too and add them where I can. (Commons gallery, not all of these are in articles yet but many are)

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

A: Yes, unfortunately. A conflict over an article I was probably too close to (DeKalb, Illinois) stands out prominently. User:JazzButcher and I didn't see eye to eye and I lashed out him, badly I might add. (diff) ( I am User:A mcmurray btw - for full disclosure). Anyway, I snapped one evening, editing, well, not sober. I don't do that anymore (nor did I do it before that night), that was bad and I felt bad, I apologized to the user, who was fairly good spirited considering the nature of my comments. I ended up temporarily unwatching the page as well. I awarded him a barnstar and never really saw him again on the encyclopedia.

That was in February. Since then, I haven't had any conflicts and have been civil even while being involved in heated discussions that resulted in personal attacks against me, but I take things in stride now and don't let the Wiki ruin my day, ever. In short, I learned well from my uncivil behavior. While I realize that some may oppose based on that incident my actions since (and before really) speak for themselves and I hope you will consider that and my body of work over one trip up.

As for future conflict, I intend to deal with it in a civil manner. My entire approach changed because of that one incident, I no longer feel like so much is at stake because things here are only temporary and discussion goes a long way. For example, I have found that most of the time it never even becomes necessary to report vandals because the warnings work. That "final warning" stops a lot of vandals right in their tracks, I like solving things in that fashion because it really does leave me with a good feeling. The whole purpose of the project is upheld better that way.

Optional question from Gaff

4.You wrote, on the Cow tipping talk page, "pop culture references are trivia and thus don't belong in an encyclopedia article. They add nothing to anyone's knowledge..." I responded in disagreement, but unfortunately never got a reply. It seems you grew frustrated by some other editorial inanity and left the page altogether. I can think of situations, this being one, where pop-culture references are informative and do in fact belong in an encyclopedia article. Can you elaborate on your position regarding pop-culture references?

Yeah, those shenanigans over there. No disrespect meant to you by not responding. The deal is, I think that for that page the pop culture items serve no purpose, there must be literally thousands of pop culture refs to cow tipping, in that particular case they served no purpose and the article would be better without them, just my opinion. Sure they have there place, it really depends upon the article and the nature of the references in pop culture. IvoShandor 05:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from Anonymous Dissident

5. Many of the opposing votes are due to your lack of civility in this situation. What should you have done in that situation, per WP:CIV?

Of course, now this is too obvious, at the time, overcome with anger and frustration it was not. Clearly, personal attacks accomplish nothing, I should have known better. I should have simply assumed good faith, calm, rational discussion goes a lot further. If I felt myself getting angry or frustrated (which I did in the lead up to this) I should have stepped away and let others handle it (which is ultimately what did happen). I have said before that it was both a bad attack and wrong, if I cannot make up for it with 12,000 other civil contributions then so be it, I only want to help the project and if that isn't clear from my body of work here then it probably never will be. Regardless, the behavior was inexcusable, but I cannot believe an isolated incident is enough of a reason not to trust me with the admin tools/mop. IvoShandor 09:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from AldeBaer

6. Since we all started out as readers of this encyclopedia, I'd like to know what your three (or more) favourite articles are, ideally with a short explanation as to what especially you like about them.

• As said, I too started out as a reader, for months, really a couple years before I ever made an edit. One of my favorite pages is still List of literary terms, just because it is literally hours and hours of interesting reading. I also distinctly remember being drawn into the Wiki for many hours via Portmanteau and Spoonerism, good times to be sure. Exploding whales never fails to make me laugh and I have stumbled across many articles randomly that I enjoy, I have a list on my user page of the top five or six. IvoShandor 11:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Just in case you didn't check, or anyone for that matter, here is the short list of articles I was either amused, flabbergasted or amazed by their subject matter.

Carbon tax - Cheshire Mammoth Cheese - Hemoptysis - More cowbell - Penis Plant - Sedlec Ossuary - Santa Maria della Concezione dei Cappuccini.

IvoShandor 16:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC) Optional question from ^demon

7. What is wheel warring mean to you, and how would you react to an admin attempting to wheel war your decisions?

• Discussion, it is simple to stop wheel warring, (and it is of course when Admins challenge each others decisions and engage in what would be an edit war for a admin-less user. It's much more disruptive because of the types of actions admins are allowed to take. Anyway, by first approaching the user and the approaching others that might have an interest consensus can be established and wheel warring avoided. Just because someone disagrees with and reverses my decision doesn't mean I should automatically do the same to them. IvoShandor 11:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from TonyTheTiger

8. Can you explain your username change?

• It was for privacy reasons. Do you require any further explanation? If so let me know and I will respond in an email. IvoShandor 17:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

General comments

• See IvoShandor's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for IvoShandor: IvoShandor (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/IvoShandor before commenting.

Discussion

• For those voting oppose per Gaff's diff, Ivo basically said that he made a mistake back then on Q3, I believe that he has clearly learned from this mistake and improved since then. Keep in mind that's it's been three months since that one isolated incident.--Wizardman 02:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Please note: "Gaff's diff" was brought up not by me, but by IvoShandor. He outed himself on this issue, which I think shows a great deal of forthrightness. I support this user's adminship, having encountered him in editing other pages and found him quite civil.—Gaff 15:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• I would like to ask a question of the community (ie, anyone and everyone); how long would it take for the incident to "blow over". It has been 3 months since and 6 months previously without a scent of incivility. This was a once off and I think it has been long enough since, not to overlook it, but to realise there is no pattern. 3 months is enough for me, but what about the community? James086 09:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with the above. IvoShandor cannot be condemned for one mistake he made. Anonymous Dissident 09:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

One mistake is all it takes for an admin to go to far. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 10:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

How so? There are back up procedures for handling admins that "go too far." There really is nothing to suggest that IvoShandar would go "too far", aside from this isolated incident that happened months ago, as a user, not an admin...—Gaff 00:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess that, whatever justice happens to be, this rfa will soon be in the hands of a bureaucrat. Anonymous Dissident 06:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Would opposers be soothed by a breathalyzer that could be hooked to IvoShandor's computer that prevented him from editing while intoxicated? This device, once sensing alcohol on the editor's breath, could then commence to ROK the intoxicated editor's SHIT, thereby making it impossible for such a situation to ever occur. This user admitted this up front, and a trend that I am seeing at RfA is that we are telling users to be dishonest in this process, do not say what you think and don't honestly answer the questions. If a person can't support this RfA because they genuinely feel there will be incivility issues, then that is fine, but this user should also be commended for his honesty and potential opposers should consider his honesty. daveh4h 07:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Exactly. MastCell 16:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

(undent)As a note, I could have attempted to hide it, if I wanted to. I chose not to. It is likely, had I attempted to hide it, I may have slid through without it being noticed, I have had a user name change since that incident (for unrelated reasons). But I brought it up, apparently worth nothing, but I still I did bring it up, no one else. IvoShandor 16:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Indeed. It's kinda sad that had you gone at lengths to hide that one day you would've passed with flying colors. Instead you fess up, which should actually show that you learn from mistakes and are honest, but people can't put that one bad day aside even though we need more admins. I stand by my nom even though it's not gonna pass.--Wizardman 00:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as co-nom.--Wizardman 22:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
2. Support since I already thought he was an admin. -N 23:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
3. Support - has done excellent work at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places. The incident described in Q3 appears to be a one-time incident and an aberration. All other user talk edits have been polite and helpful. --Elkman 23:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
4. «Snowolf » supports this candidate as he's confident he can be trusted with the tools (added on 23:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC))
5. Support as one of his nominators. James086 23:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
6. Weak Support User seems to be ok for adminship although I wonder about the diff Gaff provided. Captain panda 00:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
7. Strong Support People on here do tend to hold people to too high of a standard, when they should go by the saying "don't throw rocks in a glass house". One incident in 12222 edits. Lets see, if I do my math right that would make 0.0001% that he made a mistake. I can guarantee that most people that oppose for this reason have had incidents in their past also. Mistakes happen, and you move on. Now if you listed off 10 incidents of the exact same nature, then I might reconsider.--Kranar drogin 01:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
8. Support I've thought about the comments that I made in the neutral section. I think there is way more good in this editor's record and that this editor will do well as an admin (provided no more wiki-ing while drinking...)—Gaff 02:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

   Just remember: Wikiepdia is not that important!—Gaff 03:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

9. Support, excellent contributor to Illinois related articles, NRHP articles and excellent GA reviewer. I believe that a lesson has been learned by the response to Q3 above. I fully trust that IvoShandor will not use the admin tools for "bizarre rituals, intended to bring about the end of the world". --Dual Freq 03:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
10. Strong support and a disapproving look to the opposers for digging up one incident upon which to base an oppose. Welcome to the American Political System, where if a person messes up one time, it makes the inelligible to hold a position for anything. It's unseemly that such an accomplished and dedicated editor has one moment used against them, as if their over 12,000 edits count for naught. This simply is becoming a problem on Misplaced Pages. It keeps good editors shut out, and imparts a self-righteousness unto the already-ordained. Glass houses, indeed. This sort of attitude is becoming a problem on Misplaced Pages. Give the guy a break. --David Shankbone 03:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
11. Somewhere between weak support and support - per the above. The support is weakened by the first oppose, but I still support because I dont think that a single mistake he made back in February should ruin his chance at the mop in June. If he has learnt his lesson about civility, then there is no reason he shouldnt be given the mop. Anonymous Dissident 04:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
12. Support There does not seem to be a pattern of incivility or irresponsible behavior, and the editor seems to have learned from their mistake. I trust that we shall have no further instances of editing while intoxicated? Carom 05:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

    Never would again, never did before, big mistake, what can I say beside sorry. IvoShandor 05:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

13. Support, the only reason people are opposing is one diff that would've gotten lost if the candidate didn't point it out himself. So he's a little less than perfect, but also pretty honest. Every other contrib I looked at seemed good to me. - Bobet 09:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
14. Support. The diffs raised are very concerning. But given that it seems to have been an isolated incident, the candidate has taken appropriate steps to apologize and make amends, and the candidate was open about it and has given an explanation, I will support. Zaxem 09:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
15. Support. One mistake (am I very wrong to find it funny?) should be assuaged by the clear contrition and promise not to edit Misplaced Pages in an unfit manner again. Neil ╦ 11:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
16. I will support even though the comments are an embarrassment. I do note that he has apologized here for the remarks and it is true that there is no pattern of such conduct. Intoxication is also no excuse but I think enough time has passed and the contributions prove, that this user can be trusted. JodyB _talk 11:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
17. Support I first met Ivo when s/he provided a very helpful peer review on a list I was working on. We have had some interactions since, all very positive. I know the backlog at WP:PR and appreciate all Ivo's work there and elsewhere. While I do not excuse the JazzButcher incident, I think it should be seen in the perspecvtive of its isolated nature, IvoShandor's apology and candor in pointing it out above, and relative to IvoShandor's many positive contributions before and since. FOr me the many positives outweigh one negative. Ruhrfisch _><>° 12:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
18. Support. (Changed from neutral.) Although I was initially concerned by the diff cited by many of the opposers, it is important to me that it was the candidate who brought it up and has "repented". Looking through the other contributions and talk (I've left these below in the neutral section), I see many positive contributions, a great attitude, and a firm grasp of policy combined with judicious application. I think the project will be best served by making him an admin. Bucketsofg 13:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
19. Support candidate repented for what seems to be his only mistake. BH (Talk) 15:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
20. Support I've encountered Ivo many times over the course of the months i've been doing stuff in the GA process, and the diffs being used in the oppose votes below couldn't be more out of character than if someone had actually hacked his account in an effort to have fun spewing random vulgarities at people. Alcohol can make anyone in the world do stupid things, that's probably why drunkeness is a sin anyway, but more to the point, as far as i've seen, the below diffs probably couldn't be more out of character for Ivo even if Ivo had been trying to be out of character while not being drunk. Homestarmy 16:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
21. Weak support. The personal attack diff is very, very disturbing. However, I do not think this user will make the same mistake again. But a word of warning: If you hold your status as an admin over someone in a similar fashion, I will support your immediate desysopping. Abeg92contribs 16:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
22. Support - The attack was discouraging, but his response calmed a lot of my fears. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδιτоr 17:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
23. Support - What we have here is a good editor who's gone through the process of becoming such via making certain, shall we say, blunders along the way. As someone with similar and worse actions in my editing history, I can understand where he's coming from, and commend his enthusiasm for standing up to what he is, was, and has been. Let he who is yadda yadda yadda, something about stone... --Agamemnon2 17:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
24. Support Exceptionally brilliant editor. There was one error in the past and s/he has already acknowledged it. This shouldn't be a problem at all. Peacent 19:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
25. Weak support Civility is essential for me, but the candidate has a great edit history and deserves credit for pointing it out up front. I'm pretty confident he won't act this way again. Just keep the wine coolers in the fridge from now on, okay? KrakatoaKatie 22:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
26. Strong Support While the quoted comments mentioned in the opposes were a bit bad and the profanities were excessive, it was several months ago and he later apologized, and I think if he just toned it down to unvulgar complaints and a sole vulgarity of "I WILL FUCKING ROK YOUR SHIT" with the intentional misspelling, that would be better and it would seem less nasty and more silly. I also must point out that SlimVirgin who started the opposes also did a thread elsewhere (related to the Runcorn socks) saying that some people will keep all their incivilities on just one account and then make a new account that only does vandal fighting and avoids conflicts so when it gets nominated for adminship it has a clean record and SlimVirgin says that sort of thing is bad and it's better to see how people handle disputes then having them hiding them. IvoShandor got in a dispute and then later apologized. I don't think that's too bad. Also, IvoShandor, I think, is a pretty light-hearted and funny guy. He made this very humorous comment here that I loved so much I put it on my userpage. SakotGrimshine 23:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
27. Support based on a strong history of civility despite the clearly problematic lapse. -- DS1953 00:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
28. Strong Support The National Register of Historic Places WikiProject wouldn't have gotten nearly as far without his tireless efforts. He does lots of work on Illinois articles in general. I've seen him be nothing but civil, friendly, and amazingly helpful. The only reason I have for wishing him not to become an admin is purely selfish. He'll have less time to work on the NRHP Wikiproject. Yep, don't wanna share, but I have to look to the greater good, and he'd do wonders as an admin, imho. :) -Ebyabe 01:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
29. Support You are quite fit for a mop. Gdk411 03:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
30. Support - I must admit, the below diffs are a bit worrying (despite the fact that I had a little chuckle reading them). But his judgement was obviously impaired if he was intoxicated, so why not let that slide? I feel that, looking at his contributions and otherwise perfect civility record, they outweigh the negativities of that lapse. Support from me—arf! 05:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
31. Support If the one instance of severe incivility had ever been repeated I would oppose. But there is no pattern of ill-temper, rather a one-off and uncharacteristic blemish to an otherwise energetic and productive record. Kim Dent-Brown 10:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
32. Support - Nothing to suggest editor will misuse tools - aforementioned incident does not affect ability to use tools, and behavior since that incident shows a high level of maturity that there isn't a huge concern of the incident being repeated. PGWG 16:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
33. Support IvoShandor appears to have apologized for his mistake, and regrets his error. I believe he will not make that error again, as he knows it is harmful both to the project and the users, as well as to the person it was directed at. That incident was from almost four months ago, and IvoShandor seems to have changed for the better since then. Acalamari 16:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
34. Sorry, I don't think "I was drunk" is really a good enough excuse. I don't think there is a good enough excuse. I wouldn't hold it against you forever, but for now I think I have to oppose. (switching to support) Actually, on second thoughts, I'll go ahead and support you anyway. In my short time as an editor here I've been tempted to lash at people myself (though I haven't) and well, everyone makes mistakes. The fact that he brought it up himself and admits that there are no excuses for it makes me respect him. Kamryn Matika 16:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
35. Support A fine user that would make a great admin. All this judging over a single incident (with nothing to suggest it's more than an one time incident) is IMHO pretty lame. --Bjarki 18:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
36. Stong Support. Three months, six months or a year is not enough to make an incident such as the one described here blow over. However, five minutes of typing is not enough to make three months, six months or (nearly) a year of strong, valuable editing and contribution disappear. IvoShandor remains an exceptional editor, despite those one or two dodgy diffs. ck lostsword||_Suggestions? 23:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
37. Support Clearly that single grossly uncivil and offensive edit was absolutely unacceptable. But it is the only unacceptable edit that I see in 12,000+. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.--Anthony.bradbury 23:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
38. Support I am confident that he would be a great admin. --Siva1979 03:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
39. A Full "yeah read me" Support While Ivo is definitely asking for some friendly ribbing, I don't want his RFA to be sunk by this one incident (1 edit out of 12,000 a 8.333333e-5%). However, in the future please don't drink and edit again. But if you do I WILL F***ING ROK YOUR SHIT. Best of luck on your RFA, I hope others will take the long term view and see the benefit of you being an administrator. --MichaelLinnear 06:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
40. Changed to support after examining more of the candidate's contrib history. I trust you have learned your lesson and apart from that one multiple incidents, you seem to be a good user. Maybe we can arrange an off-wiki drunken shouting tournament one day, to release wiki-stress, how about it? —AldeBaer 10:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
41. Support Seems to have made amends for past incivility, understands what the tools are for. —Ocatecir 23:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
42. Support. A long, positive record vastly outweighs one incident of incivility. I am concerned about admins who genuinely do not respect the importance of being civil to others, and that is something I can only judge by an extended history of behavior—certainly not by one drunken night. Everyking 11:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
43. Support ROK on ~ Infrangible 19:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
44. Support. One bad night in nine months and two bad edits out of 12000 shouldn't preclude you from becoming an admin. I will also note that you made no attempt to hide your mistakes or the reaction to them (you chose to preserve them in your talk page archive). Your honesty makes me want to trust you. -- Black Falcon 02:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
45. support I believe this guy has done well. One bad night should not keep him from becoming an admin. Politics rule 04:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
46. Support This editor is a great contributor - and he will know better than to log on when he is intoxicated after he becomes an admin. One mistake - even one as silly as the example given - does not create an absolute oppose for me in this RfD. --VS 09:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
47. Support, while the civility issue raised below is upsetting, I believe all in all you'd be a decent admin (and I liked your answer to my question). ^demon 01:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I do not see how you can just ignore his incivility issues. First of all, he made multiple incivil comments, second of all, they were recent. I could see supporting him now if he only made one bad comments or if he made as many bad comments a year ago, but he made 3 recently. It is important for an admin to be civil.--James, La gloria è a dio 02:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Those three though were basically in the same timespan, where counting them as one is acceptable. As for recent, that's up to interpretation, alas 3 months isn't enough for many.--Wizardman 02:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
48. Support Don't editors that come here to RfA with squeaky clean records make you nervous? Maybe just a little? Well, they do me. This editor has came to this RfA and admitted his mistake, hoping you'd understand it, and instead he's told he should have kept that to himself. I don't want to send that message. His honesty is commendable and his contributions look great. daveh4h 07:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
49. Support His contributions are numerous, and of high quality. His honesty is refreshing. One mistake is nothing; if we removed admins on the same basis we appear to refuse admitting them, then we'd be admin-less in a year. --Haemo 08:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
50. Support not only because he has a record of being a good editor, and an excellent writer, which is exactly what we need around here, but he was very honest in his full disclosure. I would prefer to have an admin who admits mistakes rather than hides them. If he had hidden the mistake and someone had told me about it, then this would be a strong oppose. But, the conclusion to all that rambling is that he has contributed significantly, made one isolated mistake, and learned from that, so I think he'll do an excellent job as admin. Also, I agree with Haemo on the admin-less point. Peace, Neranei 16:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Being a good writer doesn't make someone a good admin. It wasn't him who pointed out his incivil edit. Epbr123 16:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
      • You're not reading - it was IvoShandor who pointed out the edit (at the very beginning above in the questions), and this has mentioned numerous times in this discussion. Please pay attention. Thanks. --David Shankbone 16:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Yes. Forthrightly presenting one's mistakes is a plus; don't take that away from IvoShandor. MastCell 16:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
51. Strong moral and actual support. My first instinct was to oppose based on The Diff. But it's not so much what you do; it's what you do next. IvoShandor admitted his mistake and apologized. That goes a long way. Admins make mistakes, and they get annoyed. Do we want an admin who is willing to admit and attempt to correct his mistakes, or one who circles the wagons and responds defensively? Few, if any, admin actions are irreversible; the problem isn't bad admin decisions made in the heat of the moment, but unwillingness to admit a mistake. Anyone with 12,000 edits is going to have some whoppers, but I'm impressed both with the full disclosure in Q3 and the apology he made at the time. I can't, in good conscience, oppose someone for one mistake in 12,000 edits, which they immediately recognized and attempted to correct. This is an example of how we're potentially excluding people who would make good admins (based on a Supreme-Court-confirmation-style approach to one diff out of context), and why keeping a low profile and making only non-controversial vandalism reverts is an effective way of gaming the RfA system. I don't want that to be the case. MastCell 16:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
52. Strong support. He's a good editor, and anyone with enough integrity to show one of their own mistakes when asking for a "promotion" says a lot. SU Linguist 16:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
53. Support on the basis that responding to criticism and being critical is not the same thing as being incivil. Admitting one's own mistake is the sign of a good user. Too many people hide being the Good Faith and Civility shrouds in order to avoid criticism themselves, so to admit a fault shows maturity, and that is what is needed in an admin - even if one time he got a little hot under the collar - after all, we're all human, aren't we? — superbfc — 17:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
54. Support I am very impressed in my dealings with IvoShandor. My most frequent interactions with him have been at WikiProject Chicago's section for Newly Created Pages where I as the Project Director review new pages for minor tweakings and at WP:GAC where he as a reviewer has been active in many of my GAC nominations. He consistently produces high quality new pages at the intersection of our project and his WP:NRHP interest. We at WPChi are quite fortunate to be the beneficiary of his geographic placement because he does great work on local National Register of Historic Places listings. At GAC he provides detailed feedback that helps people interested enough in improving the project to nominate articles for GAC to continue improving the project after the conclusion of a nommination. His feedback is among the best of the reviewers I have dealt with at GAC. You can see that I know of what I speak on this matter because I represent 2 of the 3 formerly failed GACs that have become GAs from his review pool. In general, I trust his opinion and would trust his judgment with more extensive powers. One thing I would like to see from him is more detail on his affiliation with WP:LOCE (possibly a separate page documenting specific involvement). TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
55. Weak support. Weak, because of the diffs; support, because I believe there won't be a repetition. I should add I've seen IvoShandor around GA and he's a productive and valuable editor there. Mike Christie (talk) 21:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
56. Support. Obviously The Incident is troubling. My gut feeling is that he's learned his lesson and won't do it again. And everything else about him is positive. Herostratus 22:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
57. Support per the three nominators, their descriptive paragraphs of IvoShandor's contributions to the project says it all. Smee 06:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC).
58. Support Having interacted well with this user in the past, I believe he will do well with the tools. He has been an asset to the GA process, and I think that he has learned how to handle himself better and wants to continue to improve Misplaced Pages. --Nehrams2020 08:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
59. Support I've met several admins who are a lot less civil than IvoShandor. Epbr123 10:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
60. support - ivo has shown consistent commitment to improving multiple areas of wikipedia as outlined above. my observations of ivo's activities at WPChi, NRHP, and GAR have been nothing but positive. ivo's high level of responsiveness and assistance is impressive. ChicagoPimp 15:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
61. Support - I add my support. There is not much else I can say that has not already been said in support of Ivo. I feel the user can be trusted with the tools (and who here honestly has not had one or two slip-ups while editing Misplaced Pages)?--Ozgod 15:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Sorry, but the diff pointed out below by Gaff is a bit worrying. SlimVirgin 00:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

   This comment also seems to be from IvoShandor. SlimVirgin 00:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

   I'm not voting or anything but Id like to point out that that comment was made the same night as the comment Ivo Shandor mentioned above and under the same drunken circumstances, so I'm hoping it would be considered the same one-bad-night kind of incident--SebastianBean 03:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

   So the moral of the story is what, not to log in to Misplaced Pages while intoxicated? -- Phoenix2 03:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

   I think the moral for you is not to focus on one incident to condemn an accomplished editor who shows no pattern of such behavior. That's a little harsh, don't you think? I don't really see the value in fishing through a person's edit history looking for something to damn them, and then jumping on it with an oppose. You got anything else, or is that all? It's pretty unfair, Phoenix, and unbecoming to rush to judge. --David Shankbone 04:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

   For the record Gaff didn't point out the diff, I did, above in my questions. Simple oversight I am sure. IvoShandor 05:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

   Thanks for pointing that out. And thanks, Mr. Shankbone, for jumping on me when it is not simply I that thinks this is a big deal. Your argument was rendered useless anyway, since the candidate brought it up himself. -- Phoenix2 21:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

   Not the rush to judge over one mistake bit. Still very apropos. --David Shankbone 01:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

2. Oppose Until we have an explanation to those diffs. --ST47Talk 00:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

   He pointed that diff out himself and gave an explanation on it in the same sentence in question 3. Please try to pay attention. - Bobet 09:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

3. Oppose "Cursing like a sailor" at a fellow Misplaced Pages shows anger problems, immaturity. An expletive here and there is one thing (and is still not good), but those diffs are disgusting. Xoloz 00:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose per diff presented below and that by Jazz above. That is seriously concerning. -- Phoenix2 01:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose per above diffs - unacceptable for an editor, let alone an admin. Crum375 01:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
6. Oppose civility is extremely important for administrators. Prodego 01:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

   Oppose for now. This diff concerns me greatly. The arguments have been made about civility, but that this was also just one incident, etc., etc., but I was upset by something else altogether. In the comment, in attacking the spammer, IvoShandor asserts "I am an established user and your a fuck, so fuck off." This makes me think he believes his status as "an established editor" makes his interpretation of policy more valid. I can only surmise he will view adminship as another title or status-level rather than just a few more tools, which is all it is. Goodnightmush 02:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC) Suppose that's enough proof for me. As long as adminship is just a few more needed tools then I can't oppose. Goodnightmush 03:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

   You really cannot surmise anything from one incident, regardless you are enititled to your opinion and thanks for taking the time to comment here, as far as status goes that's not why I am here. I sincerely think I can help out the project, status means nothing around here and regardless of the outcome of this RfA I have established myself as someone who can be trusted on the Wiki, either way you go thanks. IvoShandor 05:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

   Perhaps this aid your decision: . That was April 10 when he approached me for admin coaching. We agreed to put it off until June because there was definitely a problem then. "Oh well, it's not that big of deal, adminship, I mean. Maybe I will just forget about and keep working on the project as I have been." This doesn't indicate that he thinks of admin tools as a status level. Thanks, James086 09:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

7. I don't worry much about civility, but "you got the guts to change some shit on wikipedia but ill fuck your ass up", et al. are clearly not acceptable. Drunkenness is not an excuse, nor is "it happened 3.5 months ago". Ral315 » 03:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

   Comment You may all be correct, but there is no pattern of this incivility, and he was intoxicated at the time. I think that, whether it be incivility to a lesser extent, or a couple of images that did not have a fair-use rationale, or a copy-vio, every user has made their mistakes. IvoShandor is unfortunate - that little piece of his history has been dredged up from the talk archives and used against him as one of the only current catalysts for opposition. I bet other people who have been promoted to adminship have simply been luckier, their little mistakes not found amongst the masses of good and well-meaning edits. People have to decide - will they let this small case of incivility ruin IvoShandor's Rfa, and any of his later chances at the mop? Or will they let it go and give the guy a chance? Anonymous Dissident 05:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

   Comment: As I said, I expected many opposes because of the diff I pointed out, but I am not here to make excuses. I messed up but it was once. One time, my pattern of behavior outside of that one incident has been good and I go out of my way to help even those I disagree with. I would also note that I was the one who pointed out the diff in the interest of full disclosure. Of course, you are all entitled to your own opinions. IvoShandor 05:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

   Indeed, I do consider it helpful that you pointed it out yourself, and give you credit for that. Provided that it doesn't happen again, and that you make sure you don't edit while intoxicated again, I'd be happy to support next time around. Ral315 » 18:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

8. Civility and No personal attacks are important policies for an admin. --Dark Falls 06:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
9. Oppose That diff presented and discussed here is enough reason. Jmlk17 07:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
10. Oppose - That dif mentioned was 3 months ago. I would wait 2 or 3 more months before considering him for adminship. A single edit shouldn't remain an indef "block" from becoming an admin, but this was too recently, in my opinion. Od Mishehu 12:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

    Oppose As an admin you will have to deal with angry people, frustrated people, clueless people, even downright stupid people. I cannot support with the worry that you will react in that same way to the myriad of people who will come to your talkpage/inbox asking about your administrative actions. Honestly, if I saw that on my talkpage, it woulda scared the crap outta me. Riana ⁂ 16:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC) I can't support, but you did bring it up yourself. That much should be admired. Riana ⁂ 14:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

11. Strong oppose I think the diffs above show your inability to keep cool and remain civil, as well as to not make personal attacks, it was completely out of order to use bad language to the user, I wont be able to support in any other future RfA's of yours for at least 6 months. The Sunshine Man 17:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
12. Fuk, man! Shit! I am opposing, and if anyone don't like it, they can come down to Jersey and CONFRONT. -- Y not? 04:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

    Seriously Do you think that there is an appropriate amount of time after somebody loses it, dealing with a spammer or blatant vandal, that they can become an admin? Gotta admit that I was blown away by those edits, before I reviewed the user's other contributions. —Gaff 04:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

    I am not sure. Maybe not for this. If the user can fly off the handle like this - I don't think I can ever support. -- Y not? 04:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

    An attitude like that (adios, good faith!) will ensure that I'll never support you for adminship. Yeesh. One mistake in 12,000 otherwise thoughtful and valuable edits and the poor guy is pilloried. No wonder we're short of admins. We create our own problem. Neil ╦ 09:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

    IvoShandor blew his top in dealing with a blatant repetitive vandal. Its an isolated blemish on an otherwise impressive record. I think its unfair to put that much weight on it, saying that you can never support. —Gaff 07:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

    Adminship is not so much an issue of reward for 20,000 productive edits as it is an issue of trust. What I am saying is I cannot trust the judgment of anyone who is capable of making a post like that. This is a matter of strict liability for me, so any alleged drunkenness doesn't really make a difference. To give you another example, I make a point of opposing people who have been guilty of seriosu WP:BITE violations. Same deal. Ordinarily civil people are allowed to have moments of incivility, but this is completely indefensible. -- Y not? 03:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

    Gimme a break, surely everyone here has lashed into a profanity laden tirade at someone, somewhere, sometime in their lives, sheesh, you should hear the couple down the block, they're both still alive, surprisingly. I don't know if the content matters so much as it was a personal attack, the person in question just laughed it off, seeing that I was obviously impaired. It wasn't the end of the world then and it isn't now. IvoShandor 13:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

    Y, I think you are way off here. Everyone is capable of being drunk and launching into a tirade, and it reflects not a thing on their character. I strongly disagree with the way you are posting here, damning a person who has given a lot to Misplaced Pages and had a moment of lapse. I don't believe your religion allows you to take such a high-and-mighty judgmental tone, and throwing around legal jargon stretches all realms of propriety. I take strong exception to the gleeful judgment that you are passing on this person. Frankly, I find people like you the reason why it is so hard to get good people to put themselves forth for a position of authority and public service. Find one moment when they lapsed, and they are nothing but that moment in time. That is the whole of their sum. Unacceptable. --David Shankbone 14:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

    Guilty as charged on the legal jargon. :) As to your substantive point, look, I am appreciative as anyone of people who contribute productively to Misplaced Pages, but that does not mean I think that 100% of those people are suitable for adminship. Lots of people thought I was unsuited for adminship at my second RfA, and I don't think any of them would deny that I am "a person who has given a lot to Misplaced Pages". -- Y not? 22:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

    I noticed the Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/NYC JD (Y's previous name) page is missing with no deletion log and Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Y]] is not there, either. I checked Y's contribs and they're missing before Feb 22, 2007 which is about the time he became admin. Strange. It seems all his contributions and logs before becoming an admin have vanished. They're not on NYC_JD, either. SakotGrimshine 04:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

    Oh don't inquire. I am a secret cabal-approved sockpuppet. Anyway, at the time of my sysopping a public announcement was made. And, as my userpage plainly states, anyone with a sysop flag could see it as well. But if you insist, email me and I'll tell you. -- Y not? 04:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

    Okay, this comment made me crack up. LOL! Kamryn Matika 16:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

    Me too! --MichaelLinnear 06:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

13. I am not confident in your ability to converse effectively, which is so important for those with the admin bits. Daniel 06:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
14. I've never opposed anyone on civility grounds. But there are limits. No, sorry. I'd say 6months of good behaviour and maybe the slate can wipe, but not now.--Doc 12:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

    I am not sure that a difference of a month and a half could provide any reasons to change your opinion, seems rather arbitrary to me, it's fine to oppose but what difference would another month and a half or two months make? IvoShandor 18:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

15. No. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

    Anything else besides "No"? IvoShandor 16:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

    Oppose per issues of civility & keeping his cool. —AldeBaer 19:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Oh, what the heck. Changing to support.

    Issue. One issue, not issues. Once. Of course you can oppose, but there aren't any "issues." IvoShandor 20:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

    Okay, issue, sorry for that. —AldeBaer 00:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

16. Oppose Every editor has moment(s) of forgetting civility for whatever reasons. The diffs provided by SlimVirgin are so far over the top and too recent to forget. Then add in other actions that either border on or cross over to personal attacks and uncivil behavior, it's just not acceptable. Orangemarlin 00:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

    Note that the nom pointed out that diff, not SlimVirgin originally. PLus, what "other actions" do you mean? I only see that one bad night.--Wizardman 01:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

17. Oppose Making personal attacks is not a quality that I expect to see in any administrator. If those diffs were ~1-2 years old, then that'd be a different story. Please try again later. (→zelzany - review) 03:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
18. Oppose Incivility among administrators is intolerable. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 10:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

    Better head to Arbcom then, you've got a lot of work ahead of you. --MichaelLinnear 06:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

19. Oppose. While incivility by administrators is a Bad Thing, I tend to think it's rather less of a big deal than most people do. If I'd had one beer too many, I might tell some particularly noxious vandal to go fuck himself. (Certainly it's a lot shorter and easier to type than many alternative utterances that are unquestionably acceptable.) I hope I wouldn't, but I might -- and it's language used by even such an, um, respected and beloved public figure as Dick Cheney. But that's one thing. By contrast IvoShandor goes into a diatribe. He seems disturbed. Maybe it's a fluke; I hope so, for his sake. If nothing like it were to occur till next year, and if his sober persona were to keep on doing a good job, I'd vote for him then. -- Hoary 12:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

    I don't think RfA is the place for your psychological opinion, please don't stray off topic. IvoShandor 13:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

    Clarify: Meaning this: He seems disturbed. IvoShandor 13:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

    Oppose Not enough edits to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Spam or Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Automobiles. --209.172.41.76 19:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

    I'm removing this oppose, as you must have a registered account to participate in RfAs. Cool Blue 19:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

20. Oppose I hope you really have learned from the unfortunate incident in February, but it is still too soon to ignore what I consider very problematic lapses. I will happily reconsider at a later time. Best wishes. Eluchil404 20:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
21. Oppose- Per WizardmanOrangemarlin.

    Thanks for pointing out the diff I pointed out at the start of this. IvoShandor 04:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

    Strong oppose, for the apparent sarcasm, incivility, and tone, in that comment. And yes, I just took that diff from the beginning of the RfA, I didn't dig it out. Cool Blue 12:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

    I can understand IvoShandor's frustration over how several people are pointing out this diff as if he hadn't brought it up himself and as if that fact (his being straightforward about that incident) didn't make any difference (which it very much does!). At any rate, not a good reason to change to strong oppose, and not a particularly civil response on your part, either, Cool Blue. —AldeBaer 13:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

    Yes it is frustrating because implies that nothing else I have done or said has absolutely any bearing on this proceeding. It seems this entire RfA is about one past mistake, reminds me of a presidential campaign in the United States. Cool Blue, you can strong oppose all you want but it won't change my frustration with this entire RfA, but if that's what you call incivility, then wow, everyone of the users who have passed RfA must have halos over there heads, regardless thanks for taking the time to comment. IvoShandor 13:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

    Sorry if it's frustrating you, but I've changed my oppose reason to WizardmanOrangemarlin's, but see there's my tone issue again. "Cool Blue, you can strong oppose all you want but it won't change my frustration with this entire RfA, but if that's what you call incivility, then wow, everyone of the users who have passed RfA must have halos over there heads, regardless thanks for taking the time to comment." Cool Blue 14:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

    Wait, what? I'm confused why you're opposing per me, as I didn't oppose. Unless you're supporting per my oppose which doesn't make sense.--Wizardman 14:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

    I meant Orangemarlin, sorry Wizardman. Cool Blue 22:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

    (undent)That is how I feel, it's not uncivil, it's not attacking you, but if your opinion and reason for opposing more forcefully is that the statement has tone problems then it is my opinion that there is no way anyone can live up to your standards. Perhaps I illustrated said point with slightly more colorful and descriptive language but I don't see that as a tone issue, nor as a civility issue. Perhaps I am wrong. IvoShandor 14:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

    Look... I know you're having a frustrating time with this RfA. I'm just saying that maybe you should just edit mainspace for a little bit, come back in three months with no subsequent conflicts such as that, and you'll be fine. I'll support you then, if nothing's changed. You'll have to deal with a lot of people that you'll be unhappy with at times, such as JazzButcher, (or me!) that you don't necessarily agree with. Maybe you could join the kindness campaign, or help out at the help desk to show that you care about the community as a whole. Please understand that I'm trying to help you. Cool Blue 22:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

    It was just one incident, months ago, he shouldn't be forced to do busywork to redeem himself. --MichaelLinnear 06:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

22. Oppose - I'm concerned with civility. Show us you can stay calm and polite while editing and then come back in a few months. Majoreditor 02:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

    It happened in February, so that's several months right there, not to mention all the time before that lapse. Clearly he does just fine at staying calm and polite while editing, and he seems to be handling all the unwarranted opposition in this RfA well. I don't think there's anything he needs to prove. Everyking 17:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

23. Oppose. We've all lost our cool sometimes but those are pretty harsh diffs - it's also too recent to show it wouldn't happen again. Sophia 06:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
24. May go Sideways with mop. - Mailer Diablo 16:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

    Ha! --MichaelLinnear 06:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

    Huh? —AldeBaer 08:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

25. Oppose per the civility issues, which won't come as a huge surprise to those who keep an eye on WP:GA/R. No heckling please. Johnbod 18:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

    Not sure what you mean here with the reference to GAR, I haven't been doing much at all with GA-anything in awhile and don't recall any confrontations when I was, none at all that I can even hazily remember. And the civility issue is still the only issue, no issues. Thanks for taking the time to comment though. IvoShandor 18:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

    Strong Oppose per the civility issues. Epbr123 01:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

26. Strong Oppose You can't be admin and do that. --~ Wikihermit _(HermesBot) 03:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
27. Strong Oppose per civilty issues. Miranda 06:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
28. Moderate Oppose I do not regard the judgmental clique of WP:GA as helpful to Misplaced Pages; it is particularly bad training for adminship, which should be the opposite. I suspect this is what Johnbod means above. Without that, I would regard one civility issue as unimportant. User is also supported by some editors whose judgment I do not trust; so I cannot trust him either. (Moderated in deference to Mike Christie's judgment). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
29. Strong oppose per user's apparent failure to understand that reasonable people can be offended by things that he obviously does not understand , among several others. The entire username saga is extremely sad, but IvoShandor did not help with his repeated assertion that there's nothing wrong with someone claiming to be a pimp. Corvus cornix 01:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

    All that diff points out is that I believe there is a vast difference between the popular usage and meaning of the term "nigga" and the term "pimp" and there is. You obviously didn't read that discussion as the user in question asserted that it was not his intention to "claim to be a pimp." I never, NEVER, asserted that it was okay for someone to claim to be a pimp, that's absurd, wrong and hurtful to me. Thanks. IvoShandor 06:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

    Comment. I looked at that diff. I find the reasoning for this "oppose" vote disturbing. Some people are offended by the word "pimp" and by the notion that others would, jokingly or otherwise, call themselves pimps. Others aren't. It's imaginable that one side in this argument has a lot more reasoning on its side than the other. It's imaginable that everything that IvoShandor has said about it is wrong (although I doubt this). But I find nothing offensive or even inappropriate about either what he has said or the way he has said it. ¶ I'm more alarmed to think that anyone thinking of either throwing their hat into this RfA circus or allowing somebody else to do it for them would have to avoid even polite expressions of ideas that might offend some people, somewhere, even within entirely proper (and indeed somewhat formalized) discussions about alleged offensiveness. ¶ Or maybe I'm wrong and the overwhelming majority of WP editors want to allow only (a) agreement with or (b) acquiescence to any claim that anything has offended anyone. -- Hoary 09:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

    Corvus, this is a disturbing oppose. Ivo held a civil discussion but disagreed with an editor over a User name. You are now stating you oppose him because you do not like his opinion. This is completely antithetical to what Misplaced Pages stands for, and I am disturbed by your effort to punish him because you disagree with him. You state on your User page, "I got off to a bad start (although I was never blocked), and want to start over again. Consider this my new Misplaced Pages life." Not a good way to start a new life. I think you have some soul-searching to do. To the rest of the opposers, I find your oppose based on one diff in 12,000, one that this editor himself pointed out as a momentary lapse, to be equally disturbing. Shame on you guys for your judgmental focus on one moment in time. No wonder we can't find admins. We have the Saint Squad acting as if what Ivo did is akin to drunk driving or "strict liability" (a legal concept typically applied to pill manufacturers who poison people, or those commit statutory rape). I'm a little disgusted by the attitudes shown on this page, and I know I'm not the only one. --David Shankbone 11:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

    Do you genuinely think your attitude is doing Ivo's candidacy any good? In terms of Misplaced Pages standards, what he did is comparable to drunk driving. I chose not to oppose over it, but it's far from a ghastly sin to believe that someone capable of drunken fits of obscenities once is capable of it more than once, and far from unreasonable to want longer than three months for a probation period. Reining in the shrill "How dare yous?" would make this (for the moment) fencesitter a little less disgusted himself.  RGTraynor  12:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

    Ivo's candidacy is already sunk, and if you are to vote against him because of my disgust at the judgmental hate hoots found in the oppose section over one brief, fleeting moment, then it says more about you than it does about myself of Ivo. Read w:Don't be a dick. It's very appropriate to this discussion, and the moral indignation expressed by those who find one drunken edit to be the whole of Ivo's Misplaced Pages sum. --David Shankbone 13:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

    If "you" means RGTraynor, you're targeting the wrong person: He's already voted: Neutral. -- Hoary 14:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

    That being said, yes, I've read WP:DICK. I think David should take it to heart.  RGTraynor  14:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

    Oh, it's taken to heart. I'm n not the one comparing a one-off drunken rant to an act that costs lives such as drunk driving. Let's not take Misplaced Pages that seriously and keep what we do here in perspective. Drunk driving costs thousands of lives. A drunken edit has rubbed people the wrong way. Comparing the two goes to the heart of being a dick. --David Shankbone 15:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

30. Oppose. Dignity is germane to an AfD discussion. And there are two instances deserving of such a discussion for the editor being considered, per SlimVirgin and Corvus cornix. The standards should be higher for admins. --Fire Star 火星 14:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

    Well well, I must be missing something. As I see it, there's one instance. While it's serious, I'm in no mood to pontificate further about it. As for the one pointed out by Corvus cornix, there's nothing to it. Ivo said something that offended a particularly sensitive soul. I hope you don't hold admins and admin candidates responsible for offenses endured (or imagined) by particularly sensitive souls. Certainly I don't. -- Hoary 14:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

    It is your opinion that there is nothing to it. Mine is different. In my opinion, declaring oneself a pimp is (knowingly or unknowingly) flying a flag declaring acceptance of violent sexual supremacy in order to intimidate. People so intimidated (or wishing to intimidate) may consider that "cool" but I feel otherwise. --Fire Star 火星 14:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

31. Oppose

    Support One mistake? And a damn foul one at that. I notice you apologized without it being dragged out of you and without putting any of the blame for your behaviour upon the other party. That qualifies you as an adult in my book--and ditto Katie's comment above. KP Botany 23:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC) And, Hoary, you can stop with the personal attacks like, "particularly sensitive soul," as Ivo got enough jabs in telling me I was being "politically correct" and insulting me in other ways--neither of you know anything about me. If Ivo wants to be part of the "gang up on any editor who questions an administrative abuse of process gang" so be it. But not with my vote. It's amazing how many times and places bashing me is required to cover up User:Chrislk02‎'s calling me a troll, removing my commentary, and closing the RFCN so I couldn't respond--it's time to stop. KP Botany 15:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

    How many different forums are you going to use to complain about the WP:RFCN case about User:ChicagoPimp? It seems like this RFA for IvoShandor has become a laundry list for all sorts of unrelated debates. What's next, an argument about the amount of influence that Louis Sullivan had on Frank Lloyd Wright or on how much McKim, Mead and White slavishly copied from Henry Hobson Richardson? --Elkman 16:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

    Why do the supporters of IvoShandor have to take it upon themselves to repeatedly make personal attacks on those who oppose this nomination? Corvus cornix 16:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral Until I can better understand this . Looks like a rather intense personal attack only a couple months ago. Even as an isolated incident, this is concerning. Seems a little too hot headed & fly off the handle-ish for an admin. I'll look at this more and consider any responses before finally deciding my vote. —Gaff 00:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I want to be clear that this is a neutral vote. I may very well change to support, as this user has made significant contributions. This looks like a fluke from an editor frustrated by a spammer who is no longer even active. —Gaff 02:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thing of it is, is people are just looking at that, and not the whole of what went on. From an IP user who kept putting it up, to the that guy just ignoring all of our reasonings for why what he wanted to put up wasn't notable. It isn't like he just was like, I am going to go off on this guy here. It was something that was building over several weeks, and it just happens. Instead of focusing on one incindent, look at what he has done! Has created from scratch sever GAs, many many DYKs. I see this happen on many people's nominations. People that oppose focus on one issues, and they stick with it instead of looking at what the person has done as a whole.--Kranar drogin 02:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I changed to support.—Gaff 03:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

One more comment: Like I said, no excuse for that behavior, regardless if it was a spammer who did nothing else, eveyone deserves to be treated with civility, I screwed up, but it never happened before that and hasn't happened since. I don't know if there is anything else I can say to explain this, obviously I was angry and frustrated and acted rather immaturely. For that I am sorry, but I can't change it, just try to explain. IvoShandor 05:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Neutral Comment (for now). (change to support). Like many others above, I'm concerned about the civility diff. But looking back at the history of this page, I think it is to the candidate's credit that he is the one that brought it up, took responsibility, and committed himself to not repeating. I will be looking over the user's other contributions, but unless I find other examples, I think that this becomes a time for us to think about WP:FORGIVE. Bucketsofg 12:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Further comments. (1) His exchange over a problematic user's block (User_talk:Hesperian/Archive_18 and User_talk:IvoShandor/Archive_Apr_2007#Aurora) make me think better of him: he is doing his best to WP:Assume good faith (or, when it is impossible, the best faith possible). (2) This discussion about image-policy suggests to me that he is sensitive to correct application of image-use policy and diplomatic about the way he brings problems to people's attention. (3) The testiest I've found is in Talk:Rule_of_Rose, where he gets frustrated by incorrigible spammer with a COI. Bucketsofg 12:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

1. Neutral. I really hate to let so much hang on couple of poorly made edits, but civility and cooperation are in my opinion paramount to a collaborative effort like Misplaced Pages. Since there seem to be no further outbursts of this kind it does appear that the candidate has likely "learned their lesson" and I am unwilling to oppose on that diff alone, but the severe incivility of said diff makes me want to wait a little longer and be 100% certain the candidate can retain a level head. Otherwise your contributions look good, keep up the good work and in a couple more months I would happily support. Arkyan &#149; 17:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
2. Neutral You are a great editor but you have had way to many civility issues. If you go a year without civility issues I would be happy to support you. Sorry.--James, La gloria è a dio 02:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

   Again the user only had one civility issue, two comments made on one drunken night to one user he had been having a problem with for a long time and there have been no other problems related to his civility.--SebastianBean 03:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

3. Neutral The civility issue pointed to above is just too severe too overlook at this time. With a few more months without further problems would enable me to support then. Davewild 11:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

   My question is though as has been stated above, how are a couple months really going to change anything? The same stuff would be brought up then, as is now.--Kranar drogin 23:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

A few more months would demonstrate to me that it was just a one off incident and could be trusted to be a civil admin, at the moment on balance I believe he would be but am not sure enough to support at this time due to the severity of the incident. Davewild 18:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Using the excuse of being incivil because you were drunk is just as good of an excuse as "I got in a car accident because I was drunk." If you can go a year without being incivil then it I would forgive and forget this but this is far to recent.--James, La gloria è a dio 01:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh brother. IvoShandor 06:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Comparing this to an auto accident are two totally different things. Not only that, but a drunk accident like that lives with you for much longer than a year. What would a year be. Nothing to people. I still feel that people are just using this as en excuse not to accept someone that has contributed to the wiki community extensively.--Kranar drogin 07:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they are and it's a good excuse. Epbr123 10:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

(undent)I still don't agree that Ivo's one mistake is the same as , but that is just me I guess. I would agree that it is a good excuse IF it was something constant. I do not agree when it was one incident that has happened since he has been a member on the Misplaced Pages.--Kranar drogin 14:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say it was a good excuse but it's part of the incident, to claim that alcohol doesn't impair judgment would be absurd. Kranar's right in the fact that if I was an alcoholic this would be a better excuse (still a crappy one at that) but I don't want to excuse my actions and I am not an alcoholic. IvoShandor 17:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

1. Neutral: The editor's accomplishments are manifest, and I'm no knee-jerk civility hawk, but that was an outrageously egregious incident, and I think the co-noms let him down by suggesting that three and a half months is anywhere near soon enough to live it down. Beyond that, two things. First off, I'm troubled by the presumption that adminhood should be some sort of prize for being a diligent and accomplished editor; if that was the case, let's just bag the entire RfA process, award points per 1000 edits or every GA/FA, and just give you admin tools when you hit 100 pts. Secondly, the vehemence of the editors telling Oppose voters that they have no right to judge Ivo for that incident is getting just a bit thick. People Oppose in RfAs on far flimsier grounds than drunken bursts of obscenities.  RGTraynor  01:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The above adminship 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.

Fvasconcellos

Closed as successful by Cecropia 16:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC) at (76/0/1); Scheduled end time 16:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Fvasconcellos (talk · contribs) - I'm pleased to nominate Fvasconcellos for adminship. Fvasconcellos joined us in March 2006, and has since found a niche in editing medical and pharmacological articles: Paul Georges Dieulafoy, 5-HT3 antagonist, metformin, Lanreotide, and 5-HT3 receptor are just some examples. I think one of his greatest contributions is his exceptional work drawing and correcting structural formulae of high quality (here are ondansetron and lanreotide for example), which have added context to articles. But he has helped us in many ways other than his excellent article and image contributions: He has showed ability to judge content by reviewing good articles (and stayed on improving them until 3 attained featured article status), and by participating in WP:FAC. He is involved in guideline development and wikiprojects: he has helped design Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles) and has been an active participant in Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Pharmacology and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Chemistry. He's helped with AfD, recent changes patrol, in article categorization, and other gnome like activities. I see him taking on a role in assisting with content based administrative work, like page protection and unprotection, and helping out with main page elements such as helping maintain Did you know?. I think he'd do well with the added responsibility, and ask for your support in this nomination by Alison and myself. Thanks -- Samir 17:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Co-nomination by Alison - I'm absolutely delighted to co-nom an admin candidate of the calibre of Fvasconcellos. He's been here well over a year now and has built up an impressive amount of work. Anyone who edits pharmacological or drug-related articles will doubtlessly have seen his work as he is a master of creating structural formulae and he has contributed a large body of exquisite InkScape work to Commons . Members of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Pharmacology will be more than familiar with this editor as he's also a significant maintainer of the project. Though his nature is WikiGnomic, his articles appear of a very high quality from the get-go and he prides himself on the quality of his work. Here's just one example. Though an expert in pharma and chemistry, he's also a good all-rounder & I've seen him both posting to AIV and reverting vandalism in the most diverse of places.

As his talk page will attest, Fvasconcellos is an incredibly polite and patient fellow, never BITEy and always willing to help others. He always welcomes new users, even if he's there to issue a warning & I think this speaks volumes about the kind of editor he is. Here's just one example of his interaction with a new editor from just this week. Here's an example of how conscientious he is in his dealings with other editors. Random clicking through his edit history will bring up more and more of the same.

And as Samir already pointed out, he's also been involved in both reviewing and creating Featured Articles. I believe that giving Fvasconcellos the mop and bucket will only enhance his already huge dedication to the project. I cannot speak highly enough of him. Thanks - Alison ☺ 05:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, and am honored. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Should anyone have any additional questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

In the interest of full disclosure, I'd like to note that Axl (talk · contribs) and Casliber (talk · contribs) both added Support votes for this nomination before it went live. As that is not acceptable, both votes were struck. As per a note left on my Talk page, I have notified Casliber that this request is now live. In order to avoid WP:CANVASS concerns, I have not requested his support, and will not notify Axl. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: At first, I'd like to get my feet wet by helping out at CAT:CSD and WP:AIAV. Although many admins hang around both, I'm always slightly surprised by how quickly they become backlogged. I routinely patrol Special:Newpages and mark inappropriate content for speedy deletion, and while I don't have much experience in XfD, I believe there's a distinct difference in closing such discussions and taking action on pages tagged for speedying, and am confident that my understanding of the deletion policy, CSD and common sense are more than enough to act appropriately. Further down the road, I'd very much like to help out at WP:RFPP. I believe protection is a necessary "evil", and find it unfortunate that many editors have a negative attitude towards it; when guided by common sense and regarded as an ancillary resource to discussion, protection helps keep Misplaced Pages encyclopedic as it should be. I'd also have an interest in moving and merging procedure, template maintenance, editing protected pages or templates when requested, helping maintain the Main Page… stop me if I'm getting too general :) I would basically be glad to help at any particularly underserved administrative areas where I could be useful.

2. What are your best contributions to Misplaced Pages, and why?

A: I am most proud of my image uploads and my contributions to WikiProject Pharmacology. I have contributed about 800–900 skeletal formulae to the Wikimedia Commons, both to articles I find by myself and as per requests on Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Chemistry/Image Request, Category:Chemistry pages needing pictures and its subcategories. I have also created and uploaded many molecular models (such as this one), protein images (such as these) and vector diagrams—mostly by request, and several of which now illustrate FAs :) I am quite proud of being able to contribute free content (I release all images I create to the Public Domain) to a somewhat technical area that still requires some artistic sensibility.

As for medical and pharmaceutical topics, I first started contributing to them on WikiProject Drugs; I brought WP:DRUGS to WP:PHARM's attention when the latter was formed, and sort of helped with their subsequent merge discussion. Since then I've kept myself in the loop in all project-related discussions, even though it's not the most active of WikiProjects; I frequently assess pharmacology articles, and reply to queries on the project Talk page whenever I can be of use. Recently I have been clearing out Category:Uncategorised pharmacology articles.

Now for article content: I am not the most prolific creator of new articles, as I like to thoroughly research a topic before writing about it and tend to add only when I find an omission (i.e. something I'd expect to find in an encyclopedia and don't—such was the case with Paul Georges Dieulafoy and 5-HT3 antagonist) and not just because I think "Hmm, this'd look cool on WP". I also consider myself a good proofreader and a fair copy editor, and frequently scan pages for MoS trouble, format references and add them when necessary, convert embedded links to footnotes when appropriate etc. I'm also proud of my participation in FAC, although I'm not a regular, and in the Featured Article review of Mozilla Firefox, where I took part in a nice, enlightening discussion on the reliability of certain sources.

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

A: I honestly don't think I've ever been in any serious conflict with regard to content or whatnot. Although I don't consciously avoid conflict, I do try to avoid causing it when possible. If (when) confronted with such a situation, I would first try to discuss it as thoroughly as possible with the other parties involved; then, ask for external input if it was requested, or if I thought it would help—from WikiProjects, experienced editors, and/or (other) administrators; and proceed to formal dispute resolution resources only if necessary. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from Nishkid64

4. Could you please explain in what situations would you best see fit to semi-protect or fully protect an article? Please give a thorough explanation.

A: It appears I did not express myself as clearly as I thought—let me elaborate: I would be hesitant to fully protect an article if there was no discussion going on as to the reason why protection was requested (i.e. in case of a "simple" content dispute between two editors who are simply duking it out in edit summaries, there's really no point in protecting the page). I would never protect a page as a way of directing attention to the issues which would lead me to protect it; I would only use full protection (which I do find damaging unless used with generous common sense) to maintain the integrity of a page, or, when that's not possible, to prevent further deterioration of the page's content (now I sound like a lawyer :). As for semi-protection, I believe it is most effective in the case of multiple, frequent (several times a day) vandalism coming from multiple non-registered users. I'd like to point out Paris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), an article I watch closely and recently requested semi-protection for: it is a comprehensive article, arguably very popular and probably a source of information for many readers and users, and is a constant target of IP vandalism. By checking the history one may see an almost complete absence of positive IP edits (something I would certainly take into account—if an article is being actively and positively edited by an(some) IP(s), sprot could be detrimental) and the bulk of registered edits are reversion of vandalism. This is a "classic" case of an article I would protect at a glance. I hope I've clarified my position—if you would like me to elaborate further, feel free to ask me to :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Further clarification here, will cross-post should anyone find it necessary. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Really Optional questions from Twooars

5. I am only asking this because you mentioned CSD and common sense :). I want to know how you would interpret IAR with respect to wikipedia's deletion policy, especially CSD, which you have expressed interest in. (What I basically want to know is how flexible or inflexible you are on CSD). Please try to give as broad and general an answer as possible. Thanks. I will not comment at all either way in your RfA discussion if you choose not to answer this. People will probably cry fowl if you answer this either way.

Really Optional Answer. I have a tiny problem with IAR, which is its broad, all-encompassing and fearsome potential for misuse. At least at first, I would not be willing to exercise too much flexibility when speedying articles: the criteria are finite, well-defined if broad and, in doubt, there's always PROD and AfD. I've seen some admins speedily delete hoaxes which have been put up for AfD under CSD G1 (i.e. as patent nonsense). I mention this specific example as I've put hoaxes up for deletion myself, rather than slap {{db-nonsense}} on them, as CSD G1 specifically excludes hoaxes, while WP:HOAX says that they are generally not speedy candidates. As I said above, I think it's a question of common sense. If something has been tagged as a hoax and is obviously nonsense ("John Doe is President of the World, he was born in 1776 and recently outlawed wearing white shoes after Labor Day") it obviously meets CSD G1—hence the patent in patent nonsense. I believe admins should have more leeway on articles on bands, for instance—WP:MUSIC is more conducive to an AfD discussion than to speedy deletion, as it is supposed to be and as it clearly states; that said, I wouldn't hesitate to delete an article that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject, which clearly meets CSD—note assert: whether or not the subject is notable has no bearing on CSD: an assertion of notability is the official cutoff. I'm sorry if this was a circular or unclear answer :)
In short: I am, and will be if this RfA is successful, flexible on CSD within the limits of my common sense. No more, no less. I'm bold but not reckless, and aware and respectful of process but not a total policy wonk. I know that's hard to measure, but I hope my contributions speak for themselves. BTW, I've never, to the best of my knowledge, tagged an article for speedy deletion which was not deleted or was sent to another venue instead. Take from that what you will :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

5a. Ok, I have to ask this: What do you think of the speedy deletion of the Allison Stokke article assuming that assertion of notability was not in question? You would have to check on the relevant AfD and Deletion Review for context. Please comment only on the speedy deletion part.it is really optional this time too. :)

Most Optional Answer Ever: In my view, this is a clear-cut case of a "discretionary speedy": admin(s) use(s) criterion of dubious (IMHO! IM-oh-so-so-HO!!!) applicability as a reason to delete due to legitimate concern (I'd say WP:BLP). Long story short, I wouldn't have speedied the article. I haven't seen the article as it was at the time of first speedy deletion (if any admin would like to send it to me, I'll gladly provide a "further" review—probably a good idea, don't want to sound like an idiot here) but, from what I can see, this was deleted due to BLP concerns under the guise (this is not an accusation) of A7. Valid? Maybe. Would I have done the same? No. Not at all. I won't comment on the AfD or DRV as you've asked me not to, but that's my take on the speedy deletion. I'm open to evidence to the contrary :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from AldeBaer

6. Since we all started out as readers of this encyclopedia, I'd like to know what your three (or more) favourite articles are, ideally with a short explanation as to what especially you like about them.

A. Wow—believe it or not, this is the toughest to answer. An exclusive list of my favorite articles would be impossible to compile; sort of like a list of your Top 5 favorite albums :) I've lost count of how many articles I've edited on WP, and I've certainly read far more than I've edited. To me, "favorite" articles are invariably those I'm somehow proud of, be it due to how I helped improve them or to how I feel they showcase the best of Misplaced Pages. Off the top of my head, I'd have to say I'm very fond of Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907 (its subject notwithstanding). In my humble opinion, this article has been an example of Misplaced Pages's finest work since it was created, from news-like "coverage" while events were actively progressing—I am very interested in the role of Misplaced Pages as a news medium, and its adequacy and reliability as such—, through an almost fierce dedication of its editors to using the best possible sources available, to civil and productive discussion on the Talk page when conflicts arose. It's now a GA, and I'm sure it will make FA in due time. I'm also proud of orlistat, an article to which I am probably the main contributor (COI here :), simply because I believe I helped it reach a pretty good level of accuracy and comprehensiveness; that's ultimately what it's about—this is, after all, an encyclopedia. Tourette syndrome is also one of my favorite articles: it truly exemplifies some of WP's finest work; if memory serves, it was my first contact with the FAC process; and I also had a tiny part in improving it. Interestingly (to me at least), all articles I consider personal "favorites", including and besides those I've mentioned above, have introduced me to editors I have since worked with and greatly respect—IMHO, no article can showcase WP's best if it does not showcase the project's collaborative nature. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

General comments

• See Fvasconcellos' edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
• Links for Fvasconcellos: Fvasconcellos (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Fvasconcellos before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. Support, without reservations. Fantastic contributor, always ready to help. Deeply involved in admin-related tasks. Delightful to work with. Kind, civil and cheerful. Gosh, he's the very model of a modern wikipedian! Phaedriel - 16:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
2. Strong support - I've been trying to think of some pharmacological pun all day to go with this, but it's just not happening! Fvasconcellos is an amazing editor, who basically runs the pharmacology wikiproject. He knows the inclusion guidlines like the back of his hands and I have full trust in his admin abilities. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
3. Strong support A friendly, helpful and efficient editor with particular expertise in images. Also a strong edit record and broad experience. TimVickers 16:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
4. Support - this candidate is clearly very strong in the areas many admins (including myself) lack, i.e. article-writing and collaboration. Good editcount, impressive candidate. Walton 16:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
5. Peacent 16:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
6. Support. Per nom. --Mschel 16:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
7. Support as per nom and responses to questions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
8. Co-nom Support - but of course! - Alison ☺ 17:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
9. Support - I'm impressed by the answers to the questions. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδιτоr 17:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
10. Support Excellent, experienced, level-headed editor will be a great admin. —Gaff 17:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
11. Support Concerns cleared up in Q4. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
12. Support- Excellent editor. Boricuaeddie 18:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
13. Support, good answers. -- Phoenix2 18:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
14. Support I am impressed with answers to the questions, the answers are very well thought out. I am also impressed with the article writing. --DizFreak 19:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
15. Strong Support I am sure anyone nominated by both Samir and Alison will make a good administrator. Acalamari 19:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
16. Support An intelligent, productive, reliable, responsible editor who will make a fine administrator. --Ed (Edgar181) 19:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
17. Support I got my answers. Though from his interactions, he seems way too nice. Methinks he is gaming the RfA ;-)- TwoOars 20:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

    I assure you it is only a veneer of civility (mwahahahaha). No, seriously. I only accepted because I couldn't take the pressure :) Ed had offered to nominate me last year, and I wasn't ready—I hope I'm ready now, whatever the outcome :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

18. Support Good 'pedia builder.cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 21:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
19. Support He almost always beats me to fix the vandalism in my watchlist and has time to add a humorous edit summary. An artist and a gentleman. Colin° 22:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
20. Support. Looks good. I like the look of the contrib history, the question answers are good, and I have great respect for the judgment of the nominators. Clearly a trustworthy user. No issues. WjBscribe 22:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
21. Support. Good collaborator, cool-headed, contributions show a dedication to the project. No reservations at all; just the kind of editor who should be sysopped. MastCell 23:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
22. Support No reasonable objections from me Black Harry 02:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
23. Merovingian ※ Talk 02:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
24. Support, no problems at all. –Sebi ~ 03:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
25. Seems a good candidate and won't abuse admin tools.. --Dark Falls 05:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
26. Support as co-nominator -- Samir 06:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
27. Support as someone with common sense, who knows how to explain his positions tactfully. DGG 08:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
28. SupportI have no reservations whatsoever. Jmlk17 10:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
29. Strong Support - An excellent Contributor...--Cometstyles 10:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
30. Support, looks like the candidate can be trusted with the mop. --Spike Wilbury 14:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
31. Strong support. Fv is not only a gentleman and excellent editor, but also a "jack-of-all-trades", willing to help out with a kind and helpful word whenever and wherever needed — whether vandalfighting on featured articles or obscure biographies, translating, working on pharmacology, medical or computer articles, or policy issues such as WP:MOS. No reservations whatsoever; Misplaced Pages needs more like him. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
32. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 16:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
33. Support with pleasure; FV is an excellent editor. SlimVirgin 18:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
34. Support one of the best. Crum375 18:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
35. 'Support why not? Lmc169 19:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
36. Support - looks pretty good to me. Deb 20:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
37. Support - Great answers+ contributions. RuneWiki777 20:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
38. Strong support fantastic contributor, really nice guy, knows his way around. Strongest support I've given this month, I'm pretty sure. *checks* Yep! ;) Riana ⁂ 20:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
39. Support per reasons set forth on my userpage. Edivorce 21:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
40. Support; Sandy said pretty much everything I was going to say. Titoxd 22:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
41. Advanced life support. Sterling editor, content-heavy yet fully up to steam with policy. JFW | T@lk 22:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
42. Support. Strong, thoughtful contributor with excellent community interactions. Bonus: good sense of humor. Extra-bonus: doesn't take himself too seriously. -- MarcoTolo 23:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
43. Support A good admin I think you will be. Captain panda 23:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
44. Support A great candidate that knows the rules, and knows how to properly implement them. Good luck :) Matt - TheFearow 00:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
45. Support stirling supporter of pharm/medical projects, polite editor, and excellent approach in answering Qs above. Will make an ecellent admin. David Ruben 01:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
46. He is reliable, friendly, helpful, and a all around good editor. Good luck:)--James, La gloria è a dio 03:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
47. Support -- Gogo Dodo 05:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
48. Support -- Per Nom. Cheers! Dfrg.msc 05:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
49. Absolutely. FV has made fine contributions. I believe I participated in the FAR discussion he cites, and I found him willing to both talk and make fixes where they were pointed out. Marskell 08:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
50. Terence 15:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
51. Support I think you will see that his kindness and patience will go a long way in his admin work. Certainly conflicts will arise but he can diffuse the anger. After all, "a spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down!" JodyB _talk 15:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
52. Support A fine editor I'm sure he can handle the stress of adminship fine. Æon 19:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
53. Strong support A great candidate who is knowledgeable, helpful, civil, and who writes articles, always a plus in my book. --Kyoko 21:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
54. Strong support interacts great with other users and I'm sure won't misuse the tools.Arnon Chaffin (Talk) 21:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
55. El_C 23:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
56. Support. The candidate has a great record of contributions and the responses to the questions illustrate an excellent understanding of policy and an ideal approach to avoiding unnecessary conflicts. -- Black Falcon 01:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
57. Support. I've run into Fvasconcellos a couple of times. After creating a stub for a drug... I'd come back and find it filled-out with more detail by one Fvasconcellos (e.g. the Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors- Saxagliptin, Sitagliptin, Vildagliptin). The edits always seemed to be right on the mark. I imagine with the attention to detail and meticulous editing I've seen-- they'd make a great admin. Nephron  T|C 03:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
58. Support. Good contributor, seems sensible. Jayjg 04:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
59. Support per candidate's overall record. No concerns. Newyorkbrad 14:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
60. Support – Obviously an excellent reputation, and good answers to the questions. --Paul Erik 02:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

    Terence 06:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

    Double vote, see above. —AldeBaer 09:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

61. Support. No indicators whatsoever that the candidate might inadvertently, let alone purposefully misuse the tools. —AldeBaer 09:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
62. Support --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ 12:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
63. Strong Support a very fine, model Wikipedian. Would make an ideal administrator. I'm glad I didn't miss this one. —Anas 14:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
64. Support - because oppose and neutral don't even seem an appropriate option. Aaah. If only every editor could have your calibre and integrity. R_Orange 19:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
65. Support - This appears to be a capable and experienced hand. Modernist 21:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
66. Support A very experienced user. --Siva1979 03:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
67. Support seems like a very good person. -Ĭ₠ŴΣĐĝё 00:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
68. Support Bucketsofg 02:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
69. Support. Fvasconcellos is always helpful and dedicated to improving Misplaced Pages. Axl 12:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
70. Support. This is a very capable candidate. SU Linguist 16:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
71. Support beautiful... just... beautiful ~ Infrangible 19:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
72. Support absolutely. Consistently knowledgeable and always a pleasure to work with. Opabinia regalis 22:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
73. Support. Helpful, capable candidate. Majoreditor 02:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
74. Support No reason will not make a great admin. Davewild 10:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
75. Support Constructive editor with vast contributions made and will definitely make positive use of any other facilities.Shyamal 15:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
76. Support - as Fvasconcellos is an exceptional editor, a kind person and an other admin in the medical sections would be absolutely helpful. Go on! NCurse _work 15:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Neutral pending answer to question. I am a little worried regarding the bit about page protection in your answer to Q1. I get the feeling that you think protection may seem like a way for getting users to discuss on the talk page. Knowing this, I'm not totally sure how you would handle full protection requests at WP:RFPP. Any type of article protection should be used only when necessary, and from my interpretation of your answer to Q1, it would seem like your major intention for full protection is to get a discussion going on the talk page. Even with full protection requests, there are times when some requests should be denied, and others should be granted. I won't get into specifics, but I do hope you'll address my concern in the answer to Q4. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

More than fair :) I guess I didn't make myself very clear, sorry. I've replied to your question. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

1. No conflicts? Ever? That worries me. You're about to encounter loads of conflicts when you get promoted to the esteemed rank of Abuse Magnet. Your contributions and the testimonials by others show you're working hard to help Misplaced Pages, which would normally lead me to support, but we have no idea how you will handle under stress, which would tempt me to oppose out of caution. That leaves me neutral. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

   Again, more than fair a concern. I'm well aware of the increased exposure to conflict which comes with adminship, and I also think there's quite a difference between conflict and abuse. If you'd like to see me handle a stressful situation, I can only point you to this exchange between myself and Tony1 (talk · contribs). Although it didn't actually stress me, and I wouldn't consider it a conflict at all—simply a discussion between myself and an editor I greatly respect—one could argue there was a potential for conflict. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

   No conflicts is not the same as no differences. Fvasconcellos took a different position on a featured article review than I did, and as is typical in encounters with Fv, it didn't result in a conflict because of how he handles himself when confronted with differences. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The above adminship 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.

Pax:Vobiscum

Closed as successful by Cecropia 23:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC) at (34/10/2); Scheduled end time 21:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Pax:Vobiscum (talk · contribs) - I've been editing Misplaced Pages for 9 months now and have really enjoyed the experience. I have tried to get a feel of most of the different types of work being done here and think that I have a clear understanding of how things work. I've created new articles, edited old ones, participated in deletion discussions and warned vandals. I have lately felt that I could contribute even more if I had access to the admin tools so here I am. I consider myself pretty calm and I think my understanding of the Misplaced Pages policies is solid. I also don't have any trouble admitting that I don't know everything and that reading through a policy before using it in a discussion isn't forbidden. :) Pax:Vobiscum 21:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: As far as maintenance work I will help out where needed but focus on AfDs, page protection and requested moves. I'll also continue fighting vandalism through speedy deletions and an appropriate amount of banning blocking. (see question 5 and 6)

2. What are your best contributions to Misplaced Pages, and why?

A: My best articles are Simon Phipps Vocal Ensemble and Hans Davidsson, but the work I'm most proud of is all the maintenance edits I've done, fixing links (to disamb pages), sorting out categories, reverting vandalism, particpating in AfDs and, for the last few months, sorting AfDs . Good articles need good maintenance to be useful, and that is my main area of contribution.

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

A: Except for having my user page vandalized a few times (something I assume happens to everyone reverting vandalism) my interactions with other wikipedians have been pretty smooth. There has been an occasional AfD where I've felt frustrated over the arguments made (or the lack thereof) but nothing that has evolved to anything resembling a fight. WZBH is the closest I've gotten to an edit war, an anonymous editor reintroduces information that violates WP:BLP and I revert. I've tried to get a discussion going but without results. The best way to deal with a stressful situation is to think things through carefully before taking action or (if things get ugly) to step back and ask for someone else's opinion.

4. Bonus question to myself: Are there any edits that you are not proud of?

A: When I first started to use AWB I ended up doing a bunch of unnecessary watchlist-clogging edits and even a few really stupid formatting edits. Luckily for me, people assumed good faith and I I'm pretty sure I didn't repeat that mistake.

I I realize that this is a serious process, but I I couldn't help but comment on the repetitive use of a pronoun, but it's not like I I have never made a typographical error... — BQZip01 —

Optional question from Anthony.bradbury

5. Would you please tell me, following from your answer to Q.1, who has the power to ban an editor?

A:As some have already suggested it was a verbal slip, I meant to write blocking but somewhere in my Swedish mind it morphed into banning before it came out. An admin does not have the power to issue bans, that can only be done through community wide consensus or by the Arbitration Committee, Jimbo or the Wikimedia Foundation.

Optional Questions from DarkFalls

6. What is the difference between a ban and a block, and in what situations will you invoke either?

A:A ban is the formal decision to deny a user the right to edit wikipedia. It is taken through community wide consensus or by the Arbitration Committee or Jimbo or the Wikimedia Foundation, and never by a single administrator. A block is the technical procedure of denying a single account (or IP-address) editing privileges (temporary or permanently). Blocks can be used to enforce bans but also for other things as specified in WP:BLOCK. Blocks are most often issued when a set of warnings have been given even though it "is not a prerequisite for blocking".

7.:If you were asked by numerous respected editors in Misplaced Pages to ban a certain user from editing Misplaced Pages, in a IRC channel or email, what would you do?

A:I would kindly remind them of the difference between banning and blocking and give them a link to Misplaced Pages:Banning policy explaining that it is not up to a single administrator to ban a user. I would then investigate if a block would be appropriate.

Optional Question from Black Harry

8. This question is a two-parter. First, do you have a secure password? Second, do you access Misplaced Pages on any free WiFi networks using this account?

A: 1. Yes 2. No

A question from bainer (talk)

9. Under what circumstances should one ignore a rule?

A:I think the policy uses a good formulation, stating that rules should be ignored if they "prevent you from improving or maintaining Misplaced Pages". The rules are very important in making wikipedia a nice place to be, but the rules should always serve Misplaced Pages and not the other way around. WP:IAR is not a tool for me to nullify rules just because I don't like them, but rather a way to make sure that Misplaced Pages doesn't turn into a bureaucracy. When a rule contradicts common sense, consensus and prevents Misplaced Pages from improving, it can safely be ignored.

Optional from Diez2 (talk · contribs)

10.Under what circumstances would you fully protect/semi-protect/unprotect an article? (3 part question) You mentioned in Q1 how you would like to help out in WP:RPP.

A.: 1. Temporary full protection should be used to stop a full blown edit war to force the editors involved to discuss the problem and reach consensus. It can also be used on the user talk of a blocked user in case the unblock template is being abused. I would use permanent full protection to stop an article, deleted through consensus, from being repeatedly recreated. 2. Permanent semi-protection should be used on very high profile articles (and vandalized biographies that aren't being "widely watchlisted") that are sure to attract IP-vandals. It can also be used on a user pages if the user asks for it. Temporary semi-protection should be used on any article that has sustained vandalism from a large number of different vandals. 3. Unprotection should be used if there is reason to think that the situation that caused the protection has changed, such as consensus being reached or a "reasonable period" of time having passed (the admin who placed the block should be consulted unless the unblock is an obvious one).

Question from rspeer

11. Your answers to the questions so far show us only that you make a lot of small edits, have written a couple of stub articles, and have avoided controversy. This means we have no idea what you will do with admin tools, particularly under stressful situations, and we have nothing to distinguish you from hundreds of other AWB users who are not all admins. Can you show us something interesting you've done on Misplaced Pages which distinguishes you and shows your commitment to the project? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

A. With recent admin vandalism in mind I do understand your concerns. The question from my point of view is: how can I prove that I'm not a trojan candidate when I'm not? The only thing I can do is to point out that not a single of my edits can be considered vandalism, that I've always stayed calm even when my edits have been reverted (examples:, , ) or my arguments questioned (, ) and that my interactions with other wikipedians have always been friendly. Even though a lot of my edits have been gnomish in nature I have invested a lot of time and effort in Misplaced Pages and can honestly say that I care a lot about the project.

General comments

• See Pax:Vobiscum's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Pax:Vobiscum: Pax:Vobiscum (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Pax:Vobiscum before commenting.

Discussion

• Please see This discussion about suspected sockpuppets in this RFA. Funpika 00:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Please do not vote based on the sockpuppet issue until a checkuser is performed. It's unfair to the candidate to assume that he/she's involved unless there's evidence to suggest that it was the candidate, and not an enemy trying to raise suspicion about Pax:Vobiscum. Ral315 » 02:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    • A checkuser has now been run by Dmcdevit and determined that the SPA's are socks of a known vandal and unrelated to the candidate. See here. Newyorkbrad 03:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. Although banning and blocking are different, I think everybody should keep in mind that many editors are not native English speakers, and the difference can then become more foggy. This does not mean they will use the tools abusively. Pax tecum. Errabee 00:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
2. Support It seemed to be obvious that it was a verbal slip and I think his balance of work makes him well-qualified.DGG 00:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
3. Support. Majorly, is it not hypocritical to brush off canvassing as negligible and then oppose based on what can be seen as a typographical error? -- Phoenix2 01:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

   Not at all. Majorly (talk | meet) 01:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

   I wonder how many people would have even noticed it if you hadn't mentioned it. You're pretty influential around here. -- Phoenix2 03:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

   To be fair to User:Majorly, I saw it first; hence my Q.5, which pre-dated Majorly's comment, and the answer to which I am satisfied with.--Anthony.bradbury 12:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

   Thanks, and I see it has since been cleared up. -- Phoenix2 18:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

4. Support We're all learning every day, and if someone believes they know everything, then I would say they are more dangerous than someone who knows less but keeps an open mind. --Infrangible 01:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
5. Support As stated above, I'm sure its a mistake, or an error as stated by Errabee. --_{Talk to me} £ 02:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
6. Support oh no! he said he'd ban a user instead of block a user. That was an easy mistake to make, especially for someone who hasn't been able to block anyone yet. So I support him, though we were on opposite sides of an AfD (what, I'm not petty) Black Harry 07:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
7. Support I was fairly certain it was a slip of the tongue, or finger, but I needed him to say so.--Anthony.bradbury 12:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
8. Support (Changed from oppose) Per answer to question 6. He knows the difference between a block and a ban, he just slipped up. Everyone slips up once in a while. --Mschel 15:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
9. Support. The ban/block minor slipup does not worry me in the least. Abeg92contribs 15:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
10. Support The ban/block slip-up was a very simple mistake. I disagree with folks voting neutralor oppose solely on grounds that such an error means you will not be a good admin. So much else suggests that you will be a fine an admin. I just can't see making a big deal over this.—Gaff 16:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
11. Support - Per the answers to the questions. Since it was just a slip up, no reason to opppose. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδιτоr 17:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
12. Support per all of the above. Boricuaeddie 17:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
13. Support Good user.--James, La gloria è a dio 20:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

    Support- very good user, don't see why not. Malbour enziz 20:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC) — Malbour enziz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Majorly (talk | meet) 20:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

    Support- very good user. Noble of pemberton 20:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC) — Noble of pemberton (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Majorly (talk | meet) 20:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

    Support- yes, why not? Crowdman 4000 20:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC) — Crowdman 4000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

    Support- good editor. Pax vulcurcross 20:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC) — Pax vulcurcross (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Majorly (talk | meet) 20:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

14. Support With the ban/block thing cleared up, we're ready to go! Gutworth 01:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
15. Support Am thinking of leaving wikipedia because of aggressive editors but Pax:Vobiscum is very encouraging and also a good editor.Pipermantolisopa 01:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
16. Support the block/ban confusion (although relatively minor) having been cleared up, this editor is a good candidate, and should do well. Carom 04:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
17. Support The issue appears to be cleared up; otherwise, a good editor. Jmlk17 09:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
18. Support Glad to see your slip isn't going to cost you. You seem to already be helpful to others based on your talk page. I'm sure you'll continue to be a fine resource. JodyB _talk 17:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
19. Support <clichè> I thought you already were an admin! </clichè> Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 18:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
20. Support Everything seems good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Runewiki777 (talk • contribs)
21. Support Appears to be a good user to be admining. Captain panda 22:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
22. Support Why not? THe only reason why people are opposing is because the he confused blocking and banning. Big deal, as long as it keeps vandals away, it works with me. Also his answers to the questions seems good. -ScotchMB 01:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
23. Support Great answer to Q10. Diez2 04:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
24. Support - No Problem..--Cometstyles 11:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

    Support. I appreciate the response to Q11. The links he's provided - though to fairly minor incidents - help to show us how he interacts with people in a way that benefits Misplaced Pages. I have no reason to believe he won't continue to do so as an admin, so I support now. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 15:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

    I've oscillated a lot here, but I think I've settled at a weak oppose. I'm sorry that what prompted me to swivel back was not Pax's fault, but here's the thing. The fact that this RfA is so easily mired in confusion highlights the fact that his self-nom is so lacking in content. If I was too quick to oppose based on sockpuppet concerns, I was also too quick to support just because he answered my question. I'm sorry for only adding to the confusion. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 09:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

25. SupoortNice responses to all questions, good editor should be given a nice mop as a reward Æon 19:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
26. Support No one would use SPA socks to support their own RfA - that's just silly. This is clearly a third party trying to disrupt the process. I see no reason not to trust Pax with the tools. WjBscribe 03:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
27. Support. The answers are quite good. If you're doing this for the purpose of gaining admin rights to destroy Misplaced Pages, you're putting up a good cover :) . RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 03:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
28. Weak support - Answers to questions are reasonable. Mild concerns re. knowledge of policy but No Big Deal. WP:SPA accounts do not bother me in the slightest, post-checkuser - Alison ☺ 04:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
29. Support - as someone who uses the heck out of AWB myself. Some of us really ENJOY doing gnomish things, and still believe they're significant contributions to the encyclopedia. Wish the candidate the best. Philippe 20:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

    I hope I haven't upset you with my comments below. To be clear, I value editors who do gnomish things, revert vandalism, and use AWB. It's important work. This isn't a judgement on the value of the user's contributions, which I think is well-established. Adminship isn't a validation of the worth of one's contributions, though. I think Pax is a good editor, whether or not this RfA goes through (and it appears, at present, that it will). MastCell 23:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

30. Support No problems here. Glad to voice my supprt. --Siva1979 03:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
31. Support the reasoning of WJBscribe. Acalamari 19:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
32. Support. Oppose votes don't convince me, in fact all the crossed out ones show me something.--Wizardman 22:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

    Many of the crossed-out votes are solely there because of the single-purpose-accounts throwing confusion on the matter. That's all it shows to me, which is neutral with respect to the candidate. -- nae'blis 13:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

33. Support. The adminship is no big deal, and it is not fair to oppose a candidate on the grounds that their profile seems similar to a recent (surely unique) case. If you've got a diff, produce it. Otherwise, bite your tongue and assume good faith. Bucketsofg 03:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
34. Support. Low talk page edits is irrelevant to adminship. Peacent 07:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

    Why doyou think that? Communication is a primary skill for sysops, and a vandal fighter with that few talk edits probably isn't leaving warnings as often as they should, or engaging users in constructive dialogue with potential good users. -- nae'blis 13:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

    The only real way to know if a person is a good communicator is to actually look at the edits to the talk namespaces, not merely count them. Gracenotes § 14:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

    Unless, of course, it's really low. The same logic applies to another edit count worries. Gracenotes § 14:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)