Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:25, 27 November 2005

Policies on civility and personal attacks apply here. Editors may not make accusations about personal behavior without evidence. Uninvolved administrators and bureaucrats are encouraged to enforce conduct policies and guidelines, including—when necessary—with blocks.

• WP:RFA
• WP:RFX

Requests for adminship (RfA) is the process by which the Misplaced Pages community decides who will become administrators (also known as admins), who are users with access to additional technical features that aid in maintenance. Users can either submit their own requests for adminship (self-nomination) or may be nominated by other users. Please be familiar with the administrators' reading list, how-to guide, and guide to requests for adminship before submitting your request. Also, consider asking the community about your chances of passing an RfA.

This page also hosts requests for bureaucratship (RfB), where new bureaucrats are selected.

If you are new to participating in a request for adminship, or are not sure how to gauge the candidate, then kindly go through this mini guide for RfA voters before you participate.

One trial run of an experimental process of administrator elections took place in October 2024.

About administrators

The additional features granted to administrators are considered to require a high level of trust from the community. While administrative actions are publicly logged and can be reverted by other administrators just as other edits can be, the actions of administrators involve features that can affect the entire site. Among other functions, administrators are responsible for blocking users from editing, controlling page protection, and deleting pages. However, they are not the final arbiters in content disputes and do not have special powers to decide on content matters, except to enforce community consensus and Arbitration Commitee decisions by protecting or deleting pages and applying sanctions to users.

About RfA

The community grants administrator access to trusted users, so nominees should have been on Misplaced Pages long enough for people to determine whether they are trustworthy. Administrators are held to high standards of conduct because other editors often turn to them for help and advice, and because they have access to tools that can have a negative impact on users or content if carelessly applied.

Nomination standards

The only formal prerequisite for adminship is having an extended confirmed account on Misplaced Pages (500 edits and 30 days of experience). However, the community usually looks for candidates with much more experience and those without are generally unlikely to succeed at gaining adminship. The community looks for a variety of factors in candidates and discussion can be intense. To get an insight of what the community is looking for, you could review some successful and some unsuccessful RfAs, or start an RfA candidate poll.

If you are unsure about nominating yourself or another user for adminship, you may first wish to consult a few editors you respect to get an idea of what the community might think of your request. There is also a list of editors willing to consider nominating you. Editors interested in becoming administrators might explore adoption by a more experienced user to gain experience. They may also add themselves to Category:Misplaced Pages administrator hopefuls; a list of names and some additional information are automatically maintained at Misplaced Pages:List of administrator hopefuls. The RfA guide and the miniguide might be helpful, while Advice for RfA candidates will let you evaluate whether or not you are ready to be an admin.

Nominations

To nominate either yourself or another user for adminship, follow these instructions. If you wish to nominate someone else, check with them before making the nomination page. Nominations may only be added by the candidate or after the candidate has signed the acceptance of the nomination.

Notice of RfA

Some candidates display the {{RfX-notice}} on their userpages. Also, per community consensus, RfAs are to be advertised on MediaWiki:Watchlist-messages and Template:Centralized discussion. The watchlist notice will only be visible to you if your user interface language is set to (plain) en.

Expressing opinions

All Wikipedians—including those without an account or not logged in ("anons")—are welcome to comment and ask questions in an RfA. Numerated (#) "votes" in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections may only be placed by editors with an extended confirmed account. Other comments are welcomed in the general comments section at the bottom of the page, and comments by editors who are not extended confirmed may be moved to this section if mistakenly placed elsewhere.

If you are relatively new to contributing to Misplaced Pages, or if you have not yet participated on many RfAs, please consider first reading "Advice for RfA voters".

There is a limit of two questions per editor, with relevant follow-ups permitted. The two-question limit cannot be circumvented by asking questions that require multiple answers (e.g. asking the candidate what they would do in each of five scenarios). The candidate may respond to the comments of others. Certain comments may be discounted if there are suspicions of fraud; these may be the contributions of very new editors, sockpuppets, or meatpuppets. Please explain your opinion by including a short explanation of your reasoning. Your input (positive or negative) will carry more weight if supported by evidence.

To add a comment, click the "Voice your opinion" link for the candidate. Always be respectful towards others in your comments. Constructive criticism will help the candidate make proper adjustments and possibly fare better in a future RfA attempt. Note that bureaucrats have been authorized by the community to clerk at RfA, so they may appropriately deal with comments and !votes which they deem to be inappropriate. You may wish to review arguments to avoid in adminship discussions. Irrelevant questions may be removed or ignored, so please stay on topic.

The RfA process attracts many Wikipedians and some may routinely oppose many or most requests; other editors routinely support many or most requests. Although the community currently endorses the right of every Wikipedian with an account to participate, one-sided approaches to RfA voting have been labeled as "trolling" by some. Before commenting or responding to comments (especially to Oppose comments with uncommon rationales or which feel like baiting) consider whether others are likely to treat it as influential, and whether RfA is an appropriate forum for your point. Try hard not to fan the fire. Remember, the bureaucrats who close discussions have considerable experience and give more weight to constructive comments than unproductive ones.

Discussion, decision, and closing procedures

Most nominations will remain active for a minimum of seven days from the time the nomination is posted on this page, during which users give their opinions, ask questions, and make comments. This discussion process is not a vote (it is sometimes referred to as a !vote, using the computer science negation symbol). At the end of the discussion period, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether there is a consensus for promotion. Consensus at RfA is not determined by surpassing a numerical threshold, but by the strength of rationales presented. In practice, most RfAs above 75% support pass.

In December 2015 the community determined that in general, RfAs that finish between 65 and 75% support are subject to the discretion of bureaucrats (so, therefore, almost all RfAs below 65% will fail). However, a request for adminship is first and foremost a consensus-building process. In calculating an RfA's percentage, only numbered Support and Oppose comments are considered. Neutral comments are ignored for calculating an RfA's percentage, but they (and other relevant information) are considered for determining consensus by the closing bureaucrat.

In nominations where consensus is unclear, detailed explanations behind Support or Oppose comments will have more impact than positions with no explanations or simple comments such as "yep" and "no way". A nomination may be closed as successful only by bureaucrats. In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats may extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination to make consensus clearer. They may also close nominations early if success is unlikely and leaving the application open has no likely benefit, and the candidate may withdraw their application at any time for any reason.

If uncontroversial, any user in good standing can close a request that has no chance of passing in accordance with WP:SNOW or WP:NOTNOW. Do not close any requests that you have taken part in, or those that have even a slim chance of passing, unless you are the candidate and you are withdrawing your application. In the case of vandalism, improper formatting, or a declined or withdrawn nomination, non-bureaucrats may also delist a nomination. A list of procedures to close an RfA may be found at WP:Bureaucrats. If your nomination fails, then please wait for a reasonable period of time before renominating yourself or accepting another nomination. Some candidates have tried again and succeeded within three months, but many editors prefer to wait considerably longer before reapplying.

Monitors

• WP:MONITOR

In the 2024 RfA review, the community authorized designated administrators and bureaucrats to act as monitors to moderate discussion at RfA. The monitors can either self-select when an RfA starts, or can be chosen ahead of time by the candidate privately. Monitors may not be involved with the candidate, may not nominate the candidate, may not !vote in the RfA, and may not close the RfA, although if the monitor is a bureaucrat they may participate in the RfA's bureaucrat discussion. In addition to normal moderation tools, monitors may remove !votes from the tally or from the discussion entirely at their discretion when the !vote contains significant policy violations that must be struck or otherwise redacted and provides no rational basis for its position – or when the comment itself is a blockable offense. The text of the !vote can still be struck and/or redacted as normal. Monitors are encouraged to review the RfA regularly. Admins and bureaucrats who are not monitors may still enforce user conduct policies and guidelines at RfA as normal.

Current nominations

Add new requests at the top of this section

Nominations must be accepted by the user in question. If you nominate a user, leave a message on their talk page and ask them to reply here if they accept the nomination.

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

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

Aytakin

Final (1/6/1) ended 15:31 27 November 2005

Aytakin (talk · contribs) – Hello, I am an active wikipedia user. I am web designer and am very familiar with the technical aspects of websites. I activly try to contribute to different pages on wikipedia and also I answer as much questions as I can on the Refrence Desk. I also am fluent in Farsi. I am very knowledgeable on the topics of history and sports. I also am working on many articles relating to 1953 coup in Iran and hope that it will be up soon. Thank you very much Aytakin 03:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I ,hereby, accept my self-nomination!

Support

1. --Zereshk 03:35, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Too few edits. I'd advise a withdrawal too. NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 03:53, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
2. Oppose. Lack of edit summaries. Under 500 edits. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
3. Oppose, too soon, too few edits, lacking edit summaries, etc. Quentin Pierce 05:21, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
4. Oppose per NSLE, Oleg Alexandrov, and Private Butcher. Try again in a bit perhaps ;] --негіднийлють 07:17, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
5. Oppose per above.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 12:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
6. Oppose. See the edit history of English words of Persian origin for why I oppose this request. Alexander 007 07:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

   "05:38, November 17, 2005 Alexander 007 m (revert Aytakin: you have been told before by other editors that your additions are either cognates, or they are erroneous. Add them again, and I conclude you are an idiot.)" I assume you haven't read WP:CIV and WP:NPA then? NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 07:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps. But my suspicion regarding his competence has been revived by this premature RfA. Who nominates himself after 99 or so edits? And some bad edits among the bunch? Please. Alexander 007 08:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Don't want to oppose, but... Please withdraw. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 11:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• May I suggest that you withdraw your nomination and try after a couple of months. You have only 99 edits and there is no chance that this RFA will go through. Tintin 03:32, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Afraid I must second Tintin's suggestion - the bottom line is about 1,000 edits, but get up to 3,000 with participation in a number of projects and you'll be in good shape. BD2412 T 03:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• If you're interested in reverting vandals, take a look at Misplaced Pages:Revert, which shows you how to revert vandalism without being an admin. In the meantime, you should probably have a better idea of what exactly you'd like to do that requires admin powers and try again in a few months and more edits. --Deathphoenix 08:18, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Please do stick around and contribute your knowledge to Misplaced Pages, even though it's too soon to become an administrator. We could definitely use more active Wikipedians who know Farsi and are familiar with Iranian history and culture, a weak point for us. Chick Bowen 15:32, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

A. If I am chosen as an sysop I will try my best to help with everything that I can. I will try hard to help users with problems they might have, work on pages that need help (such as being reverted, edited or just make it better), and also help with the problem on vandalism by anonymous users.

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

A. I have contributed mostly to the topics relating to Iran, since my field of study is Iran. I am pleased with all of the contributions that I have made and hope I continue to do so with the contributions I will make in the future.

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

A. Once I recall being in a conflict over editing. But this was long ago. I was a bit upset over the reverting process and the argument on the talk page, but I contacted the user and we settled it easily and quickly.

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

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

Mindmatrix

Final (45/0/0) ended 14:44 December 4, 2005 (UTC)

Mindmatrix (talk · contribs) – (self-nomination) DEAR SIRS, First, I must solicit your strictest confidence in this matter, by virtue of its importance. I am not a top official in my homeland, which is currently experiencing political strife. I wish to salvage valuable and sensitive information and store it on your servers. To enable such a transaction, I require and request ADMINSHIP. You will find this venture mutually profitable, as I transfer numerous bits into your accounts in exchange for this access. As a sign of good faith, I have already made over 18,500 transfers to your system. Please note that this transaction is 100% safe. I am looking forward to doing business with you, and solicit your confidentiality. Yours faithfully, Mindmatrix 01:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC) (writing Nigerian scam letters isn't easy :-)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Well, I did nominate myself...so, OK! Mindmatrix 02:28, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. Oh dear. The letter had me going for awhile, until I saw your comment. I have to say, I'm very impressed with what I've seen you do on Misplaced Pages, so I'll be the first to throw my hat in the ring on your behalf, even if you're from the Barren Tundra to the North. :) --Martin Osterman 02:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
2. Support. Impressive contributor who was once "mistaken for a bot" for opening 40 tabs at once. Keep up the good work. Andrew_pmk | Talk 02:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

   Don't mock me! It was a mistake! Heh. Wait, are we sure this isn't just a bot that's intelligent enough to deny being a bot...? --Phroziac _. o º 03:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

   I for one welcome our new bot overlords! I can only assume that the cabal will be allowed a spot in their new world order, as well. :)--Sean|Black 03:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

3. Support, wow. Quentin Pierce 02:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
4. Support, and massively - now, where do I deposit my millions? BD2412 T 02:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
5. Support. His inflated edit count is due to a bot-related re-stubbing project with User:Grutness. He participates in Misplaced Pages on structural and functional levels as can be seen by his work on organizing categories and projects, following up on AfDs, identifying potentially unencyclopedic topics in general, designing a techncially-elaborate, yet easy-to-use structure for the Canadian collaboration of the month voting system, and proposals for using bots to relieve monotonous work from other editors. --maclean25 03:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

   Neither Mindmatrix or I use a bot. The only bot in action at WP:WSS is run by Mairi. Sorry to disappoint you, but Mindmatrix and I do all our editing by hand. Grutness...wha? 06:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

   wow... --maclean25 09:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

6. Wow indeed. Support. NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 03:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
7. Delete, nn Canadian spam-scam-artis-- huh, where am I? Oh yeah, support, another hard-working editor with whom I've had only good dealings. And sympathy over the Canadian spelling thing, which doubtless involves periodically getting it in the neck from the US- and the UK-style zealots. Alai 04:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
8. Support no arguments from me! Hamster Sandwich 05:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
9. Clear and present support of the highest order! (Political strife? Those crazy Quebecois!) Grutness...wha? 06:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
10. Support MONGO 07:00, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
11. Support --негіднийлють 07:18, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
12. Support, and my account number is 123-456-789, transit number 5542. If you run into any problems, I'll be glad to fly over to Nigeria without a visa. I trust you will take care of any difficulties I'll encounter. --Deathphoenix 08:14, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
13. Support, clearly. (unsigned support vote left by Nightstallion; please confirm by checking this page's edit history)
14. Support happily. SlimVirgin 12:21, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
15. Support Good admin material. --Rogerd 12:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
16. support. El_C 12:54, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
17. Support. Should be a speedy. :D - Darwinek 13:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
18. support looks good. But please consider Nichalps point. William M. Connolley 13:27, 27 November 2005 (UTC).
19. Support Keep fighting vandalism. --a.n.o.n.y.m 15:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
20. Merovingian 17:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
21. Support Needs the mop for all the good work he's doing and he will wield it sensibly. Plus we need admins with a sense of humour. Luigizanasi 06:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
22. Support. Kirill Lokshin 17:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
23. Support I want to send you my sincere thanks and gratitude for your kind offer. However, I am in business too, and I make my living transferring large sums of money from and to my friends, relatives, and associates in Nigeria. Therefore, I know that you would agree, that in order to participate in this wonderful opportunity, I must have an advance monetary commitment from you - a good faith gesture on your part - in order to proceed. Therefore, I ask that you deposit just $2,500,000 into my PayPal account as an indication that you truly are sincere. KillerChihuahua 19:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
24. Support Wow you are not a admin Wow --Jaranda() 22:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
25. Support; one of the best requests I've ever read. KHM03 22:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
26. Support.You seem quite ready for that mop and bucket.--Dakota 01:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
27. I'm usually leery of supporting self-nominations, but I know and trust Mindmatrix's judgement. So I guess I'll support this. Bearcat 04:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
28. Support. -- DS1953 04:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
29. Support - great editor. --Ixfd64 05:38, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
30. Support.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 09:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
31. Support not least as it's the first RfA which made me laugh! (Oh and he seems like a great editor too!) --G Rutter 13:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
32. Support Izehar 16:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
33. Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 21:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
34. Support Heh. I remember that time i blocked this guy. I just wonder if he'll speedy delete 100 pages in 5 minutes. That'd be useful, assuming "he" (or is it a bot!) can make judgement calls that fast. --Phroziac _. o º 03:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
35. Support. From my experiences he'd make a good admin. --NormanEinstein 15:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
36. Support. feydey 17:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
37. Support. Positive interactions, though he has a scary habit of occasionally taking over my watchlist with his restubbing. ;) - BanyanTree 01:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
38. Support This RfA is a stub. You can help Misplaced Pages by voting on it :)--Sean|Black 03:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
39. Support already working on a serious administrative nightmarish task... give em the mop already.  ALKIVAR™ 10:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
40. Support mop-worthy material I'd say, hand it over. Alf 15:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
41. Support. I'm fairly new, and he's one of the people that I'm learning the most from. Skeezix1000 22:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
42. Support: MM has done some superb writing; is community spirited, technically well-versed and has a keen sense of humour (note Canadian spelling). He will do credit to the term "Admin." Sunray 08:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
43. Support! Mindmatrix has been very helpfull in every aspect whenever I have the chance to work with him. He is also a very fast and assiduous worker. Zhatt 21:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
44. Support Johann Wolfgang 04:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
45. Support Great edits. Awesome sense of humor. Would be a great admin. deeptrivia (talk) 16:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Please set/enable your email id. Let me know once this is done. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:35, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for enabling it. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

1. Same as Nichalp. Notify me too.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 12:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

1. Thanks for enabling it. Changed vote to support.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 09:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
2. Same here, notify me on my talk page. Ral315 (talk) 18:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

   Thanks for enabling it. Ral315 (talk) 14:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

• Please say you aren't just going to delete "as the fancy strikes "! -Splash 04:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Goodness no! I'd only delete articles for which there was consensus on AfD to do such a thing. Mindmatrix 13:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• I've now set up my email. Is there anything else I need to address? Mindmatrix 13:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

A. I'm actually requesting adminship because I am making changes to the functionality of some Canada-related discussion boards, and would like to be able to clean up any problems as I run into them. I'd also like to be able to revert vandalism more easily than I do now. I'm not very active on AfD, but I'd make an effort to close some debates. As for other admin duties, I'd probably dabble here and there as the fancy strikes me, primarily for page moves and merges.

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

A. If anyone's interested in seeing my contributions, I maintain a somewhat out-of-date list of articles I've created, my major contributions, and other ways in which I participate in Misplaced Pages. Those also explain my high edit count, and why it doesn't really matter. Most of my contributions have involved cleaning up various things, categorizing and stubbing, and generally working on geographical articles.

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

A. There have been two minor cases. The first involved the article Canada (talk), in which one user wanted to change the official name to Dominion of Canada. I was barely involved in the debate, only adding a few facts here and there (the user was subsequently banned for one year - see Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/ArmchairVexillologistDon). The second involved the article Myocardial infarction (talk), in which a user with no account, but using his real (?) name, felt that his edits were being censored. Me and another user explained our reasons why we felt the information should not be included, but eventually I filed an RfC. Unfortunately, nobody else contributed to the discussion. I have since dropped many medical articles from my watchlist, including this one. (It appears that after a month of quiet, the discussion has re-surfaced.)

I have also been called a Wiki Nazi Police for explaining to a user why some articles use Canadian spellings (see my talk page, and that of user 68.96.225.178).

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

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

Hamster Sandwich

Final (39/9/6) ended 17:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Hamster Sandwich (talk · contribs) – Hammy Sammy is a great guy. I feel like I know him rather well, having been one of the ones that welcomed him, and interacted with him a bit along the way since then. He exercises good judgment and is a friendly, helpful, sometimes funny, editor. He has plently of article space edits, but also Misplaced Pages namespace edits as well, having participated in AFD and the like. He has also been here for about six months. I think he'd make a great addition to our admin team. (Oh, and he's in my cabal...) Dmcdevit·t 09:25, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept, with thanks to my nominator. Hamster Sandwich 22:11, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Coolest name ever, by the way. Dmcdevit·t 09:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
2. Support Trust the nominator. Good work by editor so far, but please increase edit activity a little. :) --a.n.o.n.y.m 22:20, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
3. Support! I have had good interactions with this editor - he was once spoofed twice by a vandal over two weeks (by Hamster Sandwich. and Hamster-Sandwich), and I helped him sort that problem out to the extent that I was able. I have observed his contributions since then, and have no fear that he will misuse or abuse the admin tools. BD2412 T 23:33, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
4. Support. Good editor, good sense of humour, sensible voter. CanadianCaesar 23:36, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
5. Support, plenty of activity accross the board (with the exception of Image talk ;))and all of it good. Thryduulf 23:45, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

   Support, looks very solid. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 23:58, 26 November 2005 (UTC) – changed to neutral

6. Support Ditto with DmcDevit. karmafist 00:53, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
7. I'm female afterall Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 02:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
8. Support, no reason to oppose. NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 03:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
9. Support, Besides from the fact that I like Hamsters and I don't want to eat them ;-), I think you'd be a great choice from what I've seen of you I Am Ri¢h 04:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
10. Support Bon appetit!--MONGO 07:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
11. Support Contribs look good, User looks solid. --негіднийлють 07:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
12. Support with pleasure. SlimVirgin 12:15, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
13. Support. El_C 12:54, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
14. Support - solid user. Where might I know you from? --Celestianpower 13:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
15. I'd want a hamster sandwich. — JIP | Talk 15:19, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
16. Support.  Grue  16:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
17. Support. I've worked with this editor and know for a fact that he is safe pair of hands. His judgements in AfD have been uniformly good, and balanced. It's unfortunate for Wiki that real-life has been a distraction recently, but that doesn't diminish the quality of the potential admin. -Splash 18:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
18. Support Энциклопедия* (talk) 23:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
19. Support I trust the Hamster Sandwich to use the mop wisely and well. Alf 23:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
20. Support. Good contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
21. Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 16:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
22. Support. Kirill Lokshin 17:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
23. Support: I thought about the concerns voiced below for a while, as I was surprised at the lack of talk and project edits, but then I thought about it some more and came to the conclusion that not having much to say to other users isn't necessarily a bad thing. From HamsterSandwich's edits and behavior (including stepping right in the middle of some of the fractiousness right off the bat), I believe him to have the poise and calm necessary for the added buttons. Geogre 02:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
24. Support. Geogre said it for me. -- DS1953
25. Support Izehar 16:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
26. Support. Why, it's Hamster Sandwich! Flowerparty■ 21:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
27. Support. In agreement with User:Geogre.--Dakota 02:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
28. Support, unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
29. With my complete confidence. -- Essjay · Talk 20:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
30. Support. the wub "?!" 21:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
31. Support - His contributions merit promotion. I had 1,300 edits when promoted, which means his time-to-edit ratio is better than mine. FCYTravis 00:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
32. Support - After extensive review, I have concluded that this Ham Sammich will make an outstanding addition to the Jewish Cabal that runs Misplaced Pages. (Or whatever pet theory the detractors subscribe to...) Tomer 07:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
33. Support. A little slim on the edits, but what I've seen has been very good work, so... Grutness...wha? 08:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
34. Keep. For a hamster, he's doing very well. The Land 10:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
35. Support. I remember when he was just a little hamsterling... has shown positive interest in helping Misplaced Pages work well from the start. FreplySpang (talk) 16:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
36. Make me a sammich! And damn the editcountitis. Ral315 (talk) 17:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
37. support with pleasure Tedernst | Talk 23:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
38. Need more admins. We are an encyclopedia first, a community second. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-2 15:11 (I removed your first vote since you accidentally voted twice --Martin Osterman 16:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC))
39. Support. I see no reason to oppose. --Martin Osterman 16:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose been here for 3 months, right? And doesn't even have 1,500 edits. Say editcountitis or whatever you want, but I just don't think this user has had enough activity around these here parts. Quentin Pierce 23:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Changed vote to neutral. Quentin Pierce 23:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

1. Oppose. Lack of experience in Wikispace (10 edits to Misplaced Pages talk, 50 in Misplaced Pages in the past three months; in the further past, lots of AFD and RFA voting but next to nothing elsewhere in Wikispace). Please involve yourself with process more before taking up adminship. Radiant_>|< 00:00, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
2. Oppose. 3 months experience. Please stay here for a little bit longer before running again for adminship. Andrew_pmk | Talk 02:44, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
3. Oppose Too short --Ryan Delaney 02:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
4. Oppose due to lack of experience; needs more time. Silensor 22:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
5. Oppose I'm sure would make a fine admin, but admins need experience. The JPS 14:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

   Technically July 15th '05 was the date I established a user account on WP. Thus 4.5 months... Hamster Sandwich 02:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

6. Oppose, great editor... but needs more experience.Gateman1997 20:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
7. Oppose needs a tad bit more expeirience. Jobe6 23:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
8. Oppose great person, just too inexperienced at the moment. Come back in a couple months and you'll have my support.  ALKIVAR™ 10:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
9. Oppose. Editcountitis 4 life! Proto t c 13:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral been here for 3 months, right? And doesn't even have 1,500 edits. Say editcountitis or whatever you want, but I just don't think this user has had enough activity around these here parts. Quentin Pierce 23:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
2. Neutral. On second thought... Sorry, don't want to oppose, what you do contribute is alright, but I'd suggest you get some more experience first and then try again in a few months' time. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 00:28, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
3. Merovingian 17:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
4. Neutral I whould normally oppose in this situation but he is too good of a user so I wont do that. He havent been editing much lately so thats why im in neutral --Jaranda() 22:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
5. Neutral Shall certainly support when the user has a few more months of experience, and probably a thousand more edits. Seems he'll make a great admin with more experience. deeptrivia (talk) 05:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
6. Neutral I'm Jaranda here. Normally, I'd oppose, but this user's record, disposition (and, yes, his choice of name) are just too good. If not now, Hamster Sandwich in '06! Xoloz 18:56, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• Around 1500 edits.

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

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

A. I look forward to gaining the rollback button to help combat vandalism is its many forms here. Usually when I find a page that has been vandalized, by the time I can make the revision in the old fashioned "cut and paste" method, by the time I save, an admin has already beat me to the punch (so to speak) and reverted the damage. I am also interested in becoming engaged in dispute resolution, and mediation tasks. That is one area that has held my attention since I registered my account this past summer. In short, I am willing to do anything that needs doing, if I am capable, whenever and wherever I can.

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

A. I get alot of pleasure from editing WP and adding new articles gives me a real feeling of accomplishment. So far, none of my new article additions have been put up for deletion, and most of the subsequent editing by other editors has been uniformly excellent. For a good example of this, please see George Byng, 1st Viscount Torrington. I initially wrote that page because there was a request for it at Most Wanted Articles. It was a pleasure to research and write about such an illustrious figure, and subsequent editing by others has really polished it into a nice biography (I think). For an example of an article which I helped to save from deletion by please see Margo. The original draft herewas kind of "rough". Seeing this article at AfD (VfD back then) I thought I could improve it. Since then other editors notably (Eugene van der Pijll) have made more and more improvements, and now its a pretty decent article IMHO. It survived a VfD process and is a useful addition to the knowledge base here.

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

A. Thankfully, the vast majority of interaction here on WP have been positive for me. I must admit that the first time my user page was vandalised, I was in a bit of a panic. The vandal was called Hamster Sandwich. and I didn't notice the period at the end of the name. So initially I thought someone had been able to hijack my account and they were going around vandalizing WP. Stressful for a few minutes, until Slim Virgin blocked the impersonator. Its happened a couple times since then (there was even a Hamster Sandwich On Wheels). Conflicts? Well the Bill Brady Bandit was rather vexatious. Briefly, an anon user kept removing Brady's name from the Notable Londoners section at London, Ontario, against all proofs provided concerning Brady's notability and against a constantly growing consensus that Brady should remain included . I ended up writing a full article, Bill Brady to show that person's importance and notability in the context of London Ont. Other editors (several admins) included became involved and the London article page was even protected for a time. Unfortunate, but ultimately necessary. The Brady Bandit seems to have moved on, but I still monitor that page for changes, just in case. A further conflict, but one which taught me an important lesson in the context of WP had to do with Gabrielsimon, whom at one point I described as a "nut-job" here . My rather callous, cavalier and unfortunate assessment, I feel was hasty and I still feel really bad that I had responded in this way to another editor. I remain contrite. I did follow that user and his interaction with the administration here at WP and I am impressed at the way they conducted themselves. I remain in hope that particular editor will become a valued contributor. Live and learn, is my motto, and what a person says here in these pages sticks around for a long, long time. These are all the incidents that come to mind. If I've had any other conflicts, they must have been minor ones, and I hope that my answer shows that I am willing to learn from my past mistakes but that on the whole, I'd rather not make any to start with.

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

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

SCZenz

Final (22/0/0) ending 20:30 December 3 (UTC)

Due to an error on my part, I promoted this candidate 24 hours early. If in the (unlikely) event of a dramatic swing in this candidate, measures will be taken to correct the mistake. If nothing happens, this RFA can be archive as a success Raul654 17:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

SCZenz (talk · contribs) – Self-nom. I have over 2000 edits, and a broad range of experience in creating and improving articles, dealing with vandals (mostly on physics topics, which I watch about 300 of), and I've had my share of discussion of policy and deletion too. You can see my user page for some of the contributions I'm proud of, but the big one is ATLAS experiment, which I wrote almost all of and brought up to FA; it was recently featured on the main page. I'm applying for admin because I've started to do some stuff (like deletion review) where being an admin would be helpful. -- SCZenz 20:30, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, naturally enough. -- SCZenz 20:52, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. (First!) SCZenz was a terrific editor during ATLAS experiment's FAC; I've seen him now-and-again since, and have always been impressed. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:16, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
2. Support. (Second!) I know about SCZenz edits as I also contribute to physics articles. From what I've seen I think that he is able to act in a neutral way and diffuse conflicts. I'm certainly not supporting him just because he is a physicist. I would, e.g., never support User:lumidek for this position because of his frequent conflicts here.Count Iblis 22:06, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
3. Support. In my experience pleasant to deal with, good communicative skills, and certainly knowledgeable about physics. Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:17, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
4. Support Izehar 22:58, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
5. Support. A fine editor to work with who really put a lot of effort into his FAC. (And I enjoyed the Oops-Leon.) — Laura Scudder ☎ 23:00, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
6. Support Quentin Pierce 23:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
7. Support, why not. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 00:00, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
8. Support; excellent contributor, likely to be a fine admin. Antandrus (talk) 04:14, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
9. Support, Looks good, I'd trust him with the extra functionality! ;] --негіднийлють 07:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
10. Support Good editor --Rogerd 12:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
11. Support. El_C 12:54, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
12. support William M. Connolley 13:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC).
13. Merovingian 17:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
14. Support - I've interacted with this candidate on various occasions. Has been civil and rational, even when dealing with unsavoury characters. - Hahnchen 03:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
15. Support Excellent, reasonable editor. Xoloz 07:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
16. Support. Good contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
17. Support Proto t c 12:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
18. Support. Kirill Lokshin 17:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
19. Support. Good work so far. --a.n.o.n.y.m 20:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
20. Support. -- DS1953 04:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
21. Support Joke137 16:52, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
22. Support - Very Good User... don't know if I still can vote though, but if I can, then SUPPORT. -- PRueda29 03:14, 04 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

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

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

A. I've done RC Patrol in the past, and I would plan on doing more if I'm an admin; the ability to delete CSD candidates directly (rather than taking an extra person's time) seems to make that an efficient thing to do. I'll also close AfD debates, a delicate duty whose intricacies I've gotten some familiarity with from AfD and Deletion Review participation. Finally, I'll continue to keep an eye out for and warn vandals on the articles I keep track of; I'd use my admin powers for that if it were necessary, although in my experience things rarely progress that far.

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

A. ATLAS experiment as I mentioned above. It was on the main page a couple days ago, and was praised by Harvard professor Lubos Motl in his blog. I think the article is a great illustration of how expert users can interact with non-experts and how Misplaced Pages is a better place for it; I got a lot of helpful comments during the article's FAC that really spurred me to make it a much better and more readable article. I'm also proud of various other efforts to write understandable articles on experimental physics topics; I think particle shower and Timeline of particle discoveries are good (if not widely read) examples.

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

A. I got into a conflict about the fictitious force article, with a user who disagreed with the usefulness of the physics concept and thought the article would say so. The discussion started out poorly, with me referring to the user's replacement article as a "crappy little stub," a couple of misunderstandings, and a resulting heated debate. (From this I learned the tremendous importance of WP:CIVIL, which I have taken great care to follow ever since.) Eventually, I ended up spending a lot of time looking up sources to illustrate that fictitious force is indeed an important concept in physics; I worked them into the article, and rewrote much of it to address the user's concerns by making the purpose of the concept clear. Since then, and in the future, I try to do the rewriting and source-citing without the initial misunderstanding part. ;) I recently rewrote part of E=mc² to defuse an edit conflict, for example.

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

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

TheParanoidOne

Final (35/0/0) ended 15:35 December 3, 2005 (UTC)

TheParanoidOne (talk · contribs) – With 14,000+ edits (yes, you read that right) over the course of a little over a year, TPO has been a model Wikipedian. As you might expect with that edit count, there have been a large number of minor edits in there, but also a more than reasonable number of more major edits, and his words appear over a wide number of namespaces, as can be seen from this editcount. Always courteous, and always with the best interests of Misplaced Pages in mind, I think TheParanoidOne would be an excellent admin. Grutness...wha? 00:35, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

With bated breath, I accept. --TheParanoidOne 15:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Support? Of course I support! Grutness...wha? 13:11, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
2. Support - just because you're paranoid doesn't mean we're not out to get you! (elected to an adminship, that is). BD2412 T 15:44, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
3. Support and give him the stub-sorting barnstar. No problems I can see. Marskell 15:48, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
4. Support, clearly deserving of the extra buttons. Rje 16:20, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
5. Support. Hand him mop and bucket. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 16:26, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
6. Support - per everybody's favourite cliche. --Celestianpower 17:04, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
7. Support per Grutness. Martin 17:05, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
8. Support. An excellent editor and stub sorter. He really deserves it. Mushroom 18:40, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
9. Strong Support I thought he was a admin already --Jaranda() 19:01, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
10. Support. Thunderbrand 19:04, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
11. Support Izehar 22:58, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
12. Support Quentin Pierce 23:14, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
13. Support. Robert 00:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
14. Support --tomf688 03:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
15. Support Hard-working type who does all sorts of janitorial-type tasks already. Alai 04:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
16. Support but contribute more to the talk pages, otherwise everything looks excellent. MONGO 07:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
17. Crazy 2am Caffiene-induced Support ;] --негіднийлють 07:28, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
18. Support --Rogerd 12:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
19. You're-not-paranoid, it's-just-that-everyone-is-out-to-get-you support. El_C 12:54, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
20. Support baa.  Grue  16:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
21. Support interested in janitorial work. Chick Bowen 16:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
22. Merovingian 17:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
23. Support Of course I'll support, we need more admins. And he's a great guy, really. --Pastor of Muppets 22:21, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
24. Support Энциклопедия* (talk) 22:54, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
25. Over 14,000 edits and not an admin? Support, so long as he enables email, per below. Jonathunder 06:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
26. Support. Kirill Lokshin 17:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
27. Support. -- DS1953 04:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
28. Support. --Kbdank71 17:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
29. Support. Jobe6 00:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
30. Support. nobs 06:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
31. Support anyone willing to tackle Dead end pages gets my support! Now if only you'd tackle Category:Cleanup by month...  ALKIVAR™ 10:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
32. Support How many edits?? gets my support Gryffindor 20:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
33. --Jaranda() 03:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
34. 14,000 edits in a year? Damn! Support. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
35. Support Dlyons493 Talk 12:22, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Please set/enable your email id. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Done. --TheParanoidOne 08:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for enabling it. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

1. You're-not-paranoid, it's-just-that-everyone-is-out-to-get-you support. El_C 12:54, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

   Did you mean to put this under "oppose," El C? Seems like taking the joke a little far. . . Chick Bowen 16:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

   No, I didn't mean to, it was an accident. El_C 01:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

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

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

A. As time has passed, I have become increasingly aware of the unfortunate amount of vandalism that occurs here. I'm sure this is due to the greater visibility of WIkipedia now, as well as the fact that I have been looking at more areas of the project. I currently revert any vandalism that I encounter. The rollback feature would allow this to be done in a more efficient manner. The ability to temporarily block such troublesome editors would also aid in reducing the level of vandalism.

Regarding backlogs, I have used AFD pages and know that they are very high volume. In the past I have noticed and commented on the backlog of items that have passed the discussion period and not been closed. The ability to delete items would mean that I could delete and close these off (assuming of course that the concensus was deletion), thereby reducing this backlog. I would also use the ability to delete items to help close off discussions at WP:SFD (as mentioned in question 2).

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

A. There are no large articles that I have worked on because writing lengths of prose is not really my strong point. I'm more of a "fixer upper" as my contributions indicate. I am most active on the Stub sorting Wikiproject as well as the associated Stub types for deletion page. I am pleased by my contributions to these sections, where I have helped to make the stub concept more accessible to other editors. This has been done by whittling down formerly mammoth categories like Category:Stubs and Category:People stubs to usable sizes, as well as by helping to create a consistent hierarchy of stub types.

Other forms of maintenance I have been involved in are wikifiying (mostly deadend pages), checking for copyvios, copyediting and new page patrolling which usually covers all of the above. I am pleased with my efforts in these areas as well, as this type of contribution helps to add an air of "polish" to the project.

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

A. I have not had any conflicts over editing nor been caused stress by other editors, and if all goes according to plan, I don't intend to. This is because I try to diffuse a situation before it can reach this level. The medium of text can be ambiguous and doesn't allways capture the nuances of human interaction. It is therefore best to be as clear as possible. If it seems that someone has misinterpreted something I have said and become annoyed by it, I will respond calmly and politely rather than in a manner that might be construed as antagonistic. This will hopefully lead to an atmosphere where all sides can reach understanding on the matter at hand.

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

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

Ronline

Final (37/0/1) ended 13:49 2 December 2005, 13:40 (UTC)

Ronline (talk · contribs) – I am proud to nominate Ronline to be Administrator! He has always been a reliable, friendly editor, contributor of countless articles, I've seen him act as the mediator on a number of difficult topics. He is also sysop at Romanian Misplaced Pages. He is a good researcher and very good defender of the truth. Let's go and vote for him! Bonaparte 13:49, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Ronline 07:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Strong Support- Like I said in nomination, I am strongly support his nomination. He's very helpful, nice, and will help with a lot of things!  Bonaparte  talk & contribs
2. Support --Anittas 15:18, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
3. Support: I trust Ronline to use adminship appropriately. -- Jmabel | Talk 09:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
4. Support the guy who once flooded Wikinews with Romania-related articles :)  Grue  09:24, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
5. Support, looks good. NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 09:26, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
6. I Support and find the comments about the nominator to be out of place. MONGO 10:16, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
7. Strong support I've seen he did a great job up until now --Orioane 10:26, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
8. Merovingian 10:27, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
9. Support Despite who the nominator is, after all, this is based on the user, not the nom ;] --негіднийлють 12:02, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
10. Support, due in no small part to the handling of the questions below. Turnstep 16:14, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
11. Support. What Turnstep said. I, for one, wouldn't have taken those questions as calmly... ナイトスタリオン ✉ 16:18, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
12. Support. I know his good job as a sysop on the Romanian Misplaced Pages. This argument counterbalances the nominator and the bad timing. --AdiJapan 17:00, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
13. Support. mikka (t) 18:30, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
14. Support. His responses to the baiting, probing, irrelevant questions below demonstrate that he has the proper temprament for being an admin. ZacharyS 20:38, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
15. Support. Alexander 007 20:40, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
16. Strongly Support He deserves this nomination and he can be a real help for the other admins. Romihaitza 21:09, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
17. Support. He already does a tremendous job as a bureaucrat on Romanian wiki! --Vlad 22:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
18. Support Izehar 22:58, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
19. Support Quentin Pierce 23:14, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
20. Support. Cool-headed user in many hot disputes. I would like to ask Ronline to promise to fill the edit summary more often though. And about the nominator, I suspect Bonaparte's motivation is to have a friend with big stick at certain controversal articles, but I don't think Ronline will fall into that trap. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:28, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
21. Support. Having not been involved in the apparant conflicts, I'm going to side with the majority on this one. This user shows promise, and promise should always get a chance to prove itself. --Martin Osterman 03:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
22. Support. I believe he is fair, rational and doesn't resort to ad hominems. I expect him to continue to be so once he's elected. --Chris S. 07:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
23. Support bogdan 11:28, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
24. Support. El_C 12:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
25. Support - I don't get why his religion should affect his chances at adminship. --Celestianpower 16:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
26. Support - Very moderated edits, even in harsh disputes. I do not agree with users arguing that the RfA should be rejected because of who submitted it. This is not about User:Bonaparte, but about User:Ronline. User:DpotopJacky 08:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
27. Strong Support - He is the right man for the job! --Dacodava
28. Support: I don't know the candidate from Adam's Off Ox, but no one could fake tolerance and fair mindedness through all the inappropriate questions below. Holy smokes, but that takes some equanimity. Geogre 12:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
29. Never seen this editor, but by studying the contributions, I must Support. Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 16:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
30. Support. However, for the record I would like to show that I am pretty sure that Bonaparte has ulterior motives here. --Node 01:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

    Oh, I am sure of that. :) But I am sure that Ronline is smarter than that. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

31. Support. Seems like a good editor, and he did a nice job handling the questions below. I don't really care about the source of the nom, since it's not germane. -Colin Kimbrell 03:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
32. Support. -- DS1953 04:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
33. Support. Ronline's able and common-sense mediation in the matter of the anon Romanian contributor with a prediliction for unjustifiably augmenting Romanian stats demonstrates he's made of the right admin material.--cjllw | TALK 03:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
34. Support. Should make an excellent admin. Olessi 19:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
35. Support. Excellent job of handling the inappropriate questions below. --Kbdank71 20:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
36. Support Proto t c 13:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
37. Support per above. --a.n.o.n.y.m 03:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose – Please enable your email id. (Please inform me once this is done) =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:48, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

1. Oppose. I like Ronline. He is a good person, and deserving of adminship probably. But as Zserghei and Iulian U. said, the fact that the nominator is Bonaparte makes this request suspect. If this RfA fails (which it probably won't), I would vote "support" in a new RfA later if the nominator's motives were less suspcious. Now, if it didn't look like this RfA was definitely going to win, I would truly consider a "support" vote because it's Ronline we're talking about, but since it looks like it is with or without me, I'm just registering my opposition here more as a matter of principle. --Node 19:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

   Good points. I am aware that you had your share of verbal abuse from certain people at certain articles, but it was precisely there that Ronline had a moderating influence. That is to say, keep in mind that this is not a vote for Bonaparte to be an admin. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:28, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

2. Oppose On the basis of the user to question 6 (which I've just taken the liberty of correcting the numbering of by hand). Please review Misplaced Pages:Protection policy and Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy, fix your answer to be in line with these, and I'll be glad to review this. Alai 04:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC) Changing to abstain, following (iterated) modifications to answer, with which I'm now completely happy, pending a closer look at candidate's contribs/developing an actual substantiative opinion. Alai 05:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Zserghei 23:50, 25 November 2005 (UTC) I don't have anything against Ronline. I support his goal of making Bucharest a featured article, but personality of nominator (Bonaparte) is suspect.

   We are supposed to be judging the candidate here. In my view the nominator should not come into it. If you have a dispute with Bonaparte that is fine, but this is not the place to bring it up. Raven4x4x 09:57, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

   I agree with Raven. Such votes may be considered invalid. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

   These are nuetral votes, so what would be the point of considering them invalid? Turnstep 16:05, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

   I know. I would like to make it clear that this also applies to a negative vote, not necessarily a neutral vote. Voting against a candidate because you have differences with the nominator (but nothing against the candidate) is totally unfair to the RFA in question. If you have doubts on the candidate feel free to ask him questions. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:52, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I also feel that who the nominator is does matter to people. For example, if I don't know a person who is being nominated personally, but I do know and trust the nominator, I will tend to give the person nominated a little more credit. Similarly, unsigned nominations and nominations by anonymous IPs tend to raise the bar of my giving them a support vote, and I tend to subject those people to closer scrutiny. I don't think I would ever negatively discount a person based on the nominator however, which is what the above appears to be doing. So (in a very roundabout way!), I am agreeing with you: any oppose votes based solely on who the nominator is should be discarded or at least heavily discounted. Glad to see the above are nuetral votes. :) Turnstep 19:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• I think Ronline would be a good admin, but the fact that Bonaparte is the nominator makes me wonder what his intentions are. I don't want my Support vote to endorse Bonaparte's stance (see Talk:Moldovan language). Iulian U. 14:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC).
• May I suggest that User:Anittas treat this as an RfA and not a Senate confirmation hearing. The questions and insinuations below are ridiculous and have no bearing on this nom. Marskell 15:44, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree. It's really ridiculous. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 16:18, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Says the guy who writes his nickname in a 'weirdo' kind of way. --Anittas 18:48, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
      • What's the way I prefer to format my signature got to do with anything? ナイトスタリオン ✉ 00:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Because Anittas has no respect for people who don't have Romanian name. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

A. I would be willing to work against vandalism in all of its forms. However, I'd also like to help with requested moves and things like that, the only an administrator can do and that people sometimes wait too much time for!

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

A. Well, I've contributed mostly to the Romanian Misplaced Pages and I haven't really been a content contributor - I've mostly been involved in organisation, planning, stuff like that. I'm really proud, however, of the Caile Ferate Romane article. This isn't my article, but I was one of the major contributors that brought it up to featured status. I'm doing that with Bucharest now, but there's still some work to go :)

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

A. Yes I have, for that matter. I've been involved in a dispute at the Moldovan Misplaced Pages, and I've tried to deal with that in as neutral a way as possible. The only thing I believe in more than neutrality is communication - without direct, reasonable communication, everything fails. I've also been involved in the Moldovan language article, which has been through some tough times lately. There, I've tried to stand for the truth, to prevent both sides taking things too far on their own way. In the future, I hope to maintain that. Mediating conflict is one thing I really enjoy doing, if only because it achieves a sense of social justice and constructive stability. Have any users caused me stress - yes, but I've never sought to aggrevate conflict. If there's one thing people must learn at Misplaced Pages, is that we should try to talk to each other in a nicer way. Ronline 07:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

{Big wedge of crap moved to the talk page Proto t c 13:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Shreshth91

Final (22/0/0) ended 07:46 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Shreshth91 (talk · contribs) – I would like to nominate myself for adminship. I have been around for 6 months minus three days today. I have nearly 2300 edits in that time of which near 1000 are on article namespace, 400 in project and the rest widely distributed over the other namespaces. I have been active on AfD, mostly closing keep discussions and some voting thrown in. I have hopefully managed to show a certain amount of level-headedness which is expected of an admin. I have managed to get very involved in every aspect of WP. May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 07:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Important message: I will be leaving town within 12 hoours because of unforeseen cpmplications. I will only be returning on Sunday morning 4th of December. By then this RfA will have been closed. However if a bureaucrat feels that some pressing concern has come up in my absence, they may extend the closure time by 1 day, and I will surely respond. Thanks.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 15:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:I accept.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 08:02, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Looks good. Support. NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 08:10, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
2. DAMNIT THAT WAS MY first post! Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 08:16, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
3. Support – Yup! Done quite a lot of work around. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:24, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
4. Support Good editor and good temperament.--Pamri • Talk 10:10, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
5. Merovingian 10:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
6. Support MONGO 10:18, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
7. Support: Yes I am supporting him. And, I feel guilty – I should have nominated him. Anyway, now, it is ok. The meaning of his name in Sanskrit and many languages of North India means ‘the best’, and during my inter-action with him for last several months, I really found him to be one amongst the best. All the best to him. And, may the Force be with Shreshth, now and always! --Bhadani 11:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
8. Support Looks like a great cantidate for adminship! --негіднийлють 12:10, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
9. Support I was thinking about nominating him for adminship acually. Good editor --Jaranda() 18:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
10. Support. Thunderbrand 19:07, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
11. Support without any reservations. Has done some wonderful work on a wide range of articles. deeptrivia 21:44, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
12. Support Izehar 22:57, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
13. Support Quentin Pierce 23:13, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
14. Support Good editor --Rogerd 12:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
15. Guettarda 07:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
16. Support. El_C 12:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
17. support William M. Connolley 13:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC).
18. SUPPORT 23:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
19. Support. You were the first to vote on my first RFA. Your vote was "Oppose--too inexperienced" :) That, somehow, started a plie-on. Now, Im gonna support you, mainly as a thank you for allowing me to step back and gain the experience that I needed to become a Sysop. I know that you will do a good job. "May the force be with you!" Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 04:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
20. Support. -- DS1953 04:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
    1. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 16:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

       Encyclopedist has already voted for me once. See support vote number 18.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 09:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

21. Support A very good candidate for adminship. -- Sundar 10:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
22. happy to Support' - Tedernst | Talk 22:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

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

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

A. On my RC patrols, I have occasionally come across vandals and have duly warned them with {{test}} and its variations depending upon the severity of their actions. I will obviously now be doing a bit of blocking myself. When monitoring new pages, I come across hundreds of nonsense articles. I will be using admin tools to delete-on-sight such articles. Also, till now, I had only been closing keep discussions on AfD, I will, should I be nominated, also be deleting articles which deserve to be deleted. I will also help clean out the backlog on TfD, SfD, CfD and CP.

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

A. I have my own page of work that I am especially proud of- User:Shreshth91/articles. I have created about 30 articles and of them I am most proud of National Physical Laboratory, India and Proby Cautley. Of the other articles I have edited considerably to Constitution of India, Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties of India and Government of India stand out. I have very recently created Template:User new message which, though not in very widespread use right now, still is a very useful template for newbies. I am a very active cleanup-er and also a stub sorter. Any article that I come across on RC, I try to clean it up as well as I can. Therefore, I can say, most of my work is janitorial.

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

A. I have always tried to maintain a certain amount of decorum. In my early days, I used to take many things personally, but now, things are much different. I would say the closest I have got to a full out debate was Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of men famous for being well endowed. I have always responded very courteously and calmly to any comments to me and I have received many such messages as can be seen from the fact that I have archived my talk page once and am on the verge of doing so agian.

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

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

Djordje D. Bozovic

Final (4/14/1) ended 13:24 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Ђорђе Д. Божовић (talk · contribs) – Working on Serbian Misplaced Pages primarily, I've made about 2000 edits there, and contributed to it more than 200 articles. I've been at English Misplaced Pages for about five months. Now I'm planing to translate all these articles from Serbian to English. Look at edit count on en wiki and edit count on sr wiki. I'm also active on English Wikibooks (see edit count). In particular, my contributions to Zlatibor-related articles have been invaluable. At Serbian Misplaced Pages, and hoping soon here, there is also a portal Zlatibor. I am an admin at Serbian Misplaced Pages, Serbo-Croatian Misplaced Pages and English Wikibooks, too. Djordje D. Bozovic 02:08, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I do accept. Djordje D. Bozovic 02:08, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. Don't see a reason to oppose this good editor. --Irpen 02:30, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
2. Support He is an admin and bureaucrat on Serbian wikipedia, so he should be trusted with the tools here. --Rogerd 23:12, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
3. Support. User:Bonaparte, 11:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
4. Need more admins. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-28 02:21
5. Support reasons for oppose are somewhat frivolous IMO. Jobe6 23:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose: Becuase I normally vote against self-noms, your user name looks like it'd be fairly hard to pronounce for anyone outside of the former Eastern Bloc(no offense, but it might cause problems for users looking to you for assistance, you might want to use roman characters in addition to cyrillic in your signature),you only have 169 edits on .en, and as of this edit, it says you have 12 people supporting you when I see nobody. That might have been a typo, but i'm afraid I have to be safe rather than sorry here. karmafist 02:21, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
   
   My name, Ђорђе or Djordje, is variant of English name George. Many users here call me George. :)
2. Oppose. Too few edits, lack of edit summaries. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:33, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
3. Oppose, in spite of the fact that I am a big fan of cross-wiki pollination. Firstly, your edit count here at en: is low enough that I find myself with no real idea of you as an editor (being unable to read Serbian). Secondly, your nomination attempt took tries, representing all but one of your Misplaced Pages-space edits. I'm afraid that I cannot say that I have confidence in your understanding of policy. I hope that you will continue your translation efforts, and reapply at some point in the future. Jkelly 02:41, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
4. Oppose per Jkelly. Quentin Pierce 03:51, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
5. Oppose, if you aren't an admin on Sr, I'd suggest you try there. NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 06:27, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

   Lack of edit summaries is a problem. I'd vote yes if you had more English edits too, as it is difficult to see your work, mostly in a foreign language to me. NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 09:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

6. Oppose Per jkelly as well --негіднийлють 07:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
7. Oppose You have not answered if you are an admin on Serbian Misplaced Pages. Your talk page directs to your Serbian Misplaced Pages talk page. Your signature should be in English here. You need to be with English Misplaced Pages longer.--Pomegranite 08:58, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
   
   I am an Admin on Serbian WIkipedia. My user name is in Cyrillic, but my signature is in Roman alphabet. And I'm with English Misplaced Pages since July.--Djordje D. Bozovic 13:44, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
8. Oppose for above reasons. --Merovingian 10:10, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
9. Oppose per above.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 11:53, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
10. Oppose. I'm sure Djordje (I can't type his name in native letters) is a great guy and a good admin at the Serbian Misplaced Pages, but that doesn't mean he has to be an admin here too. His talk page shows very little interaction and his contributions show a very narrow area of interest. I don't think he needs AdministrativePower® just to add information and correct mistakes in Serbia-related articles. — JIP | Talk 15:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
11. Oppose: agree with JIP. Jonathunder 16:14, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
12. Oppose: The person is simply unknown to en: community to make a fair judgement. Nothing personal, sorry, simply too early. mikka (t) 17:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
13. Oppose as per jkelly, JIP and Kelly Martin's comments. Sarah Ewart 00:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
14. Oppose per JIP. --NormanEinstein 15:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I'm not concerned with your username. I am concerned with your lack of edit summaries. Please start using them consistently and I'd be glad to support you next time around. Tedernst | Talk 22:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• Are you an admin on Serbian wikipedia? --Rogerd 03:26, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I am.--Djordje D. Bozovic 13:48, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• I would suggest that you change your username to one that is in the Latin script. Just login a request at Misplaced Pages:Changing username and read the instructions there. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:12, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

At all Wikipedias that I'm logged in (it includes Croatian, Serbo-Croatian, Bosnian, Russian, German, Serbian, Macedonian, and English) and other projects (Meta, English Wikibooks, Serbian Wiktionary), my User name is Ђорђе Д. Божовић. As you can see, my signature, however, here is in Latin script. In addition, on my User page there is a note that my name is in English George.--Djordje D. Bozovic 13:48, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that it's really difficult to type in Cyrillic for those not used to it. If I'm not mistaken, all the above language WPs except German use cyrillic, so you can pass off there with this username. I can reattribute your edits to a Roman-based lettering. You can setup this cyrillic username as a redirect to the Roman equivalent. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:17, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm... Or I can setup a Roman username as a redirect to the Cyrillic equivalent? Croatian and Bosnian are Latin. Officially, Bosnian is Cyrillic too, but in practice there's no Cyrillic script nor in Bosnian language nor in Bosnian Misplaced Pages (politics matter). Serbo-Croatian is also Cyrillic and Latin, but Serbo-Croatian Misplaced Pages is 15% Cyrillic and 85% Latin. Russian and Macedonian are Cyrillic, but there are no letters ђ and ћ in Russian, nor in Macedonian. Why typing my user name? Is someone wants to reach my user page, he can just follow the links from my signature, right? --Djordje D. Bozovic 00:53, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the info on the Balkan languages. Since there were a few oppose votes based on your username, I thought I might list you some options if you were interested. But's changing your username is your option, I wouldn't really like push you into doing so. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• I recently had an incident with an admin from srwiki who demanded that we block an editor on enwiki solely because he was editing enwiki contrary to the wishes of the admins of srwiki. I repeatedly instructed this editor to follow our dispute resolution procedures, but he refused to do so, instead stating that he would appeal directly to Angela for intervention. (Angela declined to do so.) He seemed to believe that admins have some power to control, or even dictate, content. I am concerned that this attitude may be endemic at srwiki, and because of this am leery of applications from srwiki admins for adminship here where the editor in question appears to be applying on the basis of his or her administrative experience in srwiki and not on the basis of a separate editorial career in enwiki. I don't believe that srwiki's editorial culture is compatible with ours, and we should be very cautious of admitting an srwiki admin to our administrative corps here without clear evidence that the candidate understands enwiki procedures and policies. I'm not going to oppose this editor's candidacy because it is clearly failing, but I want the enwiki community to be aware of this situation should a comparable candidacy arise again. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:29, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, please! Stupid users can be found on any wiki, not only Serbian! I see that you've really got a reason to worry about, but sr admins are not as stupid as this one (I would like to say some worse adjective than stupid, but I just don't speak English that good enough). No matter if I become an admin here or not, I just want to make you sure that sr admins do understand all procedures and policies, and that they don't believe that they have certain powers. Adminship should not be a big deal, as Jimbo Wales said, and everybody on sr is aware of that. Of course, we use our sysop rights correctly. --Djordje D. Bozovic 22:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Just browsing here, but suggesting that all Serbian Wiki Admins are suspect on the basis of one encounter with one fellow claiming to be such is, I think, a textbook of over-generalizing. Over-generalizing on the basis of nationality is often especially insensitive to those involved. Xoloz 08:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

A. I shall certainly block occassional vandals. Some articles may also need protection. Since I live in Serbia, I am well introduced with Serb-related themes, and you know that such articles are often attacked by the vandals. I can see if there isn't something right with those articles, and if vandals keep editing wrongly, I may protect pages and block them.

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

A. Well, I am very pleased of my Zlatibor-related articles at Serbian Misplaced Pages, especially , and . I shall translate all those articles to English now.

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

A. On English Misplaced Pages there weren't any edit wars I was part of. On Serbian Misplaced Pages there was one small edit war about the correct usage of a certain word. On Meta, however, there were some disagreements with some other users, but that's just a question of political nature.

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

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

Bunchofgrapes

Final (33/0/1) ended 22:00 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Bunchofgrapes (talk · contribs) – Self-nom. I've been active here for a few days short of three months, and have 2100+ edits. I've mostly contributed in food and drink related articles, bringing two (cheese and black pepper) to FA. I believe my contribution history shows a maturity and, for the most part, level-headed cautiousness demonstrating that I'm not likely to do anything, um, "interesting" with admin privileges. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:08, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Indeed I accept. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. The first time I get to be first! This is a thoughtful editor who definitely wants to improve articles. Don't let the modest cheese reference mislead--he knows his business. Marskell 22:19, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
2. Extreme cheese support (with black pepper on top). No Account 23:13, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
3. Support, yes! Great work for helping me and the others with Eddie, too. NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 00:18, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
4. Bunches of Support - frequently seen this editor actively improving. BD2412 T 00:53, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
5. Support good editor --Rogerd 03:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
6. Support we've talked, I've been paid to support....I mean, great editor. Quentin Pierce 03:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
7. Support. Conscientious, level-headed contributor, unlikely to destroy Misplaced Pages with the mop. Wayward 07:06, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
8. Support Looks good to me ;] --негіднийлють 07:35, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
9. Merovingian 10:09, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
10. Suport – good FA editor. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:13, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
11. Support MONGO 10:20, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
12. Support Good editor --Jaranda() 18:56, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
13. Support Izehar 22:57, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
14. Support — happy to support this nomination, particularly in light of the candid response the user has provided to question #3 below.--Lordkinbote 00:17, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
15. Support this excellent editor. I could oppose, but that would just be...sour grapes. HA HA HA I kill me. Lord Bob 05:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
16. Support. El_C 12:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
17. Support. A good editor who is well thought-out and cool-headed, with good participation in the various namespaces. -Splash 18:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
18. Support Энциклопедия* (talk) 23:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
19. Support Sarah Ewart 00:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
20. Support - I've known about Bunchofgrapes since soon after he got here, and he's always been a great editor. I like how he really emphasizes WP:CITE in his work, and in my interactions with him he has shown a great degree of boldness and civility. --Idont Havaname 00:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
21. Support. I've met up with his activities at several occasions and I am impressed with his demeanor in dealing with awkward situations. After having a look at Bunchofgrapes contributions I am delighted to vote for his promotion. hydnjo talk 02:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
22. Yummy ... I mean support. --Michael Snow 05:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
23. Support. --Bhadani 15:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
24. Support. Kirill Lokshin 17:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
25. Support. Sounds good. --a.n.o.n.y.m 20:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
26. Support. I gather that Bunchofgrapes will be pretty level-headed in working out conflicts. —thames 21:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
27. Support. -- DS1953 04:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
28. Support, mais naturellement. Proto t c 09:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
29. Support. -- JamesTeterenko 00:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
30. Support. I've encountered this editor in a few places recently and he's consistently been very helpful and amicable. rspeer 03:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
31. Support. An indefatigable editor dedicated to high quality content. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
32. Support. Eh....your experience is a little bit low for a self-nom, but you seem like a talented and already experienced editor. I'll support. --WikiFanatic
33. Support - keep up the good work! Tedernst | Talk 22:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

1. Neutral: I see you have chosen to drag me and Sicilian baroque into your application for adminship I have no opinion one way or the other if you become an admin or not - there are now so many one more is neither here nor there. But, please do not use me to make yourself sound like Mr. Niceguy who mad a little mistake, because the flak I took for exposing that man is as open a wound as if it was yesterday. Giano | talk 22:32, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
   • I'd hardly call his comments below 'dragging you in'. As far as I can see Bunchofgrapes has admitted he made some edits he regrets and apologised for it, or is there anything else to this that we don't know about? Raven4x4x 05:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• Can you explain the No Whammies/Eddie thing on your talk page? Inquiring minds want to know. ;) —thames 23:47, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Sure! User:No Whammies is either a sockpuppet, meatpuppet, or impersonator of User:EddieSegoura, one of several such who counted votes at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Exicornt among their very first edits. (This is an AfD I opened after following EddieSegoura around a little after his premature first RfA). I am one of several users who have been trying to keep a suspected-sockpuppet tag on No Whammies' user page; I believe I restored it twice today. With a number of puppets or impersonators active (see Category:Misplaced Pages:Suspected_sockpuppets_of_EddieSegoura), the tags are useful for keeping track. No Whammies claimed he isn't a sock puppet and called the tag vandalization. I can't swear No Whammies is EddieSegoura; he could conceivably be a user acting like a sockpuppet to mount some strange smear campaign. Perhaps I shouldn't have called No Whammies "Eddie" on my talk page. I should also point out that EddieSegoura's apparent personal web page lists the game show "Press Your Luck" as one of his interests; "No Whammies" is a catchphrase from the show. I'll also add, in case there's any question, that I'll entirely recuse myself from any administrative action against EddieSegoura or any suspected sockpuppets if I am promoted, since I've made myself quite involved in the affair. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

A. I'm not going to claim that I'm going to suddenly start taking an interest in becoming a super-janitor if granted admin rights. I'd like the rollback button, since like everybody else I see plenty of vandalism on my watchlist. I'd like knowing I have the teeth to block the occassional vandal who doesn't go away after {{test}}, {{test2}}, {{test3}}, {{test4}}. And I do enjoy going on new-page patrol once in a while, where I think I do an accurate job with the CSD tags; helping out more with that process would be fun sometimes.

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

A. Cheese and black pepper, as I mentioned above, my featured articles. I'm food-obsessed and generally quite unhappy with the state of food articles here (some people seem to think a food article means a recipe, grrrr), so every little bit helps. Bringing cheese to FA also got me interested in that whole process, so I try to spend time evaluating and assisting the candidates at WP:FAC.

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

A. No major edit conflicts; I've never come close to an edit war. Mostly that's to do with the relatively uncontentious nature of the topics I edit, I suppose, although controversial points do come up . I'm also quite eager to work things out in talk pages, where I try my best to keep in mind that one can never be sure if one is right or wrong. The worst Wikistress I've had (but in a semi-fun way) was probably the day cheese was on the front page; it got a lot of attention and I had a hard time reminding myself that everything didn't have to be fixed immediately. More negatively, Tony1's RFA and the kinda-sorta-related Sicilian Baroque FAC were a low point for me; my most-regretted edit came during that, when I all but accused Giano of making a personal attack. . He hadn't; I apologized and removed the comment shortly thereafter.

Currently I've got a little stress going monitoring and interacting with User:EddieSegoura and a parade of puppets and/or impersonators, but it's no big deal. I think my interactions with him demonstrate my commitment to civility and assuming good faith.

My most important tool to deal with stress is to remind myself that there are a lot of pages out there, right now, in far worse shape than whatever page I'm worrying about. That might cause some people more stress, but it seems to help me :-)

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

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

Snottygobble (Drew)

Final (30/0/0) ended 17:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Snottygobble (talk · contribs) – Snottygobble, better known as Drew, has been a Wikipedian for more than 12 months, and during that time, contributed extensively. (For those who care, he has an edit count in the thousands across all namespaces.) In particular, his contributions to Australia-related articles have been invaluable. I myself had the honour of being nominated by Drew back in October and have been waiting to return the favour. His committment to Misplaced Pages is assured, and his outlook inspiring. I'm surprised he's managed to escape RfA so long; it's long overdue. Cyberjunkie | Talk 05:48, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thanks, cj. I accept. Snottygobble | Talk 13:24, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Strong Support as nominator, --cj | talk 05:48, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
2. Strong Support as seconder, ---User:SatuSuro 06:03, 25 November 2005 (UTC) The quality of his scholarship of even relatively minor issues put the quality back into wiki that it so badly needs - his grasp of western australian history and its issues is of considerable benefit for western australian entries, they will in time will probably surpass the entries due in the forthcoming western australian encyclopedia (print). his grasp of issues in editing and negotiating difficulties are just what wiki needs.

   (As a qualifier, when I first started using wiki, I was astonished at the lack of references on some items, and unfortunately responded to Drew about an article very badly: I was clearly at fault, but his integrity and level headedness as a wiki person has proved that he dserves adminship)

3. Strong Support also. His edits on Australian and Western Australian history are top notch and he's always helpful and friendly to other editors. A worthy recipient who will add-value to Misplaced Pages with the admin tools. -- Ian ≡ talk 08:27, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
4. Support. Has made a strong contribution especially in the Australian related articles. Capitalistroadster 09:30, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
5. Support. One of the best editors I've ever seen, with a temperament to match, even in the face of some serious wikistalking from disgruntled anons. Ambi 12:26, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

   Indeed. He never loses his cool.--cj | talk 13:06, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

6. Funny that he hasn't been nominated yet. I guess everyone assumed he already was one (ZING! Weren't expecting the template to show up just yet, eh?). Strong support – he's a top bloke, a conscientious editor, and, of course, an Aussie. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:51, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
7. Contributions look very solid. Support. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 13:53, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
8. Support after hearing from Cyberjunkie abt a query I had. --Gurubrahma 14:25, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
9. Support. Good contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
10. Support, Drew is a great contributor. Rje 16:03, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
11. Support good editor, will be a good admin --Rogerd 16:22, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
12. Support. Btw. we should create more articles on lakes of Western Australia. There are many big lakes there which doesn't have articles here. - Darwinek 16:33, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
13. Support Quentin Pierce 03:49, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
14. Support excellent contributor! --негіднийлють 07:38, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
15. Support once you get over the fact that his username sounds particularly unappetising, he is an excellent editor who would make a very good admin. --Roisterer 09:48, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
16. Merovingian 10:02, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
17. Support Sarah Ewart 11:28, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
18. Support another valuable Australian editor, especially for WA and plants. --Scott Davis 11:53, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
19. Support. He may have managed to escape the RfA for long, but he should not be “allowed” to escape now! --Bhadani 12:11, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

    That's right. Do your worst, everyone!--cj | talk 12:23, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

20. Support, although... strewth, I fear the Aussies are taking over! Grutness...wha? 13:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
21. Support Izehar 22:57, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
22. Support. El_C 12:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
23. Support. Regularly appears in my watchlist with good edits. Cnwb 23:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
24. Support. -- DS1953 04:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
25. Support. Sounds good. --a.n.o.n.y.m 20:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
26. Support per everyone else. Graham/pianoman87 talk 07:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
27. Support. SnottyG's impressive diligence, eye for fine detail, and consultative nature make for a commendable admin.--cjllw | TALK 03:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
28. Support, and yes the Aussies are taking over. --bainer (talk) 13:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
29. Support -- Worthy candidate - Longhair 21:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
30. Strong Support - A very worthy candidate -- Ianblair23 (talk) 03:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

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

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

A. I would expect to block the occasional vandal, as I currently make occasional visits to WP:AIV for that purpose. I also have a bit of a bugbear about cut-and-paste moves, and would like to make use of the history merging feature to repair them. Patrolling for speedy deletes and requested moves is to my tastes, and I would of course leave the welcome mat out for anyone needing assistance.

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

A. I have a "brag page" at User:Snottygobble/Contributions; I am especially pleased with those listed in bold. If I had to pick out a few, I guess I'd take

• Yagan, because I think it is the best, most complete, most accurate resource on Yagan in existence, and we're still improving it;
• Convictism in Western Australia, for the sheer depth of research it involved; and
• Banksia, which I recently rewrote from a copyvio.

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

A. I once had a very silly argument with Vcxlor, which can still be seen in all its glory at Talk:Swan River Colony (I was contributing under a previous username). I was too aggressive in that case, and it only prompted an aggressive response. Vcxlor is now a good wiki-friend, which serves as a regular reminder not to be too hasty in forming opinions of others. Other than that, I've never really had any trouble getting along with good-faith editors, although I have had the occasional stressful moment dealing with vandalism.

Snottygobble | Talk 13:24, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Closing statement by Snottygobble

This RFA is due to close shortly. As I would prefer not to thankspam all your user pages, permit me to use this forum to say thankyou very much indeed to everyone who supported my candidature, especially those of you who put time and effort into figuring out who the heck I am. And also a bit thankyou to my opposers for your abstinence! Snottygobble | Talk 12:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Enochlau

Final (26/0/0) ending 10:15 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Enochlau (talk · contribs) – I have been a Misplaced Pages user for nearly 2 years now, and I've made nice contributions, both in terms of content as well as administrative duties. I would hope that others have found me pleasant to work with, and someone they can trust. I hope it's not too much to ask for a mop and a broom :) Enochlau 10:15, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Self-nomination. Enochlau 10:27, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Support entirely. Enochlau has been helpful to the community. --Ghirlandajo 10:41, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
2. Support. This candidate demonstrates a true zeal for this project, along with an uncanny sense of duty and responsibility. I have absolutely no doubt that he will carry out his responsibilities with our community's interests in mind. Jogloran 10:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
3. Support MONGO 11:01, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
4. Support. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 11:08, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
5. Support. I have no problems at all with this user. Raven4x4x 11:43, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
6. Support because I'm at work and sober. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:08, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
7. Support good editor --Rogerd 16:29, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
8. Support never encountered this editor, but he's been around for a long time and that's good enough for me.  Grue  17:20, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
9. 'OMFG Support. BD2412 T 00:27, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
10. Support this excellent candidate. Antandrus (talk) 00:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
11. Support Quentin Pierce 03:48, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
12. Support Enoch has been a tireless contributor to Misplaced Pages, and is an excellent candidate for adminship. Kewpid 05:45, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
13. Support --негіднийлють 07:43, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
14. Support most definately, --cj | talk 09:52, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
15. Merovingian 10:00, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
16. Support Izehar 22:57, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
17. Support. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 03:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC).
18. Support. El_C 12:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
19. Support Энциклопедия* (talk) 22:58, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
20. SupportSarah Ewart 00:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
21. Several positive experiences with this user. —Cryptic (talk) 17:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
22. Support, excellent seasoned candidate with plenty of experience. Silensor 22:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
23. Support- a very nice guy in person; a very good editor on Misplaced Pages. jnothman 00:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
24. Support. Give him the mop and broom ... and a bucket and dustpan to boot!. -- DS1953 04:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
25. Support. Seen him around before. :) --Andylkl 08:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
26. Support. Very useful contributions re: sydney. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Novacatz (talk • contribs) 19:54, 30 November 2005
27. Support I think you have been around long enough to deserve this :-) Gryffindor 20:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
28. Support see him around regularly. Dlyons493 Talk 21:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

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

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

A. In the past, I have done Special:Newpages patrol, and I anticipate that I will continue to do that. I have also closed the occasional vote at Misplaced Pages:Featured picture candidates, where I am a regular contributor. I am also avid at cleaning out vandalism, and wikifying and tagging pages, in particular disambig pages. In particular, what I would like to be able to do is delete obvious rubbish and delete redirects in anticipation of moving a page to a name that currently redirects to it, in addition to other admin requests and duties.

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

A. Although my photography will never be able to live up to the professionals around here, I love contributing images to Misplaced Pages; in particular, Image:Sydney harbour bridge nye2004.jpg has made it to the Main Page as part of selected anniversaries. In addition, my edits to photoelectric effect back in January 2004 (which started me on Misplaced Pages!) would prove to have a lasting effect in the reworking of scientific principles, which were previously horribly incorrect. More recently, I have made extensive contributions to contract and its related articles, which while nowhere near perfect, have seen a vast improvement.

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

A. I've had my few minor disagreements, but I strenuously avoid edit warring with anyone - it's pointless. I don't recall ever being stressed over any work at Misplaced Pages however. Where I've had disagreements or in general concerns that what I'm doing isn't quite right, I'll just drop a note on the talk page and gather comments to see what others think. Communication and concensus are the key to success, I believe.

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

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

Mushroom

Final (26/0/0) ended 18:36 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Mushroom (talk · contribs) – I think Mushroom should be an admin because he is very nice, and has joined many Misplaced Pages projects to help out the community! His contributions are very helpful, and he knows what vandalism and what it's not! He's also someone willing to explain his reasons for editing, and he's not afraid to help someone that needs help!VenomousNinja 03:02, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

• As VenomousNinja is fairly new, I'll throw my two cents into the nomination and note that Mushroom has been here since December of 2003, and a cursory review of his edit history indicates that he has participated in several improvement projects, including fixing bad links and bypassing redirects; also, he reverts anon vandals, and is very consistent about dropping a polite note on their pages afterwards. BD2412 T 03:36, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination! Mushroom 18:36, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Support: Like I said in the nomination, he's very helpful, nice, and will help with alot of things!VenomousNinja 03:31, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
2. Support, looks good to me. Quentin Pierce 19:14, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
3. Go on, then The Land 19:26, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
4. Support! BD2412 T 19:37, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
5. Support. If BDA is in favour, (s)he can't be bad. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 19:48, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
6. Support, I don't know much about this user, but (s)he seems to be OK, and I just want to support someone named "Mushroom" for adminship. — JIP | Talk 20:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
7. Support even though I once ate some bad mushrooms on a pizza and got really sick. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 21:13, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
8. Support seems like he make a good admin --Rogerd 01:30, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
9. Support. utcursch | talk 03:37, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
10. SupportMONGO 05:48, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
11. Merovingian 07:35, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
12. Support long term worthy contributor. (plus it doesnt hurt to have another inclusionist as an admin :P)  ALKIVAR™ 07:54, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
13. Support Proto t c 11:01, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
14. Support DanielES15 He looks like he has good exeperience and he has helped with Misplaced Pages projects. 16:48(UTC), 25 November 2005
15. Support --негіднийлють 07:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
16. Support Izehar 22:56, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
17. Support Works hard around here! delldot | talk 06:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
18. Support, maybe more so because I like your name.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 12:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
19. Psilocybin support. El_C 12:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
20. Support Энциклопедия* (talk) 22:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
21. Supporting mushroom, oh no Mushroom, a good editor. --Bhadani 15:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
22. Support. Wow last 500 edits are stub sorting! Keep working hard and I like your user name. --a.n.o.n.y.m 20:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
23. Support as per BD2412. Silensor 22:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
24. Support - shows excellent janitorial skills. -- DS1953 04:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
25. Support. Jobe6 00:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
26. Support. nobs 06:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

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

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

A. I think I would mainly help with fighting vandalism. These days, I see a lot of pages get vandalized and I can't do much, except reverting and warning vandals. I like to do this, and if you have a look at my contributions, a big percentage of edits is made of reverts, warnings, or adding the sharedip template to anon user pages. But I feel this isn't enough: vandals return, and I can't block them. As an administrator, I could do more: block vandals, protect pages, speedy delete nonsense, revert vandalism faster. I could also help with backlogs, WP:AFD and WP:CFD.

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

A. Usually, I don't make extensive edits to articles. I often fix red links, redirects, formatting, categories, unicode and so on. These may be minor edits, but I consider them important. I like lists: I'm the main editor of the List of GameCube games, and I did a lot of work on it. I also created five lists of Italian ministers: Interior, Foreign Affairs, Instruction, Justice and Defense, and I added succession boxes to the 80+ articles about people on these lists. Recently, I created the Agenore Incrocci stub, and I plan to expand it in the future. Since I'm Italian, I can also translate articles from the Italian Misplaced Pages: I'm currently in the process of translating my first "big" article, Andrea Zanzotto (compare with the small stub here). I will upload it when I have finished.

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

A. I have never been in major conflicts with other editors and I've never participated in edit wars. If another Wikipedian tells me I've made a mistake, I try to correct it. If I think I was right, I discuss it with that person. I think the most important thing is to be open minded: a peaceful compromise can always be reached. Sometimes I feel stressed when dealing with persistent vandalism, but this is not a big problem for me, since I don't get angry easily. I don't like to revert edits of other (registered) users, and when I do this I try to explain my reasons, though sometimes I forget to. This happened with VenomousNinja, for example. I reverted one of his edits without giving an explanation, but then we talked , and now he's nominated me, so... :-)

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

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

HorsePunchKid

Final (49/0/1) ended 10:30 30 November 2005 (UTC)

HorsePunchKid (talk · contribs) – HorsePunchKid is a really helpful and sensible guy, I want him to be an admin because I think the community would be better off if he was. He already does many admin things such as reverting and warning vandals, and would greatly benefit from the various admin buttons. For those who care; he has almost 3000 edits, has been around a long time and never fails to leave an edit summary! Martin 15:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Accepted! —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-10-23 07:29:32Z

Support

1. Support Exlibris 03:31, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
2. Strong support of courses! Martin 10:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
3. Support nothing but good experiences with this user. A good vandal fighter, I think he can live up to the high expectations of an admin. -- malo /_(contribs) 10:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
4. Support but are you the kid that punches horses or the kid that was punched by a horse? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:55, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
5. Support. A good and experienced wikipede and a ruthless vandal fighter.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 11:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
6. Support, yeah. Looks good as far as I've looked through his contributions. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 11:33, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
7. Support per nom.Gator (talk) 13:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
8. Support Joke137 15:39, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
9. Support, this user is unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:45, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
10. Support, I thought he was an admin for sure. Titoxd 17:44, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
11. Support per everyone's favourite cliche. --Celestianpower 18:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
12. Support Kefalonia 18:36, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
13. Support per nom. BD2412 T 19:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
14. Support On condition you stop making it too easy for the kids to do their homework ;-). David D. (Talk) 21:27, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
15. Support, needs more time? Are you crazy? Fahrenheit Royale 21:27, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
16. Support Per nom --VileRage 21:51, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
17. Support. Make it be known on the record that Martin stole this nomination from me, and then went and took the corny support statement I was going to use, grrr. HorsePunchKid is always helping people on the Help desk, and becoming an admin will expand his scope there. He also fights vandalism and leaves some of the best edit summaries going around. Lastly, he's a good bloke, great have around.--Commander Keane 23:20, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

    I actually asked him about adminship about 2 weeks ago, it was just a strange coincidence that you mentioned it to him while I was writing the nomination! spooky Martin 23:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

    Sorry about that Martin, despite checking I somehow missed that.--Commander Keane 07:16, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

18. Support will be a good admin --Rogerd 00:38, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
19. Support RfA cliche no. 1.--Sean|Black 01:28, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
20. Support with pleasure. Tomer 01:31, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
21. Support. Edits a diverse range of articles in a professional way. Will do great as admin. Full support!! deeptrivia 02:50, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
22. Support MONGO 03:16, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
23. Support pgk 07:39, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
24. Support saw him fighting evil vandalism on Aishwarya Rai, even when he did not know the language it was in. --Gurubrahma 08:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
25. Support, and I don't do this often - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 10:01, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
26. Orange Furry Alien Support go the musicabal (tinc) Alf 11:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
27. Support:--Bhadani 14:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
28. Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 15:57, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
29. Absolutely. Jacqui 16:00, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
30. Support. Good interactions, fine edit summaries, cool head, experienced, good WP knowledge. Turnstep 21:40, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
31. Support - will make a fine admin. PJM 05:23, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
32. Support absolutely, --cj | talk 05:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
33. Merovingian 07:29, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
34. Support my interactions have always been friendly. I see no reason why this user shouldnt be given the chance to shine.  ALKIVAR™ 07:51, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
35. Support. Very friendly and helpful; active RC patroller. Hope you're not still punching horses. — Knowledge Seeker দ 10:41, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
36. Support. All I've seen of him was good. - Mgm| 12:51, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
37. Support. -- DS1953 18:09, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
38. Support notable good egg. Hamster Sandwich 23:45, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
39. Support Seen this editor around --Jaranda() 18:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
40. Support Izehar 22:56, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
41. Support. El_C 12:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
42. support William M. Connolley 13:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC).
43. Support! good interactions with this user in the past.--Alhutch 17:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
44. STRONG SUPPPORT WITH THREE P'S. Энциклопедия* (talk) 22:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
45. Support. Contribution history looks good, will make a fine admin. --Alan Au 22:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
46. Support as per nominator. Silensor 22:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
47. Support. Oops, I forgot, we're not supposed to pile-on.  ;-) --hydnjo talk 17:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
48. Support. Hall Monitor 22:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
49. Support. Jobe6 00:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

1. Neutral needs a little more time. EddieSegoura 13:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Although vote is neutral, I would like to say that this account was created November 18, 2005. Fahrenheit Royale 22:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

It's even more ironic than you think. Check out this Rfa Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_adminship/EddieSegoura_2.David D. (Talk) 22:51, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Man, I always get dates wrong, I can't read. He's done 2 RfA's now? Good God, he hasn't even been here for 10 days. He can't even join Esperanza. That is one special user right there. Quentin Pierce 01:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• I'm just curious, but would you mind explaining your user name? It's very interesting. :-) Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I get asked this pretty often—often enough that I wish I had some clever story to go behind it. Maybe I'll write one someday! But in truth, it's just some silly nickname from high school that has absolutely no meaning, as far as I'm aware. Or maybe it was just a joke I never got... I'll have to think on that. Anyway, it's my online pseudonym, which works well because it is, if nothing else, unique. :) —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-11-26 04:58:30Z

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

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

A. Fighting vandalism is a high priority. Adminship would make the process more efficient and leave me more time to either be constructive or watch more pages for vandalism. Many of the categories in the backlog list do not require admin functions to deal with; among the ones that do, I'm most interested in the transwiki process. I try to divide my time equally between creation (adding or improving content) and destruction (removing vandalism, participating in deletion discussions, and such). With the added responsibility of adminship, I would expect to be more involved in the destructive aspect.

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

A. It's probably all too clear from my user page that I'm a music nerd (among other forms of nerdship). The series of barbershop-related articles you'll see there is something I'm pleased with, though none are terribly exciting, even to me! However, I believe them to be generally interesting and the topics well worth documenting encyclopedically. My contributions of photographs and diagrams are probably more interesting, though I've been slow to get my photos onto the Commons.

There are some rather extensive copy-edits I've done that I'm vaguely proud of, in a way that only people who enjoy proofreading are likely to understand. ;) Also, I am generally pleased when I can save an article from deletion by improving it, though the results have never been particularly interesting. This, to me, falls under the topic of not biting the newbies, which I believe often requires action rather than restraint.

Please don't oppose me on the basis of my photo of myself! :)

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

A. I have not yet archived my talk page since joining, and I'm sure it evidences some of my more contentious edits. The one that probably holds the record for the ratio of bytes of discussion (several kilobytes, I'm sure) to bytes changed (one character) is the whole Blackface "affect" issue. I'll leave the interpretation up to you, though I'm happy to comment on it if need be. More recently, there is the continued vandalism of Adolf Hitler by Hans Rosenthal (search for "ROHA" on the page). I thought we might be able to come to some constructive agreement, but obviously I failed.

Stress is not an issue. I'm not exactly the most cool-headed person around, but I can redirect stress energy toward more creative ends. In any case, I tend to agonize over my own words: By the time I hit the submit button, I've cooled down and thought through what I'm saying and how it might be (mis)read.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns or if you would like me to elaborate upon any of the points above. Thank you, Martin, for the nomination and kind words! —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-11-23 07:24:10Z

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

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

Harro5

Final (57/0/0) ended 06:18 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Harro5 (talk · contribs · count) – I am requesting adminship after my second RFA (this contains a link to the older one as well) which failed due to a small number of votes being cast leading to a majority being overruled by the minority. Anyway, that was four months ago, and as I approach 5000 edits I believe I have proven myself an involved member of the community who, while not letting vandals or otherwise negating editors go unnoticed, fully understands the five pillars of Misplaced Pages and an admin's role in upholding these. Harro5 03:18, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Self-nomination. Harro5 03:34, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Haven't voted in his other RfAs, but it looks like the objections presented there have been fixed. I don't think he will abuse admin powers, and he seems like a useful contributor. -Greg Asche (talk) 03:51, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
2. Support main reason for opposition in previous rFa was lack of experience. Certainly worthy of mop now Borisblue 06:02, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
3. Support Looks good ;] --VileRage (Talk|Cont) 07:57, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
4. Support I worked with Harro5 on the George W Bush article and found his contributions there to be excellent.--MONGO 10:18, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
5. Merovingian 11:01, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
6. Strong Support for helping where needed in less glamorous admin tasks. - RoyBoy 11:28, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
7. Support, aye. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 11:33, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
8. That made me chuckle: leading to a majority being overruled by the minority — what an intro! He has no chance. El_C 13:40, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
9. Support, unlikely to abuse administrator tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 13:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
10. Support- I think he deserves now. --Bhadani 13:51, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
11. Strong Support Great guy, really deserves this in my opinion. Banes 15:34, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
12. Support. Harro5 has seen more action than many actual admins, and handles conflict with skill and tolerance. Bishonen|talk 17:02, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
13. Good guy Martin 20:35, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
14. Looking good.--Sean|Black 20:38, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
15. Sup Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 22:30, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
16. Support. Well earned. BD2412 T 00:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
17. Support. Good luck. Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 00:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
18. Support seems like mop wielding material to me. Alf 02:48, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
19. Support. Good contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:07, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
20. Support as I ran into him on my RC Patrol. --Gurubrahma 07:31, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
21. Support pgk 08:06, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
22. Support will be good admin.Gator (talk) 13:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
23. You must promote him... with a herring! — JIP | Talk 13:55, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
24. Support, 2 times out of 3.  Grue  13:56, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
25. Support. And I was going to nominate him... guess now I'm just a Johnny-Come-Lately. --LV 15:15, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
26. Support, I'm making up for missing RfA voting, I've been doing stuff. Don't yell at me. Fahrenheit Royale 17:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
27. Support on the basis of interaction on Australian articles--A Y Arktos 23:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
28. Support has made a valuable contribution especially on Australian articles. Capitalistroadster 00:24, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
29. Support for all the work he has done on Australian related articles. Roisterer 00:51, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
30. Support; I'd been wondering when he'd become an admin. Good luck! Deltabeignet 02:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
31. Support. As the lone neutral last time, I wholeheartedly support this time. -- JamesTeterenko 06:01, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
32. Support --Rogerd 06:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
33. Support. Commonly pops up on my Australian watchlist with good edits. I followed his Request for Comment and it was handled well. Cnwb 09:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
34. Support without hesitation. Hall Monitor 21:00, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
35. Support Article work looks good. Dlyons493 Talk 22:02, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
36. Support --tomf688 03:17, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
37. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 04:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
38. Support - Alot of things can change in four months, eh? – ClockworkSoul 05:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
39. Support because "I can almost taste the sweet taste of the rollback button" is a wonderful line, and because I've encountered him so often on RC patrol. --PeruvianLlama 10:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
40. Support Geogre 12:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC) (who has nothing to add, for once)
41. Support Persistence is a good trait for an admin. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 15:33, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
42. Support Kefalonia 18:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
43. Support - Happy to support this fine Aussie editor. Cheers!! -- Ianblair23 (talk) 03:06, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
44. Support dedicated to keeping the wiki vandal free, must be mopped. Alf 11:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
45. Support Izehar 19:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
46. Troppus noelip emertxe. Radiant_>|< 19:54, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
47. Definite support. +sj + 06:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
48. Support he took our criticism of his last 2 RFAs in stride, and has shown a marked improvement since then. I think he's ready now.  ALKIVAR™ 07:49, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
49. Support. His cool and courteous handling of previous constructive criticism makes me wish some current administrators were more like him. — Knowledge Seeker দ 10:43, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
50. Cliché support. --Deathphoenix 13:32, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
51. Support No longer does it stand at 50. Derktar 17:39, 25 November 2005 (UTC).
52. Support. -- DS1953 18:05, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
53. Support. Jobe6 19:15, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
54. Support -- I'm a little late to the party :) =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
55. "Sorry I'm so late" support. NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 08:13, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
56. Support Sarah Ewart 11:51, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
57. --Jaranda() 18:48, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

• which failed due to a small number of votes being cast leading to a majority being overruled by the minority- can you please clarify your understanding of "cosensus", Harro5? Borisblue 05:12, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I thought that was an iffy choice of words. The RFA saw 11 support votes to 4 oppose votes and 1 neutral, which shows about 70% support. If there had been more votes cast (some other RFAs at the time, and now, attract over 50 or even 100 votes), and that ratio haad continued, the outcome may have been different. I know consensus in the community must be a very strong majority (about 75-80%+), but what I was looking to convery is that the RFA was unsuccessful because of mixed results, not a flat oppose from the community where everyone voted no. Sorry for any confusion, and don't read too much into it. Harro5 05:39, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, if the ratio had continued the result would still be 70%. Ooh, sorry, couldn't resist nitpicking your math there :) Borisblue 05:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
      • And I just sat my VCE Maths exams a fortnight ago. Uh oh...Harro5 05:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
        • You just sat for your VCE Maths exams a fortnight ago. I hope you weren't taking the grammar exams as well! :) Borisblue 16:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
• Could you explain this edit, which was brought up at your previous RFA? Coffee 05:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • That edit was made 6 months ago, and was meant as a bit of a joke; I'd only been a serious editor for a month. I have made no other similar edits in over 5000 now (milestone achieved this week on RC-Patrol), and believe I have proven that it in no way demonstrates what sort of contributor I have been to Misplaced Pages. Hoep that settles this. Harro5 05:38, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

A. I have always been involved in various things like these, and seem to go through a cycle of involvement in areas. I get involved in the various deletion processes (particularly speedy deletions in WP:NP, as shown by over 400 edits to now deletd articles; and AFD, TFD), and would also lend a hand at Did You Know, In the News, blocking/unblocking, and generally answering the call for a mop around the place. Plus, I can almost taste the sweet taste of the rollback button.

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

A. Obviously my pet, featured article Caulfield Grammar School, but also various endeavours and contributions, including the School Portal (which I manage), helping the NBA WikProject get up off the ground, and the other articles I've written or edited, of which there are many.

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

A. Most notably, and recently, was a Request for Comment brought on by my reverting vandals-turned-victims, in which my actions were totally vindicated (see Bishonen's summary and supports for a good idea of what really was involved). I'm glad to say progress with these guys is being made to allow good editing to continue on what were the disputed articles. Other than that, I've had no major issues except for a little misudnerstanding where a user continually posted articles with no content (eg. ) and I, on RC-Patrol at the time, left a brief note for content was read the wrong way by the user. But I'm pretty good with dispute resolution, and haven't had any trouble with long-time users or people contributing positively in their edits.

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

Requests for bureaucratship

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

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

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

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

Johnleemk

Final (54/15/5) ended 06:41 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Johnleemk (talk • contribs)

I noticed on Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship that we've had a backlog of RFAs over the past few days. Reasons cited seem to be a lack of active bureaucrats, most of whom were away due to the American holiday of Thanksgiving. Looking back at past RFBs, most of them have failed due to rather controversial editors or a lack of experience (i.e. been here for less than six months). Since I don't think I fall in any of those categories, I thought I'd give this a shot.

I first edited with this account in September 2003 (before I edited anonymously). I applied for adminship in June 2004, and despite having only a thousand edits, managed to get Blankfaze's support due to my extensive editing that my low edit count belied. Right now I only have about 5500 edits, but if you peruse the clumsy list of contributions I've made on my userpage, I think you'll find a lot of work done in comparatively few edits. Besides simply writing articles, I'm also heavily involved in citing sources for our articles, as I feel a lack of references is a major hit on our credibility. I also do lots of minor editing here and there.

In the community itself, I can only think of three (at the most) serious arguments I've had — a clash with an editor who wanted to add POV to Coca-Cola (he later left, unfortunately), an argument with Everyking over the famous Ashlee Simpson controversy that I hope ended amicably, as I never wanted to see James/Everyking stop editing — he's an asset to Misplaced Pages. I also had a little polite tiff with Malbear over the Bumiputra article. During last year's end-year arbcom elections, I ran as a candidate and garnered 69 votes (13% of the total vote). I did get disendorsed by Fred Bauder (an arbitrator) for reverting an edit of his to the disendorsements page, but that was about it — I never bothered to get seriously involved in that mad mudslinging match that marred the election.

As a bureaucrat, I would of course help clear the RFA backlog as well as change usernames (if anyone requires them). As someone in Malaysia (the UTC+8 timezone), I think my timezone (and culture — I don't celebrate Thanksgiving, while most of our Bureaucrats don't celebrate Chinese New Year) will help, since I can handle nominations that end around this time. The recent backlog showed that our existing bureaucrats, as wonderful and hard-working as they are, can't be everywhere at the same time. As someone with quite a bit of spare time on my hands (I'm a student), I think I can help to prevent another backlog from arising. Johnleemk | Talk 06:41, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Yes. Good luck. NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 07:03, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
2. Support I think we need some more b's hired before Christmas.  Grue  07:09, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
3. Support, sure, we need more people to do this thankless job. Titoxd 07:25, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
4. Support. It's raining (i.e., Thanksgiving etc) and the roof is leaking. Time to address the problem. --Ancheta Wis 07:45, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
5. Support I'm going to against my usual standard of not voting on editors I have had no interactions with since after viewing his contributions and his answers to the questions he seems like he'd make a great bureaucrat. Jtkiefer ---- 08:51, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
6. Support - having looked at his contributions, he seems to be an excellent b-crat candidate yet I haven't met him. Perhaps becoming one will help in this respect. :) --Celestianpower 11:14, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
7. Merovingian 11:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
8. Supporting in my first beaurocratship vote. Jacqui 15:27, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
9. Support one of our most seasoned and trustworthy admins, he's perfect for this job. For Redwolf below: I too feel that Johnleemk may have been interacting a little less with the community recently, i. e. since you joined the project (or simply been interacting in areas where I don't go so much). But I used to see and hear a lot of him—say, from June 2004 to June 2005—and he's always been a great admin. Bishonen | talk 18:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
10. Support Looks like a great editor even though I havent seen him nither. We need more b-crats --Jaranda() 18:53, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
11. Support. I've not had any real interaction with him, but I've seen his name around and this combined with his excellent record and well written introduction means I think he is exactly the sort of person who should be a bureaucrat. Thryduulf 20:35, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
12. Support - 19 FAs says it all to me. FCYTravis 20:39, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
13. Support I thought you said you couldn't go online too often because your home connections busted... oh well- Malaysia Boleh! Borisblue 22:35, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
14. Support Izehar 22:53, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
15. Support, as Johnleemk is a loooong-trusted admin, and we need more bureaucrats. BD2412 T 00:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
16. Absolutely, support. Andre (talk) 00:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
17. Support I don't recognise you , and AFAIK you haven't been involved in many of the recent debates, but bureaucrats should be faceless and low-profile, and that's why I'm keen to support. You have enough experience, you haven't made too may waves, so I don't think you'll be seen as too partisan. --Doc 00:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
18. Support Nothing that hasn't been said already. karmafist 00:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
19. If we must have more bureaucrats, Johnleemk should be one of them. —Charles P. (Mirv) 02:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
20. Support I have a history of supporting the various candidacies of well-qualified people in timezones under-represented in the English Misplaced Pages for reasons relating less with systemic bias and more with pragmatism (see my vote on Ianblair23's RfA for more on that), and this excellent user does nothing to make me want to change that personal voting guideline. Youngamerican 02:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
21. Bishonen's sockpuppet support. If she'll bid her rep, I'll play along. Besides, bureaucratship barely takes anytime at all. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 10:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
22. Support. Excellent contributor, tackles every possible benchmark with ease. Also an ideal opportunity to tilt the WP:BIAS. -- The Minister of War 11:14, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
23. Support. As we have a clear need for non-US bureaucrats, I can think of very few better candidates than John. I also agree that not being the most recognisable name on Misplaced Pages isn't necessarily a bad thing. Rje 13:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
24. Support. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 16:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
25. Support - why not. --FireFox 16:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
26. Support Seems to be a good admin who can and will help the bureaucrat business --Rogerd 21:15, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
27. No reason to oppose. BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-28 02:39
28. Sounds like a good candidate. Guettarda 03:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
29. Support. Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 04:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
30. Support Not contoversial, not new, why not? -JCarriker 06:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
31. Uh, obvious choice and he'd be fantastic at it. - David Gerard 12:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
32. Support I've reviewed many of Johnleemk's contributions. Interaction with the community has been constructive; if he's above the fray in RFAs, I think that's a good thing for a bureaucrat. Chick Bowen 13:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
33. Support. The record of the current frequenters of the Misplaced Pages namespace (especially on pages dominated by voting procedures) when it comes to "consensus" is pretty bad. … In order to preserve diversity, an influx of bureaucrats (as well as admins and users) is necessary. The backlog is not a big deal. — David Remahl 19:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
34. Support. I see lots of positive reasons for support. His comments below satisfy me that he knows how to interact with the community. -- DS1953 20:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
35. Support. --POY 21:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
36. Support. No valid reason not to. Silensor 22:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
37. Support. I haven't seen you around for a while, but then again, I haven't been around in a while either. Shows great judgement as an admin, and can be trusted with the makesysop command. --Deathphoenix 23:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
38. Weak Support great editor, long time contributor, absolutely no fear of abuse of powers here... I still dont really feel we need anymore bureaucrats, but I guess I can give him the nod.  ALKIVAR™ 01:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
39. Support. Have been very impressed in my interactions with him in the past. — Catherine\ 04:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
40. Support. Sarge Baldy 06:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
41. Support experienced and gentlemanly, and I like his answers to the questions. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 08:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
42. Support as a trusted administrator with an impressive track record demonstrating good judgement. Hall Monitor 19:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
43. Support, very long term great editor. James F. (talk) 14:48, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
44. Support. Looks good to me. --WikiFanatic
45. Support. A dedicated administrator and very mature for a person his age. Handles problems in the most professional matter possible. Jtmichcock 04:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
46. Support. A very experienced Admin with some great contributions, looks ideal for bureaucratship. Leithp (talk) 08:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
47. Support. I trust him to do the job fairly, and I don't think it will take away from his article space work. (FWIW, I don't think there's a pressing need for more bureaucrats, but neither do I believe having a few more would hurt, certainly not to the point of denying a suitable candidate who wants the job.) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
48. Support. JFW | T@lk 21:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
49. Support. Of all the reasons given, I agree with Mindspillage's too. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 03:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
50. Support --Terenceong1992 06:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
51. Support. No reason to do otherwise and he's an active wikipedian as far as I'm concerned. __earth 07:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
52. Support So, in addition to his other powers, he gets to make SysOp's and change usernames and that is still a big deal to some? I see no big deal to it...I say promote him!--MONGO 08:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
53. Support. Give this guy a promotion! --Andylkl 07:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
54. Support. Hands-on experience with this admin has been very, very positive. Tom Lillis 23:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I have never heard of Johnleemk (as far as I can remember), which is not itself a reason to oppose, but in browsing his contributions, I find that he is more an article editor than a janitor. This is highly commendable and enviable, but it does not provide much in the way of material from which to judge his ability to interact with the community and handle controversy. Furthermore, bureaucratship has drawn me further away from actual article-writing, much to my chagrin; I would hate for an editor who is clearly much more productive in the article space than myself to reduce his activity in favor of administrative duties. The shortage of bureaucrats isn't quite that dire. — Dan | Talk 03:44, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

   you didn't hear of me either. :) =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

   Weak Oppose, I agree with Rdsmith on this one. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 03:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

   Extra comment: for some more rationale: we know this guy is a great article writer, but does this mean he can interpret consensus well? Don't see him around AfD or even too often in the Misplaced Pages namespace for that matter. Give him an article medal, but IMO hasn't quite proven himself in the consensus field. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 03:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

   The fact that he sticks to FAC and not AFD should be a clear sign that he actually does have a clear understanding of what consensus means. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-28 02:23

   Hmm... just a comment, he clearly has very extensive experience in WP:FAC, and it does take a good understanding of cosensus to do well there. I mean, personally, a lot of what I learnt about community intereaction in WP (compromise, striking cosensus, dealing with trolls etc) I learnt from my FAC attempts. Borisblue 06:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

   But does he promote the Featured Articles? Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 07:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

   Just to answer your question about FAC, I doubt it, Raul does all the administrative work on FAC and actively prevents anyone else from doing it, so in short the answer is no. Jtkiefer ---- 08:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

   I knew this, I was just saying how FAC work doesn't mean consensus unless you're Raul. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 08:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

   That makes no sense whatsoever. Consensus is about discussion to come to agreement. This is epitomized by the work at FAC, and bastardized by the work at AFD. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-28 02:26

   But FAC work also involves a LOT of preparation and user interaction. And if the subject is controversial, then expect a bloodbath in FAC. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

   I was active in the community until the Everyking blow-up, which made me go on a semi-Wikibreak. I also moved house at the same time, and lost my home internet connection for nine months, which further compounded my inactivity. So, I resigned myself to simple article editing whenever I could drop by some place with an internet connection. By the time I got my home connection (a few weeks ago), I felt so out of touch with the community that I avoided active interaction in the project namespace. (If you need to know what the disconnect is like, I recognise more names on Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats than I do on RFA.) I've been trying to get back into the community, though — I made some posts to the mailing list a few days ago: . I understand why you guys don't feel comfortable with supporting me, and I don't hold it against you nor expect you to change your vote. I just feel I need to explain the circumstances surrounding my disappearance from the community and to make it clear this wasn't intended to be permanent. Johnleemk | Talk 10:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

2. Oppose per Rdsmith4. Quentin Pierce 08:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
3. Oppose per Rdsmith4. '''Aucaman''' 23:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
4. Oppose - I am simply not comfortable with the circumstances under which this nomination appears to have been made. I cannot help but feel that it is capitalizing on the recent delay in promotions during the American holiday season. Additionally, the note regarding Thanksgiving is presented as a primary motivation to desire an RfB, and the answers at the bottom are somewhat cursory and colloquial. Together, they suggest that the nominee has not thought thoroughly enough regarding what a "bureaucrat" represents for Misplaced Pages, and users of Misplaced Pages. Yes, bureaucrats have technical abilities which extend only marginally the abilities of a normal administrator. However, there is also a particular type of leadership which is extended and attributed to bureaucrats, and so far it has not been demonstrated that there is an adequate appreciation and understanding of this. I also prefer to support nominations which are more ethically sound, and the proximity to the recent holiday and associated promotion delays is far too coincidental. It is my inclination that it is to Misplaced Pages's benefit that we have a community with a diversity of administrators and bureaucrats, but in this context the need for this does not outweigh my concerns. HappyCamper 14:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

   I don't expect you to change your vote, but I think it should be made clear I have been contemplating this business of being a bureaucrat for quite a while — I did not lightly make this decision to put my name forth for consideration. After all, only a bit more than 20 people have ever held this post, so this is not a small deal. It is of course true that the recent backlog did spur my decision, but I have been mulling this ever since Andre first nominated himself for bureaucratship. It was only because I (like most other people) assumed we had a sufficient number of bureaucrats that I avoided requesting bureaucratship. After I realised that due to unintentional factors, our bureaucrats are not always available and sometimes can't deal with RFA as fast as the community would like, I decided it wouldn't hurt to nominate myself. I understand your trepidation and concern, and don't expect it to just vanish, but I would just like to make it known that I do not assume this post is something light. I do think sometimes it's overrated as a big deal, but believe me, I don't think it's a small deal by any means. Johnleemk | Talk 16:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

5. Oppose on the grounds that I have no idea who this editor is and therefore have no basis on which to judge his ability to gauge consensus in RfAs. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:35, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

   Misplaced Pages doesn't revolve around you, Kelly. You've let me know this many times. Your reasoning is far more appropriate in the 'Neutral column. karmafist 22:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

   Please try and refrain from non-constructive comentary on others' votes. Proto t c 15:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

   Proto, you have not understood my statement, that was constructive. Kelly's reasoning is far more appropriate for a vote in the neutral column. karmafist 06:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

6. Oppose. I don't see this editor active in reading consensus ever: in AfD, or any other such process, nor do I see any participation in RfA, the process he is offering to help out with. This kind of experience (and demonstrable skill) is even more important for 'crats than for admins. It's good that he offered to help out, though. -Splash 16:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
7. Oppose per Rdsmith4 and all of the reasons listed above. Sarah Ewart 00:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
8. Oppose Splash is absolutely right at the need for more RfA experience. Holiday backlog aside, new 'crats still don't seem necessary. If we are to have more, they must impeccable in character and experience. Xoloz 07:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
9. Oppose, agree with Splash. It is not a serious problem if an admin candidate is not promoted for a day or two after his candidacy formally ends. Radiant_>|< 15:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
10. Oppose, not comfortable that he understands policy. CDThieme 21:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Care to expand? I think common courtesy requires that. — David Remahl
11. Oppose - concerned about comments in the edit summaries mentioned here. No Account 23:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
12. oppose we don't need more beurocrats. — Dunc|☺ 23:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Oppose - Misuse of rollback is terrible for admins to do, and bureaucrats should be the admins with the most community support. Additionally, complains about other users' blanket reverts with no reason, and breaks civility. --Phroziac _. o º 23:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

    Both those things happened last year, and could perhaps be put down to immaturity at the time (looking at John's user page, he's not very old). I think it's onlyfair you give him a chance. NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 00:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

    Oh. Nevermind. --Phroziac _. o º 03:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

13. Oppose, one little lull per year is not a reason for additional buereaucrats. I don't particularly think his reasons for being a bureaucrat are good enough, either. Plus I'm a sucker for agecountitis. And I really don't like his consensus views on question 2. Proto t c 13:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

    Proto, what does "I'm a sucker for agecountitis" mean? John has been a member of Misplaced Pages since September 2003. Also, what was it about his answer in question 2 that you did not like? Hall Monitor 21:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

    It means John is 15 years old, therefore he smokes pot, makes jokes about pubes, and eggs houses. Also, he plays his music really loud and disrupts his neighbors who are just trying to relax. :-/ as a fifteen year old wikipedian, when I see such discrimination based on a real life detail I have the urge to leave a note saying 'be back when I grow up' Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 06:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

    I'll ignore the agecountitis part and focus on the problem with question #2 — what is the disagreement, may I enquire? Johnleemk | Talk 09:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

14. You've got to be kidding. This guy was responsible for an vicious spate of edit warring and led a false campaign to get me blamed for the whole dispute. He's guilty of plain deception, and he's never apologized for it. Everyking 06:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

    As I recall, it wasn't me who had four arbitration cases filed against me (and was officially sanctioned by the arbcom for them). It wasn't me who got blocked for breaking the 3RR or the one who set records for certification and endorsement of an RFC. I don't recall being the one who said "i may only get three reverts, but i get to make endless little tweaks to your nonsense in the meantime". Johnleemk | Talk 09:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

    This kind of bitterness is unbecoming. You said above that it's a rare thing, and here you are doing it again. --Ryan Delaney 15:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

15. Oppose. Neutral for now. I haven't interacted with you before, like I have with all the recent RfBs (the reason, in my opinion, why we don't recognize 1/3 of our current bureaucrats is that most of them were here before Misplaced Pages gained popularity and momentum). Also, I'm somewhat hesistant to use time zone/culture to be a basis of an RfB. However, just doing a quick scan your contributions look extremely well (especially your 19 featured articles). Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:22, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
    1. OK, I've done a slightly more extensive look into your contributions, Johnleemk, mainly because I haven't interacted with you before. Could I ask you to explain several of your edits? Here you appear to mock the other participants of the agreement, saying, "I ask you to stop reverting? OMG HE SAID I CAN'T CONTRIBUTE!!!!! I say that there is consensus to condense the article? OMG HE'S NOT COUNTING MY OPINION!!!!!!!!" Here you write in your edit summary, "rv; I don't care what the fuck anyone thinks, but first: two wrongs never make a right; second, don't disrupt Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point. This goes for all parties in the conflict" In the same conflict, you removed Fred Bauder's vote — you mentioned this incident above, would you mind expanding? You also write "wtf is up with this article?" for another article; in another article talk page, you write, "Holy s***, people" and then later comment, "Your arrogance is suffocating..." to another Wikipedian. Finally, would you also mind clarifying this exhange? Thanks a lot. Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
    2. P.S. I have a dream that one day, people will not judge candidates simply by their time zone and culture, and not rush to judgement based on one's location. Nothing against diversity, of course, but I'm hesistant to use that as a reason for voting. Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

    Okay, regarding the Everyking dispute, it is difficult to clarify just how pissed off everyone was with things. At least one user (Reene) left over it, and according to Tony Sidaway (via IRC), there have been four arbitration cases filed against Everyking, two of which ended with punitive action. The RFC probably set a record for RFC endorsements and certifications. Basically, Everyking had been reverting any and all edits he didn't like to certain articles, commonly Autobiography (Ashlee Simpson album). Hemanshu blocked him for doing so. When Everyking came back, he ranted about the conspiracy against him, so I waded in to help out. At first I was polite (you know, assuming good faith and all that), but Everyking showed a surprising amount of paranoia towards other admins. When I told him I would revert his edits that went against overwhelming consensus (practically everyone else involved was reverting his reverts), he accused me of telling him he couldn't edit the article at all. Furthermore, Everyking kept breaking the spirit (but not letter) of the 3RR, and made no secret about it; read his comment I responded to: "And if I do just wait 24 hours and revert, what policy am I breaking?" Basically I was pissed. So were a lot of other editors. Everyking was paranoid at the time, and kept dramatising. His reverts were always in bad faith (look at the edit summaries I pointed out in the RFC), so I simply stopped assuming good faith with him when it came to Ashlee Simpson-related articles.

    The arbcom elections are another thing. Basically I supported and support Jimbo's policy of leaving the muckrackers be and staying above them. Anthere went further and blanked the page. Then CheeseDreams (a confirmed troll) blanked the section of the talk page where she and others discussed the page blanking. This was clearly in bad faith (so were most of her other edits to the arbcom election pages), and like many other editors, I feel no obligation to assume good faith once someone has proven he/she is acting in bad faith.

    Regarding the revertion of Fred Bauder's edit, I feel like such an ass now and see where I was wrong. However, at the time, the disendorsements page was still in use, and Fred was adding his disendorsements to the endorsement page. Thus, I added a message to his talk page informing him of that. Nevertheless, it seems Fred never forgave me.

    That "wtf" edit summary reflected my confusion at the time because the main article was a jumble of duplicated sections again and again. Looking at the page history didn't help, so you can understand my confusion over the article's status. And for the exchange with Adraeus, bear in mind he/she had been making a lot of bad faith edits to the arbcom election pages, so I was quite skeptical of his/her willingness to co-operate with consensus. Then, he/she began yelling loudly that the NPOV policy applies outside the article namespace and therefore we ought to have a disendorsements page. When Shane and I pointed out that in a Misplaced Pages context "article" refers only to pages in the article namespace, Adraeus insisted an article could also be a page in the project namespace. This, combined with his/her history of bad faith edits, led me to decide he/she was just another troll deciding to have some fun with the arbcom elections. Johnleemk | Talk 07:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

    Thanks for the reply! I understand the situation around the edits now, but I'm a bit concerned about the lack of civility when things are frustrating. If those circumstances happened now, do you think you would react in the same way? What do you think you've learned from those incidents? Thanks a lot. Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

    Well, I like to think I would react in a less emotional manner, but unfortunately, it's difficult to really 100% guarantee anything. I would probably have been more careful with Fred Bauder's edit. The Everyking scandal is a tough one, because it was so frustrating to see his brilliant contributions on one side and his terrible bad faith reverts on the other. I think I would not change much of what I did in that scandal because anyone will get frustrated after someone makes false accusations and brags about breaking the intent of a rule for two or three months. Under the circumstances, I think anyone would have done something similar to what I did. I am sorry for what I did, but I can't guarantee that won't happen again. It should be noted Everyking's case was quite unique, though — few people have the tenacity to keep up his reverting campaign for as long as he did. If some of those few people try to do it again, the odds are huge that I won't be involved this time. The arbcom situations were unique, too, in that we were trolled heavily by muck-rakers. I can't say I've lost much sleep about writing "fuck" in an edit summary directed to a user the arbcom has since banned for an infinite period. Like I said, I feel no obligation to assume good faith once it's clear someone is acting in bad faith, because in such a case, nothing will work — an RFC will only toughen the resolve of both sides, and an RFM will be pointless because bad faith and good faith users are arguing from totally different premises that not even a mediator can bridge. In the future, I'll probably be more likely to step away and chill out in such cases, though, or perhaps ask someone on IRC to take a look. That much I can tell you. I've found third-party engagement never hurts (which is why I tend to use RFM even though my experience with it has always let me down).

    The cases where I'm uncivil are actually a rarity, since I always assume good faith the first time I interact with somebody, no matter how rude the person may be. If the other acts in good faith, the situation is almost always resolved. If the other is acting in bad faith, then it's going to get ugly (although I always try my best to avoid incivility). User talk:Johnleemk/Archive1 records a couple of interactions — one with Drbalaji md and another with Faedra. In both cases, I responded politely ( ). In Faedra's case, he/she jumped to conclusions a bit too fast and we parted amicably (refer to my talk page archive). In Drbalaji's case, he turned out to be a troll who eventually left. I feel he could have contributed to Misplaced Pages, but his refusal to accept Misplaced Pages policy made this impossible. I know I'm not very good at clarifying things (just see what happened with Alai's questions below), but all I can say is I apologise for my incivility and do not condone it, but as I am human, it's hard to prevent it if heavily provoked (though I will do my best to refer to third parties first and hopefully prevent a blow-up on my part). Johnleemk | Talk 07:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

    Again, thanks for the response. Regardless of how this RfB turns out, would you mind trying to appear more civil even in the most frustrating of circumstances? (And I certainly understand the frustration.) Society is often judged by how we treat our lowest (trolls and vandals) rather than how we treat our highest. I've seen a RfA crash just because of apparent incivility towards a vandal. Thanks a lot! Oh, still neutral for now; I need more time. Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

    Of course not — as I said, I always try to maintain decorum. I just snap after prolonged periods of aggression, although even so I try to prevent this (if I cursed every time I got upset about something on Misplaced Pages, I'd have more than one edit summary with the word "fuck" in it). It's also notable that all these incidents occurred almost over a year ago, and I have steered clear of controversy since. Johnleemk | Talk 07:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

    Sorry, but while you're a great contributor, I just don't think you're ready yet, though I may support in the future. The interaction with Everyking on his oppose vote above didn't inspire the most confidence, and I think that our bureaucrats should be civil in all situations. Oppose. Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral You seem like a good admin and very dedicated to the project, but you need more community interaction, I've never heard of you before. -Greg Asche (talk) 07:52, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

   Neutral, it appears you've been around for quite some time, but I do not recognize you either... Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 07:57, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

   I don't recognize 1/3 of our current b-crats...  Grue  08:41, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

2. Neutral and pondering. I'm skeptical about the "we clearly need more" argument, though I'll grant you some diversity wouldn't hurt; so I'm somewhat more tempted by this novel "pitch" than with the general case. OTOH, answers to questions 1 and 2 are sufficiently vague and open to the use of discretion as to be consistent with almost any future pattern of promotion. If the candidate could expand, tighten up, exemplify, compare and contrast with existing practice, or otherwise clarify his answers, I'd be much obliged. Alai 03:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

   Basically I think our existing practice is fine. I'm not sure how to further clarify my opinion, but basically, after having gone through the archives of successful and unsuccessful nominations, I think our current practice is fine. IMO, the 80% rule is a good rule of thumb for predicting how I would judge successful nominations, but it's not the final arbiter by any means. I would discount obvious sockpuppet votes, but in those where the situation was fuzzy, I might weight them less than other votes. Likewise with irrational votes — I would almost certainly not discard them (unless given a very strong reason to do so, such as clear evidence of sockpuppetry) but I would weight them less compared to other votes. Is this good enough, or is there anything specific you would like me to answer? Johnleemk | Talk 10:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

   I'm actually less clear than before -- which is saying something. What are your criteria for deciding whether a vote is a 'fuzzy sockpuppet' (doesn't that sound cute?), or irrational, and just how much less weight would you give them? The trouble is that "reasonableness" tests are leaving things entirely in the judgement of the person making the decision, and if you're going to give yourself broad discretion to act as you think best, people are, as per several of the votes above, going to want to see a track record of making such judgements in a reliably sensible way. I recognise the problems with trying to make this too mechanistic, but "trust me to do this right" also raises concerns. Alai 18:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

   A sockpuppet would be a newly created account with few (>50 or thereabouts) edits or an anonymous vote. I find "irrational" votes to be quite rare on RFA, but I wouldn't heavily weight them less if they appeared unless they happened to be a consistent pattern of voting/action (although typically if such bad faith stuff were consistent, I would wonder why this user hadn't ended up on RFAr yet). I don't expect broad discretion, as I don't believe sockpuppet/irrational votes should be heavily weighted less — they just need to be taken into account. If the nomination were flooded with them, weighting wouldn't matter because this would show a clear pattern of an organised campaign to get the user elected (or not elected). And speaking of a track record, fuddlemark incidentally showed me today how much AFD has improved since it was VFD, so I ventured for the first time in quite a while into the abyss and spent a couple of productive hours closing deletion debates. I also have some older VFD debate closures, but I suppose not many have the time to dig those up. The standards I applied then and now are essentially the same, though. Johnleemk | Talk 19:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

   I just thought of something else to add — my thoughts on the meaning of consensus. I believe consensus cannot be judged by mere numbers, as a consensus means general agreement among the community on a particular issue. In this sense, m:polls are evil. Unfortunately, they are a necessary evil, and this is why RFA and other such projects on Misplaced Pages use polls to gauge consensus. Ideally, consensus is unanimous, but in cases where it is not, the objectors should be in a very small minority. A nomination with 60 support votes, 20 oppose votes and 5 neutral votes is far from consensus, while a nomination with 60 support, 10 object and 3 neutral almost certainly (barring exceptional instances) has consensus. I think I have a healthy respect from consensus based on my experience with FAC, as it is one of the last few places on Misplaced Pages where we go by consensual agreement and not mere numbers. Johnleemk | Talk 14:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

   Obviously I agree with you that actual consensus is greatly preferable to mere "supermajority". But I'm not sure how that helps us here, unless there's reform of the process on the table, as well as just another candidate to run the existing one. And if such reform is on the table, I'd greatly prefer to unbundle the two. Alai 18:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

   I don't intend to reform the process — I was just thinking of better ways to clarify what I've been saying. I'm apparently not very good at this. Johnleemk | Talk 19:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

   I think we got there eventually. I have a much better idea now, thank you. Am now neutral-tending-towards-support, though with eight opposes (some better-rationalised than others) it may be fairly moot at the point. Alai 19:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

3. Neutral for now, as per the reasons in the oppose votes - (s)he really seems to be much more active in article space, and it would be a shame if (s)he had to cut back on that... ナイトスタリオン ✉ 11:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
4. Neutral Good editor and admin, but it is very hard to tell how you judge consensus in actual practice when you have not been processing AFD, TFD, CFD, etc. lately. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

   If you're worried, why not promote and see what happens? Any decision (including the promotion) can be reversed; all it takes is that people agree. — David Remahl 19:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

   What? Can you point me to where it is that the community has, by mere discussion de-bureaucratted or de-adminned someone? We can't. It is matter of enormous effort to even begin to de-admin someone and to de-crat someone has never even been tried. It happened once, but that was actually voluntary. -Splash 01:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

   Actually, thanks to fuddlemark, I've rediscovered the joy of closing AFD debates (I'm not kidding). I've been helping clear the backlog over the past few days, and a simple look at my contributions will show more than a few debates closed. Most of them are controversial because other admins always seem to get to the easy ones first. Johnleemk | Talk 19:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

5. Neutral, because I don't think the apparent rationale for the timing of this nomination (a short delay in processing RFAs due to a holiday) is a worthwhile rationale. —Cleared as filed. 22:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• According to Misplaced Pages:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations he's #2 on the list with 19 FAs. Very experienced, I would say. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:39, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Unfortunately, I will have only intermittent internet access from 10AM December 2 UTC till somewhere around December 4. I will log on to Misplaced Pages at least once or twice during this period, but I'm not sure when, exactly. This is because I will be going outstation on a trip that cannot be postponed. Thanks for your understanding. Johnleemk | Talk 12:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

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

1. Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?

A. Yes, I have read them. I think it's blindingly obvious that there has to be a clear-cut consensus for the user to be promoted. Although this is typically judged by the 80% rule, I don't believe in hewing blindly to the numbers — what makes a candidate who only got 79% of the votes so different from one who got 81%? (I'll answer how I'll deal with these cases in the next question.)

2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?

A. So, to tackle such complex situations, I would have to first take into account the possibility of sockpuppeting. In addition, I would look to see if those opposing and supporting have rational reasons for doing so (i.e. "respects other editors" or "insults newbies") or gave none at all (an irrational reason might be "I support him for his promise to block this guy I hate"). I would not discount any votes solely on these criteria, but they might tilt my decision ever-so-slightly in favour of promoting or not promoting. In the end, if I find that there's no consensus but we might get one, I would extend the nomination for a couple of days before closing it.

3. Wikipedians expect Bureaucrats to adhere to high standards of fairness, knowledge of policy and the ability to engage others in the community. Why do you feel you meet those standards?

A. Well, as I said, I've been here for more than two years, and been an admin for almost 75% of them. I've taken part in few controversies. When I helped out at what was called VFD in the first few months of my adminship, none of my calls were questioned. I've also never had my interpretation of policy called into question, and almost half of my edits have been to the Talk, Misplaced Pages or Misplaced Pages talk namespaces. I started the Preliminary Deletion proposal, and to this day it's the only major deletion reform policy to have officially had a majority vote in its favour. I think this is proof I am active within our community and have a good understanding of our people and the policies we make and adhere to.

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

Requests for self-de-adminship and confirmation of adminship

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

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

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

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

Related requests

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

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

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

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