Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:44, 5 August 2006

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

• WP:RFA
• WP:RFX

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

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

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

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

About administrators

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

About RfA

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

Nomination standards

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

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

Nominations

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

Notice of RfA

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

Expressing opinions

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion, decision, and closing procedures

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

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

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

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

Monitors

• WP:MONITOR

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

Current nominations for adminship

Add new requests at the top of this section.

Nominations must be accepted by the user in question. If you nominate a user, leave a message on their talk page and ask them to reply here if they accept the nomination. If you intend to nominate yourself, please take note that while there is no hard and fast requirement for nominating, editors with less than three to six months experience and 1,000–2,000 edits very rarely succeed in becoming admins.

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

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

Robdurbar

Final (48/3/2) Ended 20:45, 2006-08-12 (UTC)

Robdurbar (talk · contribs) – I've been thinking about applying for this for a while, but what with a couple of holidays that I had in June and July, didn't think it was appropriate till I was back contributing more regularly. I think that in my year or so here I have amassed enough experience and knowledge of policy to be a useful admin. The majority of my work is on creating articles, and I'm enjoying WP:AfC, which I only recently discovered. My main hope as an admin would be further work on similar 'request' style pages - I feel that this is where most users have intereaction with admins and thus is where work can be most effective. I would initially hope to work on WP:RfP and the 3RR noticeboard, before getting into more complex admin areas such as Misplaced Pages:Requests for investigation.

Anyway, I hope that I have proved myself to be a solid and dedicated user over the months that I have been here and feel that I will be of even more help to Misplaced Pages as an adminRobdurbar 20:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: What, here? --Robdurbar 20:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: As I noted in my opening statement, I often feel that the place where most users interact with admins is at the various 'request' pages, such as the request for page protection or the 3RR reporting board. As a result, I'd like to help patrol these areas and more complex ones, such as the request for investigation, at a later stage. I'd also appreciate the ability to rollback more easily where I see vandalism, and would throw in the odd helping and at AfD's etc. if I can.

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

A: Well the List of best selling music artists probably stands out as one of pride to me; OK its not perfect, but I'd like to think that the turn around I performed on the page has been pretty impressive, considering too that it's a relatively high profile page. United Kingdom is now a well sourced and full article, and I believe that I have highest contribution levels to that; British nationalism is decent enough and almost entirely me, which adds a sense of pride too.

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

A: The two most obvious conflicts that I have been involved with were at Democratic Peace Theory and British Isles. The former was very early on in my Misplaced Pages career and I think shows how I started out - bold, fair, but a bit too eager to edit out of my depth and not appreciative enough of the importance of sourcing. I withdrew from this article as I felt that I was unable to help furhter in its development.

The British Isles conflict (the ends of which are still ongoing, but it appears to be settling down) has been much more recent. It flared up whilst I was away from Misplaced Pages (at the World Cup - jealous?) and was baisically caused by a lack of understanding between British and Irish users. I would like to think that my approach - always considering other points of views, trying to merge the ideas of others - was key in moving away from arguments over the merits of terminology to actually settling the article.

Optional question from Lar:

4. (one big long question about categories of admins and your thoughts about them) Are you aware of the notion of adminstrators saying they're willing to be voluntarily recalled or reviewed, by a less onerous process than a new RfA (or worse) arbComm action? What do you think of the idea? Would you consider placing yourself (placement should only be done by oneself) in such a category if you were made an admin? Why or why not? Are you aware of the notion of Rouge admins? What do you think of the notion? Do you see it as purely humorous or do you see what it's driving at? Would you consider allowing yourself to by placed in this category (placement is traditionally done by someone else) if you were made an admin? Why or why not? (note: both these categories have some controversy attached to them, for different reasons, and note also, although I am a policy and process wonk I am in both categories, and finally, note that there is no wrong answer here...) ++Lar: t/c 18:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I think calling that a 'question' (single) might fall foul under the Trades Description Act! In seriousness, though, I am vaguely aware of this review category, yes. I recall looking at it approximately 2 months ago (I think) and noting that it wasn't particulalry populated. I think that some sort of admin review system would be a theoretically good feature in Misplaced Pages; clearly, though, we should always make sure that any new administrative proecdure that we create is 'cost effective' - so we would need to create a method that does not take editors away from improving the encyclopedia more than it benefits the community as a whole. I think - without having ever read too much about it - that I would be vaguely supportive of the admins for recall thing and would certainly consider adding myself. What would probably stop me at the moment is the vagueness of the category - excatly what is a ' "re-confirmation" '- is it an RfA style vote, or a discussion? As it's voluntary I can see no harm in such a category as it currently stands

As for Rouge Admin - I was previously unaware of this. However, I think it has been created in good faith as a joke and that this is clear to anyone reading the page. That said, I have my reservations about it - it could be viewed as little more than a personal attack on Misplaced Pages's critics and as such is not likely to ever help relations. Indeed, if Admins for Recall suceeds in creating a good impression of Misplaced Pages, then Rogue Admin runs the risk of unintentionally giving a bad impression. As with AfR, I don't see it doing much harm. However, I would not liked to be placed in this category as I don't see it helping the project in anyway. --Robdurbar 20:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Last 5000 edits.Voice-of-All 07:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Viewing contribution data for user Robdurbar (over the 5000 edit(s) shown on this page) (FAQ)
Time range: 193 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 7hr (UTC) -- 06, Aug, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 12hr (UTC) -- 26, January, 2006
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 81.75% Minor edits: 86.46%
Average edits per day: 17.04 (for last 500 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 519 edits): Major article edits: 99.56% Minor article edits: 88.89%
Analysis of edits (out of all 5000 edits shown on this page and last 33 image uploads):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/major rewrites/sourcing): 1.18% (59)
Significant article edits (copyedits/small rewrites/content/reference additions): 3.14% (157)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 41.54% (2077)
Superficial article edits marked as minor: 17.33%
Unique image uploads (non-deleted/reverts/updates): 18 (checks last 5000)
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 1568 | Average edits per page: 3.19 | Edits on top: 11.06%
Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 60.04% (3002 edit(s))
Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 9.1% (455 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 11.48% (574 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 16.22% (811 edit(s))
Edits by Misplaced Pages namespace:
Article: 59.5% (2975) | Article talk: 21.82% (1091)
User: 0.86% (43) | User talk: 11.78% (589)
Misplaced Pages: 3.86% (193) | Misplaced Pages talk: 0.88% (44)
Image: 0.26% (13)
Template: 0.78% (39)
Category: 0.06% (3)
Portal: 0% (0)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.2% (10)

• See Robdurbar's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
• Edit count from Interiot's Tool 2. alphaChimp 21:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Username Robdurbar
Total edits 7313
Distinct pages edited 2208
Average edits/page 3.312
First edit 16:16, July 5, 2005
(main) 4673
Talk 1416
User 80
User talk 672
Image 17
Image talk 3
Template 46
Template talk 10
Category 7
Misplaced Pages 333
Misplaced Pages talk 56

Support

1. Support per nom. Michael 20:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Support looks good. Rama's arrow 21:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Support There appears to be nothing to fear. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 21:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Support Looks good to me. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 21:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Support Seems like a sensible, level-headed candidate for adminship.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  21:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Support. Nothing really seems awry. alphaChimp 22:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
7. Support Nothing to make me vote against, always a good sign. RandyWang (/_{review me!}) 23:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
8. Support I see no reason to oppose. The Gerg 23:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
9. Support per nomination statement. Roy A.A. 00:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
10. Merovingian - Talk 00:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
11. Support per nom and above. Newyorkbrad 02:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
12. Support - good editors make good admins abakharev 04:41, 6 August
13. Support - no doubt. Stubbleboy 05:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
14. Support. Wohvere, I stume ót kastern, thaw ebt thwí lal het epople thwí eseth trosnomčilālý gehu tídē tunsćo? RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 06:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
15. Support A good user. --Siva1979 06:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
16. Support, good user. --Terence Ong _{(Chat | Contribs)} 07:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
17. Support, I've seen him around, he's done good things and I don't see any indication that he'd abuse or misuse the tools. - Bobet 07:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
18. Support 300 WP namespace edits and many more talk prove familiarity with WP, an understanding of the community and the skills needed for advanced editing. --Draicone 11:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
19. Support Reliable user, no qualms about handing him the mop. Oldelpaso 13:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
20. Support. - Mailer Diablo 16:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
21. Support no problems that I can see. --Guinnog 16:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
22. per nom, Highway 17:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
23. Support no reason not to. —Khoikhoi 21:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
24. Support fine editor hand him the mop Æon 22:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
25. Support His efforts to improve DPT were evenhanded and useful; even if they have been swallowed up again. Septentrionalis 00:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
26. Support. Good answers, solid user, and meets my criteria. Themindset 05:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
27. Support. Experienced, solid user. Zaxem 10:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
28. Support. Seen you around. Deb 19:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
29. Support. Good candidate that is deserving of the status. violet/riga (t) 22:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
30. Support. Fair minded editor, will make fair minded Admin. MelForbes 01:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
31. Support. - SynergeticMaggot 02:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
32. Support, looks good to me.--Kungfu Adam 14:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
33. Support -- Tawker 16:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
34. Support The 3RR backlog could use some attention and as such, I'd love to see this candidate be equipped with the means necessary to address the situation He seems like he would be a great resource there with his seemingly level head and NPOV (I haven't yet met the user but per a look at his edits and talk page, I feel comfortable with my two cents) hoopydink 19:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
35. Support. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 22:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
36. Support looks good to me. Baseball,Baby! 23:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
37. Support with no reason not to. —Xyrael _{/ 17:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)}
38. No reason not to support. Shimgray | talk | 18:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
39. Support. More patient than I am with British Isles, for one thing. Alai 23:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
40. Support, edit history looks good; grasps WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and the essentials. --MPerel 05:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
41. Support - impressed by his contriubtions. I'm sure giving him the admin tools will benefit the articles. Aquilina 17:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
42. Support --Jay(Reply) 21:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
43. Support - no indication editor will abuse tools. Jayjg 19:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
44. Support. DarthVader 00:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
45. Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 09:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
46. Support will use the tools well. --Alf 13:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
47. Support Seems solid and experienced.--Runcorn 15:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
48. Support per nom.Bakaman _Bakatalk 19:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose Read the subheading "Vandalism and personal attacks" under the most recent archive posted by Robdurbar. Then read the "Recent edits" Robdurbar posted on User talk:Koavf. He either did not understand WP:VAND or chose to ignore it when reprimanding another user. Considering that incident, it is too soon for adminship. NOBS 18:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Stricken as the user has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Tchadienne. Ral315 (talk) 20:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

This was edit conflicted with the above but I thought I'd include it anyway -

Having inverstigated this a bit, I think this came from a time when I engaged with Koavf and User:Wikima on a couple of pages involving Western Sahara. The following diff shows Kovaf reverting an edit by Wikima and labelling it as vandalism. I reverted, on the grounds given in the edit summary. At User Talk:Koavf#Recent edits I questioned Kovaf's labelling of the edit as 'vandalism' - as I explained at the time, I think Wikima was attempting to improve the article and, though I didn't necessairily agree with him, I felt it was an inappropriate revert carried out by Koavf (re Misplaced Pages:Vandalism#What vandalism is not)

The quote from WP:VAND that User:Koavf put here on my user talk page seems fairly irrelevant - it discusses edits to Misplaced Pages policy pages, with which I had not been involved with Wikima or Kovaf (indeed Wikima, has just 3 Misplaced Pages space edits which were 6 months prior to my interaction with him/her. Thus I think it was Kovaf, if anyone, who had been slighlty confused over policy. --Robdurbar 20:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Weak Oppose does not meet my standards with not enough Misplaced Pages space edits. Sorry. —Mets501 (talk) 18:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC) Changed to Neutral

lol, 12 edits off. Ironically, by the end of this RfA I'll probably have 350. Can't win 'em all. --Robdurbar 20:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

1. Oppose Per above. --Masssiveego 06:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Sorry, oppose. 0FA and too few WPspace edits. -- Миборовский 23:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Hells no. And dont ever strike out my vote again. Tchadienne 23:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, it wasn't me who struck out your vote. --Robdurbar 19:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral I was being a bit silly opposing on such narrow criteria, especially when you're very close to the mark. I just feel that Misplaced Pages space edits tell a true understanding of Misplaced Pages policy, but your other edits in other categories outweigh it. —Mets501 (talk) 18:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Neutral, would prefer to see a higher Misplaced Pages namespace edit count in order to show a better policy knowledge all-round. Stifle (talk) 22:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Goldom

Final (53/2/1) Ended 13:09, 2006-08-12 (UTC)

Goldom (talk · contribs) – I have been working on Misplaced Pages for some time now, and recently have been finding myself more and more in situations where I feel I could be doing much more good with admin tools. I have been around a long time (registered late 2004), though to be fair, the total active time is actually around 8 months - I didn't do much for most of 2005. For an account of that age, I don't have a ton of edits, (I haven't looked in a while at exactly how many, the count will show up below eventually anyway), but have been getting much more active in the last 4-5 months. I've been putting off nominating myself, trying to wait for the "perfect time" when I'd have the best chance, but realized that I could be doing the site far more good by just asking for your opinions now, and either using the tools sooner, or learning where to improve so that I can request again in a while. My latest mistake that made me think "now I look bad again..." was a confusion over one of the rules of image deletion. I asked for clarification, thought the response agreed with my understanding, then acted on that, and turned out to be wrong. I now understand correctly, and realize I was perhaps a tad too BOLD for a situation in which I was confused. (To avoid being ambiguous, I edited an image CSD to how I thought it actually was, got reverted, and so asked and learned the truth). What this story is getting around to is that I can't promise to be a perfect admin, but will strive to not use any admin actions (or normal editing actions, for that matter) before thoroughly understanding what I'm doing. For example, I would probably avoid deleting any images for the time being, until I'm fully clear on those policies. However, there are enough places I am confidant in my actions (to follow in the questions) that I believe I could be of use as an admin. I've decided to throw out my inhibitions about how I'll look, and just go for it, as after all, this is about helping Misplaced Pages, not seeing how many people like me. Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 11:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 11:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: The big ones would be backlogs in CAT:CSD and WP:AIV. These are two places that, while not having the biggest backlogs, are rather important to be dealt with quickly. I also have a good bit of experience with both vandalism-cleaning and speedy-tagging bad articles (while I don't know of any way to count how many articles I've tagged for deletion (that have been deleted), my guess would be several hundred, as that is one thing I've been doing since my very beginning here in 04. As for dealing with vandalism, I use the non-admin revert script, so can't really claim I need that tool, but do have experience with it. I report any vandals who persist after the required warnings to AIV, but as with tagging speedy articles, I would rather be helping to reduce backlogs instead of adding to them. Another area I am active in as a user is WP:AFD. I'm not the sort that goes through and does "Delete per nom" on everything, but rather add my opinions only where I feel I have something useful to add to the discussion, and so avoid that much-dreaded "voting". So, with the experience I have there, I could help close old AfDs. I also have no problem with expanding into other areas, once I learn the policies. One I have in mind is Requested Moves, as I have read and understand how to do the admin work in that area.

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

A: I'm afraid I have to disappoint some people here and admit I've never come close to working on a Featured Article, and am unlikely to do so any time soon. I don't have anything against them, but I do much, much more work behind the scenes. It may be odd to admit, but one of my contributions I am proudest of is a string of over 1,250 spelling fixes over the course of 3 days. I know it's not something unique or that no one else could have done, but no one else had done it, and so I feel it was an important (though exhausting) contribution. Another task I've undertaken is cleaning up pages to comply with the disambiguation page Manual of Style, as many are nowhere near what it says. It may also seem like a minor task, but I've found that most editors, new and experienced alike, add listings to dab pages in the format already there - so cleaning up a page early on leads to it staying clean in the future. Most of all though, my primary task is vandalism-cleanup, and this is also the reason for my RfA. It may be a task with no net gain to the project (well, that's not totally true, sometimes all a once-vandal needs to become a valued contributor is to let them know what they're doing wrong), but is quite vital to avoid a loss. For those looking for actual article writing, I'll offer my work on the page Earth Girl Arjuna. It's not a great article, but I rewrote nearly the whole thing, and think it is, at least, much better than before. I also have a list of other work I've done that can be seen at User:Goldom/work, if anyone is interested in seeing more.

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

A: I have never been in a conflict over the content of an article. However, I have had some disagreements over interpretation of policy (in places like AfD). I think the things that stresses me out the most is users being uncivil. I generally deal with this by ignoring rude comments and reminding others to mind WP:CIVIL, if it needs to be said. My only other real bother is when policies are cited to mean things I don't believe they say. I don't assert myself to be a know-all of every rule, and so in cases where I feel others are using a policy incorrectly, in every case I can think of, have simply discussed it with them, explaining why I am reading it a different way. I can't think of any time where I have ever made a personal attack, but rather try to discuss things rationally. I know being an admin does open the door to more stressful situations, and would strive to continue this manner of dealing with them.

Optional question from Viridae

4. You state you would like to use the admin tools to perform speedy deletions rather than contributing to the backlog. If you come across an article that you think warrants a speedy but you aren't quite sure. What would your actions be in this case?

A: I think the basic idea behind speedy deletions is that they are for cases where there is not only no contention about the case (which would be a prod), but where the article so clearly doesn't belong that there could almost certainly be no doubt. (This is just talking about the CSD for articles - some of the others I can see how there might be confusion, of course. :) So, if I was unsure whether or not an article was speedyable, I think in almost any case it would be better to err on the side of caution and not delete it. When I've come across things like that in the past, I've generally either used a prod, or just stuck it on my watchlist to see what someone else would do, so I'd know next time there was a similar case. As an admin, depending on the case, I would think either a prod, or if I'm really 98% sure, I could always still just tag it as a speedy, and see if another admin agreed with me.

Optional question from Lar:

5. (one big long question about categories of admins and your thoughts about them) Are you aware of the notion of adminstrators saying they're willing to be voluntarily recalled or reviewed, by a less onerous process than a new RfA (or worse) arbComm action? What do you think of the idea? Would you consider placing yourself (placement should only be done by oneself) in such a category if you were made an admin? Why or why not? Are you aware of the notion of Rouge admins? What do you think of the notion? Do you see it as purely humorous or do you see what it's driving at? Would you consider allowing yourself to by placed in this category (placement is traditionally done by someone else) if you were made an admin? Why or why not? (note: both these categories have some controversy attached to them, for different reasons, and note also, although I am a policy and process wonk I am in both categories, and finally, note that there is no wrong answer here...) ++Lar: t/c 18:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

A: I am aware of both. In order... I think the recall idea has some merits, as well as problems. In the past, I have stated that I don't think admins should be considered above any rules just because of their position. In my mind, it seems that if someone does something that bothers enough people that they would have failed an RfA (if they weren't already an admin), it makes sense to at least question whether they should continue as one. Of course, this is hard to judge - how many people would that have to be? I will say that I think the criteria for removing admins are too high. I'm not saying I have a personal problem with anyone in particular, but the fact that one has to be absolutely horrible before they can be removed could lead to some admins feeling they don't have to be as civil or other such things as they did before their adminship. I don't think this is a very widespread problem, of course, but if gaining adminship is "no big deal" (not that it really is anymore), it seems the reverse should not be "an extremely rare enormous deal". Now, as for the category. I think it has probably very little effect. If an admin is misbehaving, they're not going to put themselves in such a category, meaning only those who have little chance of being asked to resign would even be offering it. I do see the good side of the category, which in my mind, tells users "Don't be afraid of me cause I'm an admin, let me know if I'm doing something wrong." However, there is also a downside - it may lead other admins to feel like they are under attack for not being in it, even if they're doing just fiine. In the end, I think I probably wouldn't put myself in the category, but would certainly be open to any comments or critisicm (I may just put that above line in quotes on my page, I like it now). Now about rouge admins. I think it's pretty much humorous, as the tags and even name and all are written in a funny manner. It seems like a harmless enough way to shake your fist at someone without really being mean about it. If an admin didn't like the label, they surely could always remove it from their own page. I wouldn't be offended if someone used it on me, though I would try to see if I could be doing something better.

Comments

All user's edits.Voice-of-All 06:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Viewing contribution data for user Goldom (over the 4725 edit(s) shown on this page) (FAQ)
Time range: 584 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 6hr (UTC) -- 06, Aug, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 5hr (UTC) -- 30, November, 2004
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 99.64% Minor edits: 99.55%
Average edits per day: 34.53 (for last 500 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 509 edits): Major article edits: 99.28% Minor article edits: 100%
Analysis of edits (out of all 4725 edits shown on this page and last 4 image uploads):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/major rewrites/sourcing): 0.23% (11)
Significant article edits (copyedits/small rewrites/content/reference additions): 0.49% (23)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 43.53% (2057)
Superficial article edits marked as minor: 85.95%
Unique image uploads (non-deleted/reverts/updates): 4 (checks last 5000)
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 3702 | Average edits per page: 1.28 | Edits on top: 18.26%
Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 30.46% (1439 edit(s))
Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 43.94% (2076 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 22.37% (1057 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 0.61% (29 edit(s))
Edits by Misplaced Pages namespace:
Article: 64.76% (3060) | Article talk: 2.05% (97)
User: 5.08% (240) | User talk: 13.54% (640)
Misplaced Pages: 10.88% (514) | Misplaced Pages talk: 1.86% (88)
Image: 0.66% (31)
Template: 0.61% (29)
Category: 0.02% (1)
Portal: 0% (0)
Help: 0.08% (4)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.44% (21)

• See Goldom's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
• Goldom's edit count using Interiot's tool:

Username	Goldom
Total edits	4664
Distinct pages edited	3655
Average edits/page	1.276
First edit	22:12, November 29, 2004
(main)	3033
Talk	94
User	235
User talk	622
Image	31
Image talk	1
Template	29
Template talk	19
Help	4
Help talk	1
Category	1
Misplaced Pages	507
Misplaced Pages talk	87

• Goldom's detailed edit count using Ais523's Tool (click the "Show" link below and to the right) alphaChimp 14:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Article namespace: 3061

Manual vandalism reverts: 20

Automatic (rollback/script/tool) reverts: 621

Manual reverts not marked as vandalism reverts: 91

Removals: 99

Redirects: 37

Link as edit summary: 57

Proposed deletion-related tagging: 7

XfD deletion-related tagging: 3

Speedy deletion-related tagging: 2

Deletion-related edit summaries: 11

Addition-related edit summaries: 66

Unrecognised tag ({{ in summary): 3

Unknown abbreviation (≤4 characters): 41

Unrecognised edit summary: 1965

Edits to sections, with no further summary: 11

No edit summary: 27

Talk namespace: 97

Automatic (rollback/script/tool) reverts: 6

Manual reverts not marked as vandalism reverts: 1

Removals: 4

Addition-related edit summaries: 3

Unknown abbreviation (≤4 characters): 9

Unrecognised edit summary: 65

Edits to sections, with no further summary: 3

No edit summary: 6

User namespace: 240

Manual vandalism reverts: 2

Automatic (rollback/script/tool) reverts: 15

Manual reverts not marked as vandalism reverts: 2

Removals: 1

Addition-related edit summaries: 33

Non-deletion voting-related edit summaries: keep: 1, oppose: 0, support: 0

Unknown abbreviation (≤4 characters): 36

Unrecognised edit summary: 105

Edits to sections, with no further summary: 2

No edit summary: 40

User talk namespace: 640

Automatic (rollback/script/tool) reverts: 5

Removals: 3

Link as edit summary: 3

Welcomes: 8

Speedy deletion-related tagging: 5

Deletion-related edit summaries: 1

Unknown abbreviation (≤4 characters): 231

Unrecognised edit summary: 186

Edits to sections, with no further summary: 7

No edit summary: 6

Misplaced Pages namespace: 512

Manual vandalism reverts: 2

Automatic (rollback/script/tool) reverts: 11

Manual reverts not marked as vandalism reverts: 8

Removals: 7

Link as edit summary: 1

XfD deletion-related tagging: 8

Speedy deletion-related tagging: 7

Deletion-related edit summaries: 52

Addition-related edit summaries: 11

Non-deletion voting-related edit summaries: keep: 12, oppose: 2, support: 9

Unknown abbreviation (≤4 characters): 18

Unrecognised edit summary: 329

Edits to sections, with no further summary: 29

No edit summary: 6

Misplaced Pages talk namespace: 87

Manual reverts not marked as vandalism reverts: 1

Link as edit summary: 1

Unknown abbreviation (≤4 characters): 3

Unrecognised edit summary: 66

Edits to sections, with no further summary: 15

Image namespace: 31

Automatic (rollback/script/tool) reverts: 7

Removals: 2

Addition-related edit summaries: 1

Unrecognised tag ({{ in summary): 1

Unknown abbreviation (≤4 characters): 3

Unrecognised edit summary: 17

Image talk namespace: 1

Unrecognised edit summary: 1

Template namespace: 29

Automatic (rollback/script/tool) reverts: 2

Manual reverts not marked as vandalism reverts: 1

Removals: 7

Redirects: 2

Unknown abbreviation (≤4 characters): 1

Unrecognised edit summary: 16

Template talk namespace: 19

Unknown abbreviation (≤4 characters): 1

Unrecognised edit summary: 16

Edits to sections, with no further summary: 2

Help namespace: 4

Automatic (rollback/script/tool) reverts: 3

Manual reverts not marked as vandalism reverts: 1

Help talk namespace: 1

Manual vandalism reverts: 1

Category namespace: 1

Manual reverts not marked as vandalism reverts: 1

1. Me. ;) I've only seen good things from Goldom, I don't believe he'd abuse the tools at all. Highway 11:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Support. Will not abuse the tools. — FireFox _{11:40, 05 August '06}
3. Support, no clear reason to oppose. I'd like to see more Misplaced Pages space edits in the future, but that'd really be a bonus. RandyWang (/_{review me!}) 13:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Edit conflict Support Seems to be trustworthy and hardworking. Someone made an unblock request on Goldom's Talk page, thinking that he was an admin already!  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  13:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Support. If I were to choose one word to describe Goldom, it would be... dependable! --Gray Porpoise 14:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Support. Adequate time and number of edits. See no evidence of incivility. This dif shows Goldom can remain cool under fire and not escalate under provocation. :) Dlohcierekim 15:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
7. Support. Good responses to questions, as well as reasons above. Dar-Ape 15:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
8. Support Will make a good admin. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 16:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
9. Support. I haven't interacted with him before, but everything that I've seen here appears to be in order. alphaChimp 16:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
10. Support First off, Goldom has shown himself to be a strong, hard-working contributor. Second, I love his self-nom and his answers to the questions. It's obvious that he knows exactly what he wants to do on WP, he knowshow he can be helpful, and he knows what his strengths and weaknesses are. Just from what is written above, I can tell quite plainly that he doesn't think he's perfect (which is good, because nobody is), but that he does his absolute best in what he's good at. Despite not having any interaction with him, I think, from what I've seen in the past few minutes, that he'd make a very good admin. -- Kicking222 16:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
11. Support per Kicking222. --Siva1979 18:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
12. Support per above. Newyorkbrad 18:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
13. Support per above. Michael 20:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
14. Jaranda 20:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
15. Support looks good to me. —Khoikhoi 22:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
16. Support per all good reasons above. The Gerg 23:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
17. Support per nomination statement. Roy A.A. 00:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
18. Merovingian - Talk 00:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
19. Yes. - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
20. Support. Strong candidate. Good answers to questions. Zaxem 03:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
21. Support - looks good abakharev 04:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
22. Support good luck! Stubbleboy 05:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
23. Support --Terence Ong _{(Chat | Contribs)} 07:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
24. Support. Thank you for running. --Ligulem 09:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC) (Please don't thank me for "voting", thanks :-)
25. Support per answers to questions. Viridae 13:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
26. Support. - Mailer Diablo 16:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
27. Support No problems with this editor that I can see. --Guinnog 16:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

    Support Though I would encourage you to be tougher with vandals. NOBS 18:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

    Stricken as the user has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Tchadienne. Ral315 (talk) 20:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

28. No reason not to... Support ++Lar: t/c 18:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
29. Support —Quarl 2006-08-06 18:42Z
30. Support, of course. Excellent credentials, and I liked his answers. Another mop over here, please! ;) Phaedriel ♥ The Wiki Soundtrack!♪ - 20:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
31. Support trust with tools. Pete.Hurd 21:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
32. Support as he's trying to help me out now with a sockpuppet that is attacking me, but he doesn't currently have the admin tools to simply block the sock... yeah, of course I trust him with the tools. ;P -Aknorals 04:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
33. Support Seems sensible and level-headed.--Poetlister 16:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
34. Support, fine. Stifle (talk) 22:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
35. Support.  Grue  07:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
36. Support. — Vildricianus 11:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
37. Support, please help us with the backlogs!!!--Kungfu Adam 14:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
38. Support - no brainer here -- Tawker 19:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
39. Support. Well thought out and reasoned answers and nomination. Agent 86 19:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
40. Support Thoughtful, no problems handing him a mop. Baseball,Baby! 23:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
41. Support Very good answers to the questions. Wikipediarules2221 01:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
42. Support. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 06:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
43. Support for good statement and answers to questions. —Xyrael _{/ 17:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)}
44. Support, clean history, understands policy, no civility issues, fine candidate. --MPerel 05:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
45. Strong support. Goldom meets my 2k edit requirements, passes civility, is knowledgeable on Misplaced Pages policies, good nomination statement + reasons for needing the tools, and has some good answers to the above questions. I looked at his talk page and recent contributions, and see nothing troubling. Good to go. --Firsfron of Ronchester 06:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
46. Support. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 18:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
47. Support An accomplished editor who will make good use of the admin tools. I've seen his work at WP:AIV and other places and he's impressed me with his good judgement. Gwernol 13:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
48. Support Don't see any issues here. Jayjg 19:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
49. Support. DarthVader 00:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
50. Support. Deserves the promotion. DVD+ R/W 00:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
51. Support, definitely does good work, and definitely could use the tools -- Deville (Talk) 00:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
52. Support - Well balanced and dedicated. Can be trusted with the tools. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 09:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
53. Support excellent user all around. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Fails my criteria. --Masssiveego 06:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

   Would you mind explaining what you mean by "trigger happy"? -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 07:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

   Users standards taken from criteria page: Nominee must be people person, hardworking, civil, trustworthy, helpful, kind, temperance, friendly, have good manners. An understanding of the english language, have a good vocabulary. Understands the workings of Wikipdia and a be good tutor. I find post counts and time on Misplaced Pages factor toward the above but may not necessary reflect on the person character. Last thing I want to see is another power tripping Admin that deletes the hardwork of other people for the sheer pleasure of destroying other people's work. While I understand there are limits to wikipedia bandwidth, and server hard drive space. Admin should be open minded, and flexible to variation, and have a broad understanding of what is useful everyone else, rather then what is just useful to me. I feel Admin must be intelligent, wise, clever, happy, unstressable do gooders, that has the time to be on Misplaced Pages, and that will take the time to both smell the roses, and keep things organized with a clear mind.

   Also be aware this user very rarely supports any users RfAs anyway.--Andeh 14:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

   This "user" rejects being peer pressured, or cabelled toward an unqualified canidate. --Masssiveego 19:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

   For the "Some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Eliran Diego Herszman may not be sufficiently well-known to merit articles of their own. The Misplaced Pages community welcomes newcomers, and encourages them to become Wikipedians. On Misplaced Pages, all users are entitled to a user page in which they can describe themselves, and this article's content may be incorporated into that page. However, to merit inclusion in the encyclopedia proper, a subject must be notable. We encourage you to write or improve articles on notable subjects. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 10:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)"

   In the above, I've notice there was no attempt to determine if there was a spelling error in the name, what research was done to determine this was really a vanity article, or what if any effort was made to confirm who this Eliran Diego Herszman in. A vanity template without any notes of research or attempt to determine the validity in my opinion is "trigger happy". --Masssiveego 20:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

   I don't mean to try to pressure you, I was just wondering what you meant. As for that case, I'm afraid I can't offer much explanation... I tag a ton of db-bios every day, and don't remember that one in particular. I tried looking up the article, but it doesn't exist, so all I can figure (without being able to see deleted edits) is that is was correct to be deleted. I'll admit to have mistakenly tagged a few things for deletion that were in fact misspellings (all that I remember were redirects to red links, though), but I never do so without first making some attempt to see if there was a correct target for them. Unfortunately, sometimes the search doesn't find them. In every case though, the original author has then fixed it, and the problem is solved. In my opinion, tagging something as a speedy shouldn't be taken as an insult, but rather a chance to improve. The tag we leave on a user's page let's them know that if the person is notable, they should assert so on the page. One case I do remember (though not the name of the article) was where I marked a page as a db-bio for having no assertion of notability. I let the author know, and they promptly inserted one, and the article, last I looked, still existed. In my mind, that is the best result of such a situation. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 20:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

   Having looked at the deleted content, Goldom was easily seen to be correct. If any established user is interested, I will email them the full content (I'd rather not put it back on Wiki because it has what might constitute private information on it). JoshuaZ 20:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

2. Sorry, no FA. -- Миборовский 23:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral. Fails my criteria by having much less than 200 main talk edits. I would like to see more article development/interaction. Themindset 05:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Cowman109

Final (65/3/2) Ended 06:23, 2006-08-12 (UTC)

Cowman109 (talk · contribs) – I would like to nominate User:Cowman109. He has been with us since late October and has more than 3 thousand edits. He is best known as the former head and current coordinator of the Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal where he has done some excellent work in. He also fights copyvios and vandalism , rewrites articles like Henry Ossawa Tanner and partipates in AFDs . He had one prior RFA nomination in Mid-may Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Cowman109 in which he was opposed for inexperince and withdrew early but he is much more experinced now. I think Cowman109 would make an good admin. Jaranda 04:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Cowman109 06:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: The area I'm most interested in is helping protections in WP:RFP, as I've seen times when the list is not looked at for several days and people are left without assistance. As I'm also usually involved in dispute resolution, proper use of page protection could stop an edit war in its tracks before it escalates further. I would also get involved in WP:AN3, as that area seems a bit undermanned. I would refrain from using sysop powers on disputants in a Medcab case I'm involved with, of course, as that would conflict with my neutrality.

I admit I don't forsee myself hunting out vandalism as much as other syops do, but of course I would deal with persistant vandals that I come across through my watchlist. As people often say, I would also lend a hand at the speedy deletion backlog when I have the chance. I sporadically participate in AFDs and RFDs as Jaranda stated above, more so on RFDs, though only on overlooked or borderline cases. As for AFDs I admit it's usually only ones that I've come across or if it's one I've proposed myself. :).

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

A: Well, in terms of contributions I'm pleased with, I recently found a chain of copyvio articles (which is pretty evident by my recent contribs) which I am still dealing with. Otherwise, generally my article contributions are usually spread between many articles instead of focusing on one in particular. I recently went on a sort of mini clean-up campaign to clear up Category:Cleanup from June 2005 with the help of the people in #Misplaced Pages-en, which was quite successful.

In terms of major edits, the majority of my article contributions are indirectly through discussion in talk pages or mediation cabal cases. Though, as Jaranda stated, I have made efforts beyond the mediation cabal for pages as well.

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: As I stated in my last RFA, I'm generally a laidback person and few things cause me stress, but when things do, I don't hesitate to take a break to put things back into perspective. As for getting into conflicts, well, that pretty much goes without saying. I'm usually the one trying to fix the conflict.

Optional question from Lar:

4. (one big long question about categories of admins and your thoughts about them) Are you aware of the notion of adminstrators saying they're willing to be voluntarily recalled or reviewed, by a less onerous process than a new RfA (or worse) arbComm action? What do you think of the idea? Would you consider placing yourself (placement should only be done by oneself) in such a category if you were made an admin? Why or why not? Are you aware of the notion of Rouge admins? What do you think of the notion? Do you see it as purely humorous or do you see what it's driving at? Would you consider allowing yourself to by placed in this category (placement is traditionally done by someone else) if you were made an admin? Why or why not? (note: both these categories have some controversy attached to them, for different reasons, and note also, although I am a policy and process wonk I am in both categories, and finally, note that there is no wrong answer here...) ++Lar: t/c 18:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe the concept of administrators putting themselves on a page to be voluntarily recalled or reviewed is inherently flawed as it creates a divide between those who are on the list and those who aren't. It basically says that if you're not on the list, you're scared of getting de-sysopped, which is not what it should be at all. I feel that the system is unnecessary, since if an administrator's powers should be taken away for some reason, there are already processes in place to de-sysop him or her. I have my doubts that this new system of administrators open to recall will result in any administrators being recalled because those who put themselves on the list automatically realize they may be under more scrutiny, so it seems to be more of a badge than a process. I believe that all administrators are always open to recall, as of course arbcom or the community can recognize problems and address them, and that this new category is unnecessary and just separates people into the good and the bad. So, no, I wouldn't add myself to that list.

As for rouge admins, I suppose it could be interpreted as having a deeper purpose of making people realize that sysops aren't out to get you and they are here to build the encyclopedia as well, only stated in a more humorous tone. I'm indifferent towards it, however. Cowman109 19:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments

All user's edits.Voice-of-All 05:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Viewing contribution data for user Cowman109 (over the 3379 edit(s) shown on this page) (FAQ)
Time range: 257 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 6hr (UTC) -- 06, Aug, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 3hr (UTC) -- 23, October, 2005
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 100% Minor edits: 100%
Average edits per day: 20.25 (for last 500 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 170 edits): Major article edits: 100% Minor article edits: 100%
Analysis of edits (out of all 3379 edits shown on this page and last 1 image uploads):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/major rewrites/sourcing): 0.03% (1)
Significant article edits (copyedits/small rewrites/content/reference additions): 0.47% (16)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 5.03% (170)
Superficial article edits marked as minor: 75.97%
Unique image uploads (non-deleted/reverts/updates): 1 (checks last 5000)
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 1101 | Average edits per page: 3.07 | Edits on top: 10.98%
Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 40.13% (1356 edit(s))
Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 32.82% (1109 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 21.16% (715 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 4.53% (153 edit(s))
Edits by Misplaced Pages namespace:
Article: 20.54% (694) | Article talk: 8.38% (283)
User: 8.23% (278) | User talk: 25.3% (855)
Misplaced Pages: 32.88% (1111) | Misplaced Pages talk: 3.28% (111)
Image: 0.09% (3)
Template: 1.09% (37)
Category: 0.03% (1)
Portal: 0% (0)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.18% (6)

• See Cowman109's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
• Cowman109's edit summary usage with Interiots Edit Count Tool

Username Cowman109
Total edits 3330
Distinct pages edited 1075
Average edits/page 3.098
First edit 04:12, October 23, 2005
(main) 671
Talk 282
User 269
User talk 842
Image 3
Template 37
Template talk 1
Category 1
Misplaced Pages 1108
Misplaced Pages talk 111
Portal talk 5

• Cowman109's detailed edit count using Ais523's Tool (click the "Show" link below and to the right) alphaChimp 20:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Article namespace: 692

Manual vandalism reverts: 35

Automatic (rollback/script/tool) reverts: 186

Manual reverts not marked as vandalism reverts: 103

Redirects: 6

XfD deletion-related tagging: 1

Deletion-related edit summaries: 3

Addition-related edit summaries: 1

Unrecognised tag ({{ in summary): 15

Unknown abbreviation (≤4 characters): 1

Unrecognised edit summary: 311

Edits to sections, with no further summary: 2

No edit summary: 28

Talk namespace: 283

Automatic (rollback/script/tool) reverts: 5

Manual reverts not marked as vandalism reverts: 1

Removals: 1

Link as edit summary: 1

Unrecognised tag ({{ in summary): 4

Unknown abbreviation (≤4 characters): 1

Unrecognised edit summary: 244

Edits to sections, with no further summary: 16

No edit summary: 10

User namespace: 277

Manual vandalism reverts: 1

Automatic (rollback/script/tool) reverts: 28

Manual reverts not marked as vandalism reverts: 3

Welcomes: 1

Deletion-related edit summaries: 2

Addition-related edit summaries: 5

Non-deletion voting-related edit summaries: keep: 1, oppose: 0, support: 0

Unrecognised tag ({{ in summary): 10

Unrecognised edit summary: 181

No edit summary: 45

User talk namespace: 850

Manual vandalism reverts: 1

Automatic (rollback/script/tool) reverts: 17

Manual reverts not marked as vandalism reverts: 3

Link as edit summary: 13

Welcomes: 11

XfD deletion-related tagging: 2

Deletion-related edit summaries: 2

Addition-related edit summaries: 1

Non-deletion voting-related edit summaries: keep: 2, oppose: 0, support: 0

Unrecognised tag ({{ in summary): 16

Unknown abbreviation (≤4 characters): 3

Unrecognised edit summary: 555

Edits to sections, with no further summary: 16

No edit summary: 58

Misplaced Pages namespace: 1110

Manual vandalism reverts: 1

Automatic (rollback/script/tool) reverts: 4

Manual reverts not marked as vandalism reverts: 1

Redirects: 5

Welcomes: 1

XfD deletion-related tagging: 1

Speedy deletion-related tagging: 8

Deletion-related edit summaries: 72

Addition-related edit summaries: 31

Non-deletion voting-related edit summaries: keep: 10, oppose: 3, support: 13

Unrecognised tag ({{ in summary): 1

Unknown abbreviation (≤4 characters): 2

Unrecognised edit summary: 934

Edits to sections, with no further summary: 15

No edit summary: 8

Misplaced Pages talk namespace: 111

Manual reverts not marked as vandalism reverts: 1

Redirects: 1

XfD deletion-related tagging: 1

Deletion-related edit summaries: 1

Addition-related edit summaries: 1

Unrecognised tag ({{ in summary): 1

Unrecognised edit summary: 102

Edits to sections, with no further summary: 2

Image namespace: 3

Automatic (rollback/script/tool) reverts: 2

Unrecognised edit summary: 1

Template namespace: 37

Automatic (rollback/script/tool) reverts: 1

Manual reverts not marked as vandalism reverts: 1

Unrecognised tag ({{ in summary): 4

Unrecognised edit summary: 31

Template talk namespace: 1

Unrecognised edit summary: 1

Category namespace: 1

Unrecognised edit summary: 1

Portal talk namespace: 5

Link as edit summary: 1

Unrecognised edit summary: 4

• Hm, well that's definitely not my edit count. It's completely different from what's listed above, at least. There seems to have been a mixup somewhere. Cowman109 21:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

  My sincere apologies. I'm just working out the kinks of posting this count, and I mistakenly forgot to correct the userspace transclusion. It should work now. alphaChimp 21:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom Jaranda 04:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Cabal support. --Keitei (talk) 06:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Support The main concerns for opposes in Cowman's last RfA we're not enough mainspace work and lack of time here. Neither of these are reasonable causes to oppose at this point. He has helped at many articles making both major and minor changes. In some cases such as Henry Ossawa Tanner he has completely rewritten the articles. JoshuaZ 06:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Support per nom. Michael 06:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Strong support as per last nom. Kimchi.sg 06:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Edit conflicted Support. I looked over your contibutions and I am very impressed by your involvement with other users/mediation cabal. Good luck. Viridae
7. Support. - Mailer Diablo 07:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
8. Support. - Cabal experience as well as large amount of Wiki-experience indicates a good admin in the making. Killfest2—Daniel.Bryant 07:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
9. Support Looks like a good admin candidate.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  08:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
10. Support per above—WAvegetarian•(talk) 08:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
11. Strong support Yes. Very yes!!! Cowman is a helpful, knowlagable, excellent user, who totally deserves the tools. Best of luck. Thε Halo 10:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
12. Support. A kind, capable user whose committment to the project is admirable indeed. Brisvegas 10:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
13. Where-did-I-put-that-"thought you were already an admin"-cliche support for a very dedicated user. WP:RFP needs all the help it can get! --james 11:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
14. You betta smile, smile, smile... He'll be great, Highway 11:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
15. Support. Will not abuse the tools. — FireFox _{11:41, 05 August '06}
16. Definitely. -- Steel 12:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
17. Support per nom., etc. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
18. Support. Will he abuse the tools? Nope. alphaChimp 13:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
19. Support I trust the nom, and see no reason to oppose. RandyWang (/_{review me!}) 13:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
20. Merovingian - Talk 14:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
21. Support I've seen this user around and believe he's certainly to be trusted with the extra buttons. hoopydink 14:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
22. Strong Support. This is one of those "thought you were an admin" situations. Any interaction with Cowman has been a pleasure. SynergeticMaggot 17:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
23. Strong There Is No Mediation Cabal Support. Meh. CQJ 17:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
24. Support No problems here. --Siva1979 18:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
25. Support. A truly hard worker. --Gray Porpoise 18:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
26. Support. G.He 18:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
27. Support per all of above. Newyorkbrad 18:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
28. Perfect score. I've actually entrusted cowman109 with much harder tasks than adminship already. Kim Bruning 19:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
29. Moo. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 20:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
30. Support Excellent editor. Will be an excellent admin. Has a good understanding of Misplaced Pages policy and guidelines. I'm impressed with the nom's mediating skills. --FloNight 21:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
31. Strong Support a great editor that looks like he definitely could use the admin tools. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 21:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
32. Strong support per all of the above. —Khoikhoi 21:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
33. Strong Support, great asset to the project. Roy A.A. 00:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
34. Strong Support Thanks for helping me cite DECv ;) --Deon555|talk|e 00:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
35. Yes please. - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
36. Support He always do lots of work in Misplaced Pages, and never abused tools. Good editor. *~Daniel~* ☎ 01:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
37. Support -- ADNghiem501 02:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
38. Support Yanksox 03:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
39. Support. Seems like a good maintanence person. He has helped to point out some oversighted overprotected pages. I hope you help me out with WP:PP after making admin.Voice-of-All 05:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
40. Support excellent contributor. Stubbleboy 05:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
41. Support positive contributor to Misplaced Pages, including posts aimed at educating editors. Stephen B Streater 06:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
42. Ack! I got up in the night and look at the auto-updated userpage of mine, and it says "Hey dummy, Cowman109's on RfA" and I just had to stop and give my MedCab Obligatory Support. You couldn't ask for a fairer, more reasonable admin! I'd offer you luck, Cowman, but you won't need it. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 08:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
43. Support, positive contributor. --TheM62Manchester 16:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
44. No reason not to... Support ++Lar: t/c 18:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
45. Support hell yeah! Computerjoe's talk 19:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
46. Support. Dedicated to helping the project in whatever ways he can - absolutely! --Aguerriero (talk) 20:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
47. Support -- per comment on the oppose vote --T-rex 21:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
48. Support, I think we have nice admin material there :) -- Grafikm 17:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
49. Support - Has significant experience in controversial matters, and definitely can be trusted. CP/M |Misplaced Pages Neutrality Project| 00:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
50. 50th support.--Kungfu Adam 14:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
51. Support per nom. Baseball,Baby! 23:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
52. Support per the above. --Coemgenus 01:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
53. I Tawker with the power invested in me to vote in this RFA do indeed support Cowman109's attempt to obtain adminship. This support does not contain any fine print whatsoever however it comes with no warranty whatsoever and may be backed by uncited claims. Use of this support is at your own risk and Tawker will assume no responsibility for it (and man I write bad legal crap :o) -- Tawker 01:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
54. Support. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 13:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
55. Support as solid contributor, will make responsible admin. —Xyrael _{/ 17:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)}
56. Support per Xyra: will make a solid admin. Bucketsofg✐ 20:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
57. --SB | T 21:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
58. Support. I've had nothing but good experiences with you. You seem very level-headed. Luna Santin 23:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
59. Support. As I said when I opposed Cowman109's RFA last time for lack of experience, "I anticipate supporting in the future", and here I am doing so. --MPerel 05:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
60. Support. íslenska hurikein #12 _(samtal) 16:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
61. Weak Support; low on the article work. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 18:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
62. Support looks great. No problems here. Wikipediarules2221 19:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
63. Support - He's good to work with on MedCab and he's definitely ready for the upgrade. Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 03:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
64. Holy cow - I thought I had already supported! Phaedriel ♥ The Wiki Soundtrack!♪ - 04:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
65. Support. Good Cowboy. Weird Bird 13:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose In my opinion administrators should have experience on article creation, commitment and improvement and I don't see enough of these to support. Joelito (talk) 17:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

   Hello Joelito : - ) I agree that it is important for all users to work on articles. Our community's primary mission is writing an encyclopedia. That's why I was pleased when I saw the work he did on this article with a cleanup tag. IMO, the nom did a good job cleaning up the article and getting rid of one of our many articles tagged for cleanup. Take care, FloNight 19:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

   Nice, but ultimately not enough to change my vote. Joelito (talk) 21:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

2. Oppose Per above. --Masssiveego 06:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
3. No FA? None I can see, anyway. -- Миборовский 23:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

   You might want to consider grounding your opposition in logic.--SB | T 21:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

   One could apply the very same advice to your own participation hoopydink 21:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

   Miborovsky means that he'd like to see at least one featured article. That's actually not a bad criterion for a featured article type admin (see RFA talk for my comments on that). Do note that Cowman109 more of a mediator/wikigovernance kind of person. Kim Bruning 20:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. neutral Little actual editorial contribution to articles, and <1k mainspace edits. Popular enough with the RFA crowd to get adminship, but I'm unmoved by editorial contributions. Pete.Hurd 05:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

   Hi Cowman, in answer to your question about my neutral comment on your RFA. As an admin you will be making decisions that relate to edits made to articles in the encyclopdeia, sooner or later, everything here boils down to what goes into the articles. I think it's reasonable to expect some experience in making substantive contributions to articles. In the past, some RFA voters have voiced the opinion that an sucessful candidate ought to have made a real contribution to an article that has reached featured article status. My expectations are not nearly that high. Pete.Hurd 16:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

2. Neutral. Great answers, seems like a great candidate, but I believe that my criteria of 1000 article edits is not overly excessive. Looks like the nom will get the tools, but if he doesn't I will support on re-app with a few more edits under his belt. Themindset 05:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

#Neutral (edit conflict saved this from being a weak oppose) - Nothing personal, and has been doing some admirable work identifying copyvios in the Scrubs articles. He did (politely) ask me if an article I'd created was a copyvio from certain sources. Since it clearly wasn't, this possibly shows a lack of initiative and confidence in making a simple judgement? (this quasi-incident was very lame and flimsy so I don't want to make a big deal from that, esp. since Cowman was doing admirable copyvio work). My second reason for oppose is that he didn't respond to my reply; just a quick note to say 'OK thanks' would have been appreciated. I think this shows a lack of an important communication skill: asking if a user is being honest in their submissions should be treat with care and optimum politeness. Nothing personal at all, and keep up the great work. The JPS 23:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC) - withdrawn due to subsequent polite msg. The JPS 13:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Ryulong

Final (54/35/12) Ended 20:20, 2006-08-10 (UTC)

Ryulong (talk · contribs) – Ryulong is a very experienced contributor who has been editing since February of 2006, and has made more than 11,000 edits in his 6 months here. Recently, Ryulong has contributed heavily to the counter vandalism effort, and this is where he has consistently displayed a need for the tools. I have never seen a user that he has reported on IRC go unblocked, and he reports quite a fair number every day. Giving him the power to block these users would help to decrease the amount of vandalism to Misplaced Pages. Ryulong has also made many valuable contributions to pages in: Category:City of Heroes, Category:Xiaolin Showdown, Category:Power Rangers, and Misplaced Pages:Pokémon Collaborative Project. Ryulong has demonstrated a clear need for the mop, and has given no reason to suggest that he would misuse it in any way. digital_me 19:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination. Ryūlóng 20:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: I would assist in the reports at WP:AIV, WP:ANI, and WP:AN, which I already browse every so often as part of counter-vandalism measures, as well as continue my work in the CVU IRC channel by dealing with unrepetant vandals that are alerted to users through the channel. I will also work in the various deletion discussions, particularly for pages on WP:AFD that have been nominated for deletion, and may have been recreated by the original author (I have occasionally browsed through the AFD logs and searched for such links, and either contacted an administrator or listed the pages for speedy deletion under CSD G4).

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

A: I am particularly pleased with my contributions to the various articles about Power Rangers to keep the pages in as good a condition so that one day they can be perhaps Good Articles, instead of fan forums or fan pages. I am also proud of my contribution to WikiProject Hawaiʻi so that finally their ʻokina can be viewed by all users, Internet Explorer editors, FireFox editors, and Mac editors.

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

A: Of the few editting conflicts I have been involved in, most of them have been due to my status as an RC Patroller, as well as some truthful vandal reverts that I had been temporarily blocked for due to 3RR. I have, and will continue to try and defer to others if necessary to prevent my breaking of any rules. There have been some users that have caused me a bit of stress, but to relieve my stress, I have used methods of calming myself, such as taking short wikibreaks to calm myself with music and other stress relievers.

Question 4. by FloNight

Your Misplaced Pages email account is not activated. Why? Will you activate so that users can contact you regarding admins issues? FloNight 13:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Answer It was only recently (within the past week) that I had even put in anything related to an e-mail address into my preferences. I have not activated this, yet, because I am currently using my personal e-mail address (not a hotmail, gmail, yahoo, etc. account). If I can, I will change the e-mail address associated with it to the one I have through school (which instead will redirect to my personal mailbox so I will be able to reply easily). Ryūlóng 20:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I have now enabled e-mail from other users. 20:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Optional question from Lar:

5. (one big long question about categories of admins and your thoughts about them) Are you aware of the notion of adminstrators saying they're willing to be voluntarily recalled or reviewed, by a less onerous process than a new RfA (or worse) arbComm action? What do you think of the idea? Would you consider placing yourself (placement should only be done by oneself) in such a category if you were made an admin? Why or why not? Are you aware of the notion of Rouge admins? What do you think of the notion? Do you see it as purely humorous or do you see what it's driving at? Would you consider allowing yourself to by placed in this category (placement is traditionally done by someone else) if you were made an admin? Why or why not? (note: both these categories have some controversy attached to them, for different reasons, and note also, although I am a policy and process wonk I am in both categories, and finally, note that there is no wrong answer here...) ++Lar: t/c 18:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I was not aware about voluntary recall/review, but if such a situation were to occur if I were to become an admin, I would not object to such a review. It would give me constructive criticism as to my (currently hypothetical) status as an admin and my faults as an editor, just as the various opposition votes below are calling into question now. I have heard about Rouge admins to an extent, but I have not really looked into the situation (the most I know is that "Rouge" is purposefully used instead of "Rogue", and I can discern that it must mean that the admins have gone rogue/AWOL/amok in some form). I do see that the process of Rouge admins is calling into question the faults of the user, albeit in a humorous fashion. If another admin felt I was going "Rouge", then I would take it as it was intended, constructive (yet funny) criticism. Now, I have to see what "WP:WONK" is. Ryūlóng 23:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• Comment: I have recently commented on Emory's talk page explaining myself, and I have realized that I made that reversion due to edits made by the IP editor on the talk page, and I checked his edits in the article and I did not pay attention to the time frame. His edits at the talk page were originally reverted by Misza13 due to the sheer size and the alterations of what may be others' comments (several of the comments were not signed, and the IP editor had not made any edits on the page prior), and when he editted, again, I reverted the edits after Misza13's reversion because it was another large edit as well as removals of others comments. This is why I editted the main article and listed it as vandalism. Each time that I have falsely reverted someone, I have calmly apologized to them, and that can be seen in my archives. With the IP editor, I had no means to apologize, as as soon as he found the reversion, he proceeded to personally attack me on my user talk page, accusing me of vandalism, when the entire issue was a content dispute that elevated into a personal attack war on which I did not retaliate. The only comment I made to him after my original warning was an {{npa4}} warning after the capslock tirade. Ryūlóng 05:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I had asked some of the admins in the IRC channels at one point if it was all right to deny unblock requests of blatant vandals that had been indefblocked, and it was said that I could. Ryūlóng 03:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment-- I've already switched my vote once, so I'll not do it again. I am concerned, however, about oppose votes based on "0FA". I believe requiring a Featured Article of RfA candidates is overly strict but does not accurately gauge their suitability to be admin's. It artificially raises the bar for their editing ability while not addressing suitability in the areas of containing vandalism, *fD, or copyright. The backlogs in WP:AFD and WP:DRV are affecting the quality of Misplaced Pages. More admin's are needed to deal with the backlogs. The greatest threats to Misplaced Pages are legal-- litigation has been brought or threatened because of libelous content added by vandals, notable subjects having articles about them removed as not notable, and use of copyrighted material without the consent of the copyright holder. The need for admins with demonstrated knowledge and expertise in these areas outweighs the need for more Featured articles. Hopefully Bureaucrats will discount "oppose" votes based on lack of a Featured Article in RfA's where the candidate has demonstrated suitability in these areas.. :) Dlohcierekim 13:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Last 5000 edits.Voice-of-All 07:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Viewing contribution data for user Ryulong (over the 5000 edit(s) shown on this page) (FAQ)
Time range: 17 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 7hr (UTC) -- 04, Aug, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 0hr (UTC) -- 18, July, 2006
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 56.8% Minor edits: 21.62%
Average edits per day: 481.93 (for last 500 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 446 edits): Major article edits: 93.4% Minor article edits: 24.32%
Analysis of edits (out of all 5000 edits shown on this page and last 39 image uploads):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/major rewrites/sourcing): 0.02% (1)
Significant article edits (copyedits/small rewrites/content/reference additions): 0.42% (21)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 14.92% (746)
Superficial article edits marked as minor: 11.71%
Unique image uploads (non-deleted/reverts/updates): 36 (checks last 5000)
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 2291 | Average edits per page: 2.18 | Edits on top: 21.9%
Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 9.76% (488 edit(s))
Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 0.86% (43 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 41.06% (2053 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 33.92% (1696 edit(s))
Edits by Misplaced Pages namespace:
Article: 51.7% (2585) | Article talk: 8.4% (420)
User: 3.82% (191) | User talk: 24.8% (1240)
Misplaced Pages: 7.04% (352) | Misplaced Pages talk: 0.92% (46)
Image: 1.08% (54)
Template: 1.86% (93)
Category: 0.18% (9)
Portal: 0.04% (2)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.16% (8)

• See Ryulong's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.

Support

1. digital_me 20:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC) — as nominator.
2. Support - Recent good experience with this user, his/her thoughtful consideration of an issue changed my opinion. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Support Looks great to me. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 20:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Support Impressive numbers! Gladly support. --Tuspm 20:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Support (2x edit conflict) – will not abuse the tools. See my standards. — FireFox _{20:47, 03 August '06}
6. Strong support The user seems very competent, has a strong presence on both article and user talk pages (and I'm a big fan of admins who freely use talk pages), has been pegged as an excellent editor by many other editors (as judging from his user and talk pages), and has tons upon tons of edits. I see absolutely no reason Ryulong could not and should not be an admin. -- Kicking222 20:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

   Support. Seems to be a well rounded editor with clear uses for the mop. Themindset 20:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC) Withdrawing my vote based on this diff . I will wait to see how this RFA plays out. Themindset 22:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

7. Reaffirmed support. I find the nominee's explanation of the Emory diff satisfactory, I don't see him abusing the tools. Themindset 20:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
8. Strong Support per my experiences with the user. G.He 20:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
9. Support Rama's arrow 21:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
10. Hrm, thought he was already an admin Support I've seen this user often on RC patrol and I believe the extra buttons will allow him to become much more productive hoopydink 21:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
11. Support per nom. Couldnt find anything I'd disagree with. Contributes pretty much everywhere. SynergeticMaggot 21:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
12. Support I've seen you around and you're a great editor. You'd be even better as an admin. Roy A.A. 21:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
13. Support per nom. --Shane 21:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
14. Support for reasons of my own, though I'd like to suggest being careful with that block button. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 21:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
15. Support per nom and consistent with my standards. Joe 22:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
16. Strong support Requests for adminship/Ryulong is a dedicated, hard working wikipedian that has shown me sound judgement, I have no problems in supporting him, the diff's in oppose fail to sway me Benon 23:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

    Weak support Switch to oppose. I find it irksome when a candidate's apologists "debate" oppose voters. based on edit count and time meet User:Dlohcierekim#Standards. However, I agree with User:Jaranda that the User:68.221.59.61 - Emory University affair could have been handled better. Comment- After reviewing 68.221.59.61 Contribs and User_talk:68.221.59.61, I believe the edits were questionable but not quite vandalism, and that the situation escalated beyond reason. I would suggest that User:Ryulong step back from confrontation and be a little less quick on the draw-- or to condemn. I was RCPatrolling at the time and almost tagged User:68.221.59.61 myself. Either User:Ryulong beat me to it or I had a doubt and stopped. The other item marked by Jaranda also concerns me. We are less WP Police than coaches. Misplaced Pages is not a paper (or granite) encyclopedia. We can always change edits we don't like. We cannot bring back editors driven off by overly zealous RCPatrolling. :) Dlohcierekim 00:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

17. Strong support - great vandal fighter and a dedicated editor abakharev 00:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
18. Does this user ever sleep???? Crazynas 01:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

    True Wikiholics don't sleep. ;) --Andeh 12:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

    Sleep is for weak people. :) -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 05:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

19. Support. Maybe he can sleep when he becomes an admin...I hope. Excellent user. alphaChimp 01:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
20. Support, good vandal fighter, editor, will make a good admin. --Terence Ong _{(Chat | Contribs)} 02:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
21. Strong Support His dedication to this project speaks for itself. Although, he had made a few mistakes along the way (see the oppose comments), it is not right to view them in an exclusive manner. His positive contributions outweighs the negative edits considerably. --Siva1979 03:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
22. Support. Only positive interactions with this user, plus he has four time my edit count! RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 04:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
23. Support I have seen this user's diligence and hard work and support this nomination. Michael 04:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
24. Support Good user; admin powers will be in good hands Brian | (Talk) 05:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
25. Support He deserves to be an admin. dedicates himself to hard work on Misplaced Pages for becoming admin. *~Daniel~* ☎ 06:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
26. Support, reasons under oppose don't make me think the user will be a bad admin.--Andeh 09:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
27. I doubt he'd abuse the tools, Highway 09:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
28. Support, meets my requirements, and everyone makes mistakes. Stifle (talk) 10:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
29. Support take the mop :P —Minun 11:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
30. Support. Deb 11:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
31. Support ticks all my boxes! A solid user. Thε Halo 15:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
32. Support per nom! —Khoikhoi 20:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
33. Support. - Mailer Diablo 23:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
34. Supprt'. As per nom. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 23:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
35. Strong Support. I've worked with him in the past and found him to be a good, responsible editor, and a hard-working vandal-fighter (which is why I'm temporarily coming out of Wikibreak to support him). Also, I commend him for not mollycoddling those who come to Misplaced Pages to destroy its integrity. jgp (T|C) 01:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
36. Ho-hum. I had been mentally mulling over (granted, I have a tendency to mentally mull things over without actually doing them...) a longish nomination for this user when I see I've been beaten to it. On the "rvv" thing: There are much worse crimes. I've seen it a few times, and it has sometimes bothered me (only sometimes; most of the time they are without a doubt bad edits that should be reverted anyway) and I had been meaning him to needle him about it. So, yes, he's made mistakes in the past, and I'm glad that this RFA has highlighted them; there is no doubt in my mind that he will learn from them. The long and short of it is, however, that he's a good editor who knows what he's doing. As such, he should not be denied use of administrative tools, as far as I am concerned.--SB | T 03:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
37. Support. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 05:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
38. Support -- Tawker 06:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
39. Adult Fan of Lego Support - Friendly editor, experienced. Killfest2—Daniel.Bryant 07:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
40. Strong support Strong RC patrolling record; appears able to handle things in a calm manner. Seems to be handling the User:YourCousin issue well. A few mistakes are inevitable for a dedicated RC patroller, given the blur that RC edits can become. --Emufarmers 10:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
41. Support MER-C 10:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
42. Strong support Already a valuable contributor, Ryulong's potential as an admin is extensive. --Gray Porpoise 18:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
43. Strong support I have seen him at work shows he is a valuable user Betacommand 01:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
44. Support Most of Ryulong's edits that I've personally witnessed have been AFD contributions and RC patrolling, and have mostly indicated to me that the contributor will be a responsible admin. — NMChico24 02:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
45. Full support. This editor is a valuable part of the project; I'm confident that now or later, whenever this editor is given the mop and bucket, it'll be a net gain for Misplaced Pages. The opposition votes seem overly picky. Give this editor a mop! JDoorjam Talk 06:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
46. Strong Support. Active vandal-fighter and helpful in patrolling edits on a wide variety of articles. Often I'll go away from a page briefly intending to come back and fix it after a short break, only to find he's already done what I'd intended.--Rosicrucian 14:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
47. Support --CFIF (talk to me) 17:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

    Support - Keep up the good work against vandals! With the right tools, they won't know what's hit them! Wikiwoohoo 21:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC) Duplicate

    Support - a very friendly, reliable and consistant editor. Wiki would benefit from Ryulong getting the mop. Killfest2—Daniel.Bryant 00:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC) Duplicate

48. Support He'll be a good one. rootology (T) 00:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
49. Support. Huge asset to counter-vandalism efforts; I will heartily encourage you, Ryu, to work on civility and AGF-ness, because some people have brought up good points in that regard. On the other hand, your effectiveness as a vandalfighter will be dramatically increased by the extra buttons, and I don't believe I've ever seen you !admin for a bad block. Good luck. :) Luna Santin 01:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
50. Support. DarthVader 22:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
51. Support very dedicated editor, i believe he will make a great admin. Wikipediarules2221 01:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
52. Support active vandal fighter. --physicq210 02:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
53. Support as per nom. Kitia
54. Support Impressive record.--Runcorn 21:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose active vandal fighter but too new in my opinion was worriesome, as he never did vandalism, instead he was blocked for 3rr content dispute. I don't see any vandalism from edits like nither. I'll support in 3 months. Jaranda 21:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

   Too new? Your points are valid, but he has been here six months. — FireFox _{21:22, 03 August '06}

   I know of an unnamed admin who RfA'd one and a half months after joining the project and who is currently a well respected member of the MopSquad.... :D - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

   I mean too new as not experinced enough yet. Those edits are from 2 days ago. Jaranda 21:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

   Sorry, I guess I don't follow. Which edits? Ryulong has been here 6 months, or are you talking about something else? Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

   Jaranda's got a point: the second link's edit summary is rvv when it's clearly not vandalism, a big pet peeve of mine; I see rvv used far too much, and for things that are not vandalism.--Firsfron of Ronchester 22:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

   The edits he's refering to are above. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 02:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

2. Oppose. Fails WP:civility and WP:assume good faith. The Emory University incident is very disturbing. If he had the mop, I wonder when he would have blocked the anon user and for how long. How many potentially good editors has he turned away from Misplaced Pages? Looking at his Talk page, I see some other cases of shooting from the hip (reverting content changes). Large volume anti-vandalism probably does that to you -- but administrators need to be able to step back. In addition, I have also seen an instance of what appears to be making up rules (anonymous users and user pages). Ted/_{Contributions} 01:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose I'm going to have to oppose given the all-too-recent Emory U incident. AdamBiswanger1 03:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose per the Emery U diff. Kimchi.sg 03:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose. I think that you need a little more time to learn how to identify vandalism accurately. -- JamesTeterenko 03:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Reluctant Oppose. You are a great vandal-fighter, and I see your name often on the vandalism-reporting boards... but rvvs for non-vandalistic edits stick in my craw. I could be convinced to change my !vote, if there was a good reason, though.--Firsfron of Ronchester 04:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose Per above. --Masssiveego 05:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
8. Strong Oppose I see you on IRC countervandalism channel, you do hard work at fighting vandalism. But, I'm afraid you too quick to want rangeblocks for long durations for petty vandalism, too quick to use the summary 'rvv' for all reverts, too quick to assume vandalism and bad faith. When I approached you about AGF on some newer users, you (and I still not sure how much you were joking) stated that you prefer to assume bad faith. You've stated on IRC you hate newbies. There's too much biting on the newbies. You need to get a lot more good faith and wikiettique toward people who make newbie mistakes. Rethink how wiki treats its newer users, who aren't accustomed to policy, and do want to help, but make otherwise silly mistakes. Example: , they didn't know. They may not even know the history exists. And if they did, they'd likely be driven off by you telling them to go back to their fanforum. Here, where you attack the anonymous editor for mistyping 'meet' into 'meat'. There's other stuff. Edit summaries, and lack of real project space edits, tagging images with fair use tags w/o also adding fair use rationales... I do not believe you are ready, Sorry. Kevin_b_er 05:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

   If that's the worst difs you can come up with, then I think you are over reacting.--Andeh 09:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

9. Sorry must Oppose per these diffs , and other points made by Ted and Kevin_b_er. The diff. shows that the nom is not well acclimated to Misplaced Pages culture and does not fully understand how to implement policies and guidelines. Also the nom does not have their Misplaced Pages email activated. FloNight 12:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
10. Oppose as per TedE and the Emory University diff. Too recent an incident. Sorry. --T. Moitie 12:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
11. Oppose In addition to the Emory University incident, I noticed that the nominee reverted this piece of vandalism (if vandalism is the correct term to use) and then a whole five minutes later gave the user an unnecessarily harsh warning, even though the user had already been warned for the same incident. These kinds of things are appearing to occur too often for my comfort. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 13:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
12. Oppose based on various oppose diffs. Lapinmies 13:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
13. Oppose per Jaranda. I was under the impression that only an admin could review an unblock request, so Ryulong had no business reviewing the block. (Not stopping him leaving his own comment, but to replace the unblock template with the unblock reviewed template was very odd in my book. Especially when it states that the block has been reviewed by an admin. Other things brought up - especially with regard to the attitude to newbies also worry me. I will consider supporting a few months time if you change your attitude. Viridae 14:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
14. Strong oppose at this time for all of the above reasons, with no prejudice against supporting the user for a future adminship once he's a little more familiar with the system. I'm concerned by all of the whack-a-vandal admins we're trying to move up lately. -- nae'blis 15:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
15. Strong oppose per apparent lack of knowledge of basic rules. MonsterOfTheLake 17:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

    I'm assuming the main reason your opposing is because of the dispute you had with the user on your userpage.--Andeh 17:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

    The nominee did not know the user page policies. I believe that it should be taken for granted that any nominee would know the MOST basic policies. MonsterOfTheLake 17:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

    Looks like the user was warning you for removing warnings from your talk page, and it carried on for a while. Looks like it is still occuring, See MonsterOfTheLake talk page history for more info on this.--Andeh 17:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

    Actually, I'm right in the situation -- but never you mind that, must help out your buddies right? Even if I were at fault here (I'm not, and you could already click on the link from all my sigs, no?), it still has no place in the adminship discussion. You can't simply attack critics. Whatever I do, it still doesn't take away the fact that this user acts on his friends' influence, doesn't contact the user he exerts force on, and did not, until I pointed it out today, know a very simple userpage policy. MonsterOfTheLake 02:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

    Why are you accusing me of helping out my "buddies", I simply gave the link so other users can see the situation. For someone who has "Misplaced Pages sucks" as a userpage and has edit summaries like this, I think it's important to give users links to any situations that are occuring so they can make their own decision whether to support or not.--Andeh 12:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

    Indeed: You appear to have indicated that you do not want any messages on your talk page, and have blanked it repeatedly. Your talk page is in fact the page for other users to communicate with you; it is distinctly seperate from your user page, and its policies are different. Removing warnings and messages indiscriminately from your talk page without archiving them is not permitted; there's even a template for warning users about this, which Ryulong correctly used in your case. I'd suggest you read up on Misplaced Pages policies and etiquette, MonsterOfTheLake. --Emufarmers 12:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

16. Oppose due to fresh improper rvv use, per above Oppose diffs. Please review our policies. Vandalism generally occurs when the editor clearly and intentionally, in his/her own mind, intends to reduce the quality of WP. Just posting something many would disagree with is not vandalism. After you show understanding of this issue for a couple of months, I would support the nomination. We do need vandalism fighters and thank you for the effort - don't give up! Crum375 20:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
17. Mild Oppose Not good awnsers to the questions, and also per above. Maybe later. --WikieZach| talk 23:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
18. Polite oppose. An excellent editor, but one who needs to work on civility some more. Not everyone who makes a bad edit does so out of assholishness. DS 02:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
19. Oppose per basically all of the above diffs. I'm concerned about the newbie-biting, I really don't want an admin doing that. Maybe in a few months if the civility problems are resolved. BryanG 06:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
20. Oppose Sorry, but just on my rather short observations, I don't feel this editor is ready. KOS | talk 11:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
21. Switch to oppose. I find it irksome when a candidate's apologists "debate" oppose voters. That, on top of the aforementioned incivility tips me to oppose. Editor needs to tone it down a bit and develop a more urbane approach. Please note my comments under my stricken "suport" vote. Thanks  :) Dlohcierekim 14:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

    Comment to more fully explain my vote change. I believe the User:MonsterOfTheLake affair, coming on the heels as it does of the Emory affair, shows this user is not ready for adminship. It is another example of overly aggressive over reaction and mistaking a difference of opinion or ignorant error for vandalism. Instead of seeking a meeting of the minds, he tries to bludgeon others into obedience. His apologists do not help my confidence either. Rushing in their zeal to argue with oppose voters, they make me wonder if he seeks adminship more for their benefit than for that of Misplaced Pages as a whole. Cheers.  :) Dlohcierekim 11:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

22. Oppose don't think he is ready yet, my own experience is of being rather too quick of the mark, requests for page protections and blocks which are in my view premature even if they sometimes ultimately prove right. --pgk 16:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
23. Oppose per Emory and especially . Not only Jaranda's worries about it being 3RR instead of Vandalism, and thus an unblock might have been okay in some circumstances, but importantly, the fact that non-admins should not be denying unblocking. The confusion over 3RR/Vandalism was one good reason why admins should handle this, not to mention the actual wording of {{unblock}}, which states that "one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request." He was not an administrator, and in my opinion, he needs a bit more time before he becomes one. Ral315 (talk) 03:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
24. Oppose per FloNight and Ral315. Editor cannot yet be trusted to follow wiki-process, and always to enforce NPOV. Xoloz 16:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
25. oppose as per Ral315, and diffs supplied by tariqabjotu, etc Pete.Hurd 21:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
26. Weak Oppose per Ral315, and other diffs above. He's doing valuable vandal-fighting, but I'd like to see a slightly more civil tone than I see in some of those edits. I would support in two or three months if there are no recurrences; Mike Christie 22:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
27. Oppose constructive criticism: please remember to think twice before reverting as potential vandalism. -- Samir धर्म 06:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
28. Oppose. He is clearly a hard-working editor, and I would not oppose for making a mistake. Heck, not even a BIG mistake, if he owned up to it and learned from it (which he did in his comments). But I see a poor attitude toward new users to this project, which has an immeasurably larger negative impact than making a revert mistake. --Aguerriero (talk) 14:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
29. Sorry, I know I've gotten a lot of good vandalism tips from you on #vandalism-en-wp, but at this point, given the concerns raised above, I feel it is best that your counter-vandalism actions be filtered through a current admin until you can demonstrate better judgement on how you would use the tools yourself. --Cyde Weys 01:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
30. O per Ral's diff - CrazyRussian talk/email 06:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
31. Mild oppose. He is well intentioned, but I know the user on IRC. He is a little quick to make judgement calls on blocking to give to admins, when blocks aren't merited. I think, if given the tools, some unjust blocks could be made.--Kungfu Adam 14:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
32. Unfortunate Oppose for his use of the F-bomb in an edit summary. A similar scenario was discussed in the recent RFA for HighwayCello (talk · contribs · count). --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 22:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
33. High edit count but 0 FA? :( -- Миборовский 23:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

    "FA"? o_O Ryūlóng 23:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

    Featured article. Miborovsky seems to be saying that only those with a Featured Article should be admins. :) Dlohcierekim 00:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

    Oh... Is it necessary that admins or people wanting to be an admin have or work on a featured article? Or is it just a really odd Support/Oppose criterion? Ryūlóng 00:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

    Well, I have my opinion. I think you should judge for yourself. You might want to look at the conversation at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Requirements_for_RfA. Cheers :) Dlohcierekim 04:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

34. Oppose per the comments above and the incidents reported by Jaranda (above) and Xyzzyplugh (below). These leave me with an uncomfortable feeling about providing this nominee with the extra tools. Agent 86 17:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
35. Oppose per above complaints - assuming good faith is pretty important to Misplaced Pages, and it looks as though this user clobbered a newbie in the Emory University incident. - Bootstoots 22:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

Strong neutral The above-referenced incident () is troubling, given the apparent good faith and earnesty of the anon, only to be crushed with a {{blatantvandal}} tag, or something of the like. I would call that biting the newbies. I also do not see any evidence of familiarity with policy. AdamBiswanger1 21:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)Moved to Oppose

1. Neutral Great vandalfighter. We're frequently on IRC at the same time and his dedication to keeping vandalism off of Misplaced Pages is strong. My only concern is that I've witnessed him being both uncivil and uncool during intense bouts of vandalism against him ( edit summary). I have no problem with venting in the vandalism channels, as that's one of their functions -- to support each other during the fight. But when it spills onto Misplaced Pages it can be a problem. I do not doubt his intent, but being given admin tools may set the stage for more violent reactions. I had informed him of the relevant policies on IRC right after he made this edit, so I am reluctant to oppose as he has had sufficient time to read up on stuff like this, and has made no similar edits since then that I can find. But change doesn't always happen fast either, so I'm also reluctant to support. Just some advice: when you're stressed out from editing, take a break and do something else -- play computer games, take a bike ride, do some housework, anything. Staying cool has less to do with never getting riled up, and more to do with recognizing when you are about to explode and finding another outlet for it. I like to play Sauerbraten and pretend the ogres are vandals. =) --Chris (talk) 21:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Neutral per most of the oppose votes. Maybe he could unlearn some newbie-biting habbits while an admin, but maybe a good month of using more good faith and more non-vandal patrolling would be better.Voice-of-All 07:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Neutral per opposition thoughts. Looks like a promising frontline vandal fighter, but could do with a few months of higher levels of civility before being trusted with the tools. —Xyrael _{/ 11:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)}
4. Neutral. Numbers are impressive, history as vandal-fighter shows heart in the right place. But, I can not support when incivility raises its head. If you can convince Ted then I'll change my vote. Ifnord 16:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Neutral Very unsure from above. Attic Owl 04:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Neutral Very actiuve vandalfigther but oppose votes raise concern. --Pilotguy 14:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
7. Neutral - I have decided to be neutral on this one. On the one hand, Ryulong is an active vandal fighter and has worked hard to fix the mess they make, yet having seen some of the reasons in the Oppose section including the user's attitude towards new users, I have withdrawn my vote, favouring instead to sit on the fence. Wikiwoohoo 21:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
8. Neutral I have never participated in a Request for Adminship discussion before, and I'm not sure exactly what the requirements for Adminship should be, so I won't be voting. However, I have myself observed what I found to be a potential problem with Ryulong. See User_talk:Cute_1_4_u#A_note. His introductory note, suggesting that Cute_1_4_u essentially leave wikipedia, I find to be unacceptable. Then, when she defended herself, stating that she was improving wikipedia and that she writes multiple articles every day, he responded with "Whether or not you create those articles doesn't mean you are improving the Encyclopedia. Those articles can be about nonsense, or they can be serious. You can write an article about a cookie you are eating or you can start an article about something that has just appeared on a national news program. Creating articles and edit counts are not important. You should focus on quality over quantity". Now, I understand that Cute_1_4_u has been misbehaving, shall we say, she's repeatedly posted copywritten text from other websites, even after being told not to. On the other hand, she's only 11 years old, and she has created a number of non-plagiarized articles, as well as many hundreds of decent edits to articles, so she is not a vandal, just a kid who needs to be watched over. Suggesting that she leave wikipedia, or that her articles aren't high enough quality, are both inappropriate and counterproductive. My concern is that Ryulong, having spent so much time in vandal fighting, has taken on too harsh of an attitude towards those who might be breaking the rules. Having said all this, though, he's obviously overall an asset to wikipedia, and administrator or not, wikipedia is better off thanks to his work. --Xyzzyplugh 23:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

   I am not sure if it is right or wrong to reply, but I was not suggesting that Cute 1 4 u were to leave Misplaced Pages. I was using a template devised by WAvegetarian to be given to users who treat Misplaced Pages more like a social networking site such as Myspace. I then proceeded to explain myself to her repeatedly to explain what I meant, but she continually took it as a "Don't edit Misplaced Pages" message. She and another user (who has been blocked many times due to admission to sockpuppet accounts and personal attack violations) were both given the same message, and I kindly tried to explain to them the true meaning, none of which they took to heart. Ryūlóng 23:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

   I find it to be a terrible template to use, unless directed towards someone who is, in fact, only using wikipedia as a myspace account. Towards someone who has been a regular editor for a few months, with 1000+ edits, I think it's totally inappropriate. I think the fact that both Cute 1 4 u and whoever else you were warning got pissed off about the template demonstates my point. It may be that I'm wrong, though, and that I'm overreacting to this, I'll leave that for others here with more wikipedia experience to decide. --Xyzzyplugh 00:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

9. Neutral - While I do not think that Ryulong would abuse the mop, I am concerned by several things. First of all, many of the above diffs are a little worrisome. However, more concerning to me is Kevin's allegation that: "When I approached you about AGF on some newer users, you (and I'm still not sure how much you were joking) stated that you prefer to assume bad faith. You've stated on IRC you hate newbies." I am concerned that Ryulong may fail to assume good faith (especially in the case of newcomers) and "scare" them off. The Emory situation is far too recent for my peace of mind. However, I strongly believe that this user would never purposely abuse the powers and once he gets a bit better at assuming good faith, I will certainly support him. Srose (talk) 14:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
10. Neutral per misuse of that template to try and intimidate someone off the project, and other concerns listed above. --Guinnog 00:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

    As I stated earlier, I was not using the template to try to intimidate anyone off of the project. The users who I had given the messages to have a near equal balance of edits in the Main article space and the user and user talk spaces. They were utilizing Misplaced Pages more as a way to make friends and play games with each other as much as they were contributing to the project, including making "friend lists" and at least one user made an imposter account of a famous person (I'm not exactly sure of this practice on MySpace, but I do know that the same thing is done on Facebook; Aquaman went to UM for a few months, and Mahatma Gandhi still does, and he also goes to Dartmouth College, Boston College, Purdue University, Louisiana State University, Bard College, Newstead Wood School, University of Pennsylvania, and American University), which was proven through a checkuser. In fact, I have improved the template to make it an even softer warning than it was to begin with (WAvegetarian was once told that the warning was too soft before I asked him if I could modify it). The updated template can be found here. Ryūlóng 00:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

    It's a bit better but I still don't like it. Was there a community consensus to introduce this template? Also, what happened to WP:AGF? --Guinnog 01:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

    WAvegetarian showed this myspace warning template at the bootcamp IRC channel. When I saw the actions of the users through the constant conversation at the bootcamp channel and their extreme use of {{helpme}}, we would constantly find their games. I decided that the template could be introduced to these two first, as they were focusing on "GUESS MY NAME" contests between each other on their user talk pages (along with actual rule violations that they have been warned for, and blocked for as well). Ryūlóng 01:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

    I'm sorry for not assuming good faith myself there; I had no right to say you were 'trying to' do anything as I cannot read your mind. I was influenced by the fact that the recipient was a little kid. I still very strongly dislike the template and think you applied it unwisely. Just sorry about how I expressed myself there. I wish you well. --Guinnog 02:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

    That is all right. I have found out that the user(s?) is 11 years old, and that they are fairly good contributors to the project. It is just when a good portion of their contributions are focused in the user and user talk spaces, sending each other message along the lines of "Yo, let's be friends," and making a subpage that is specified and named as a chatroom (that may have been a different user, but still in the same boat as the users I sent the messages to) is going against one of the precepts of what Misplaced Pages is not and what is against the policy of what is not allowed on user pages (although I am unsure as to whether or not the guidelines set there includes what goes on user talk pages). Ryūlóng 02:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

11. Neutral I've tussled with this for days, and I can't decide. He's a terrific vandal fighter - no question. I've made my share of mistakes in reverting, particularly when I first started, so I know what that feels like. But I share Adam's concerns about premature blocks. Baseball,Baby! 23:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
12. Neutral Ive thought quite a bit about this one (thus the lateness in posting). Ryu demonstrates great tenacity in vandalism reverts and notification, however admins need to display a certain amount of diplomacy and civility above and beyond regular editors, by virtue of their access to the flamethrower (block) together with the mop. If in the coming short-term Ryu demonstrates a bit of mellowing, I'd be glad to support his next RfA. -- Avi 18:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

EvocativeIntrigue

Final (23/26/6) Ended 14:15, 2006-08-09 (UTC)

EvocativeIntrigue (talk · contribs) – EvocativeIntrigue is a very awesome user. He has been extremely helpful, to different users, helping out a lot. I also noticed him being on a lot of "high regard lists" which proves him to be a good user. He has also been extremely well editing articles, and, I would assume he has a lot of trust —Minun 11:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I gratefully accept this nomination. The RfA even ends on my birthday! EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME | IMPROVEME 12:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: I recent-change and new-page patrol quite frequently, so the admin tools would be incredibly useful. I also participate in AFD and MFD, where admin privileges would be of particular use, as well as Administrator intervention against vandalism, where I suspect the privileges afforded by adminship would be of great use in removing the backlogs that occasionally occupy the page.

Also of interest would be the requested moves page, and I would continue to monitor the help and reference desks and to participate in the Birthday Committee and Esperanza and edit articles of interest.

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

A: I have contributed quite heavily to a few articles, including Mountsorrel, Leicester Grammar School and Four Dead in Five Seconds Gunfight, the last of which is a great favourite of mine: I hadn't even considered editing articles about American history, but researching it engrossed me! I'm mostly a Wikignome, but once I start expanding/copyediting an article I tend to get obsessive until the article is as complete as I can make it.

I'm also proud of my community contributions- proposing a games template for the Esperanza coffee lounge and creating it, and creating a few templates for the Birthday Committee.

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 not had any edit conflicts as far as I can remember- there's too much love in this user for any conflict to last long! The guideline I live by on Misplaced Pages is assume good faith: most users are here to help the project and edit wars slow progress and help no-one. I've found a little civility goes a long way, and I see encouraging editors of all abilities and interests as a great way to ensure the project continues to develop for the better.

I come to Misplaced Pages to relax- to read articles of interest, expand others on topics I have knowledge of and meet people from other cultures. If a situation gets me tense, I get up and make a cup of tea- I am British, after all.

There's no user I dislike: vandals are an inconvenience, but a small price to pay for an encyclopædia anyone can edit.

Optional question from Lar:

4. (one big long question about categories of admins and your thoughts about them) Are you aware of the notion of adminstrators saying they're willing to be voluntarily recalled or reviewed, by a less onerous process than a new RfA (or worse) arbComm action? What do you think of the idea? Would you consider placing yourself (placement should only be done by oneself) in such a category if you were made an admin? Why or why not? Are you aware of the notion of Rouge admins? What do you think of the notion? Do you see it as purely humorous or do you see what it's driving at? Would you consider allowing yourself to by placed in this category (placement is traditionally done by someone else) if you were made an admin? Why or why not? (note: both these categories have some controversy attached to them, for different reasons, and note also, although I am a policy and process wonk I am in both categories, and finally, note that there is no wrong answer here...) ++Lar: t/c 18:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• See EvocativeIntrigue's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
• EvocativeIntrigue's edit summary usage with Interiots Edit Count Tool

Username	EvocativeIntrigue
Total edits	3374
Distinct pages edited	1670
Average edits/page	2.020
First edit	21:17, 5 May 2006
(main)	825
Talk	189
User	465
User talk	1289
Image	4
Image talk	3
Template	15
Template talk	7
Misplaced Pages	529
Misplaced Pages talk	47
Portal talk	1

Added at 14:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC) by Andeh.

• I've only managed to find one of the IPs I registered under here, but will keep looking. EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME | IMPROVEME 15:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Strong Support as nom —Minun 12:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Support—WAvegetarian•(talk) 13:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Highway 14:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Mild support. Though a civil, helpful contributor, Evocativelntrigue needs some more experience in certain areas. --Gray Porpoise 15:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Support. Won't abuse the tools. — FireFox _{16:06, 02 August '06}
6. Support I am happy to support you, the number of usertalk edits you have shows that you are capable of communicating. However, more experience is needed. Whilst supporting you in adminship, I am presuming you will work hard to get this experience. However, the way this current RfA is going, I would suggest that you withdraw your application for now, and try again in about 8-12 weeks. Seivad 16:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
7. Support - seemed reasonable when I helped with/asked him about his signature. I very much doubt him abusing the tools. —Celestianpower 17:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
8. Support Sure, maybe you don't have as many edits or time as might be needed to be considered "experienced", but I think that you've done an absolutely wonderful job for the Birthday Committee, Esperanza, and other articles as well. I wish you good luck, even if this RfA doesn't pass. Keep working; you'll do well. Thistheman 17:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
9. Support I've had excellent experiences around EI. Although he's new here, and, admittedly not perfect, I don't really see any significant issues standing between him and adminship. alphaChimp 17:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
10. Support Good user, a fellow penguin, manager of fish catches (last 2 were a joke). GangstaeB help me improve! 22:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
11. Moral Support An exceptional user so far, it will only be a matter of time until you become an admin. Gizza 09:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
12. Support. Not every user can make an excellent all round contribution, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be an admin for the contributions that they can make. EvocativeIntrigue has clearly helped out a lot on Misplaced Pages, and I've seen him a lot at WP:BDC where he's certainly made his mark. He has proved that he can be trusted, in whatever limited timeframe he may have been here, and while he may not have done anything major, such as meet 1FA, 530 WP space edits gives a person some experience, if at least how not to make self references in the main article space. His design work has certainly been acknowledged, and his recent implementation of signatures in templates with ~~<noinclude>~~</noinclude><includeonly>~~</includeonly> proves that he has a good understanding of the various wiki syntax used. He has some good experience in templates, and has proved to be familiar with the general facets of Misplaced Pages. It is due to this that I feel I can safely change my otherwise 'Oppose' to a 'Support'. --Draicone 11:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
13. Support per FireFox, Seivad, and Celestian, and consistent with my standards. Joe 18:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
14. Support per above.--Chile14 21:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
15. Support, too nice to do anything but support. :) -- Natalya 05:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
16. Support FellowWikipedian 15:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
17. Support A friendly user; won't abuse the admin tools. Meets my 2k edit requirements, and good answers to the questions. This RfA doesn't seem likely to succeed, but I'm voicing my opinion anyway.--Firsfron of Ronchester 17:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
18. Support. Dear Firsfron, I couldn't have said it better. EE is a great person, always willing to lend a helping hand and improve his knowledge. Since it is very unlikely you'll make it this time, dear E, I'll gladly make you a few suggestions once it's over for a future attempt, if you're willing to hear my modest input. Meanwhile, keep it up; we all have room for improving, and you're on the right track! Cheers, Phaedriel ♥ The Wiki Soundtrack!♪ - 05:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
19. Support - a really friendly and helpful editor, who I feel has suffered a witch-hunt below. Killfest2—Daniel.Bryant 00:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
20. You are a really good editor, as The Halo said, and even though I slightly agree with him on more experience, I think, what the heck, being an admin is probably among the best things that you can have heppen for more experience, so I decided to support you. —$ΡЯΙNGεrαgђ (-C|ε|L|T-) 03:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC) Sorry to see this has so many opposing votes! :(
21. Support.--Kungfu Adam 14:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
22. Support. DarthVader 22:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
23. Support Seems like an excellent person from what i've seen of him. Attic Owl 06:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Your 530 or so Misplaced Pages space edits are almost entirely to Esperanza's coffee lounge. This, coupled with a relatively short time on Misplaced Pages (Less than 3 months) suggests inexperience. Also, the vast majority of your mainspace edits are marked as minor, and again, your user talk edits are RFA congratulations or Esperanza related Happy Birthdays, rather than article related discussions. While Esperanza is nice, Misplaced Pages is first and foremost an encycopedia, and your involvement in that (both article editing and process/policy related things) is, I feel, somewhat limited. -- Steel 14:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

   Hes still extremely helpful, and extra nice to Wikipedians, and is a good example of a nice, dependable Wikipedian, cheerd —Minun 18:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

   • I did edit as various IPs for 2 months or so before registering (see one of the first messages in my archive), but understand your concerns about 'inexperience'. I have made contributions to the community, but felt no urge to join policy discussion where a concensus I agreed with had already been reached- it is, after all, not a vote but a discussion of ideas in general.

     You mentioned the Misplaced Pages space edits being mostly 'congratulations', but I have made considerable efforts to many articles, including those mentioned above, but to other articles too- most recently to Myddle.

     As I said, I am a Wikignome, so my edits will be 'mostly minor', but I don't see how this affects an adminship: surely you should be looking for quality rather than quantity? I recent-change patrol more often than I edit articles on a grand scale due to time constraints, so adminship's privileges would be appreciated, and recent edits have had to have been limited due to other commitments such as a holiday and work.

     If you go further back in my edit history, you'll see that a lot of my user-talk edits are warnings for vandalism, or a 'welcome' rather than a warning )in an attempt to sway a new user experimenting with Misplaced Pages to edit responsibly), as well as discussion of edit and articles (in particular Russian Air Force). You may not have seen these as I tend to spend an hour or two at a time (when I have it) doing a particular task, so my edits appear in blocks of similar tasks.

     I also agree that Misplaced Pages is first and foremost an encycopedia, but what makes Misplaced Pages special is the community aspect, so encouraging others to continue editing and engaging with them is almost as important as editing articles in my opinion.

     I feel that I am a trusted member of the Misplaced Pages community, including great participation in Esperanza, and that adminship will allow me to undertake tasks I may not have otherwise considered, including greater participation in policy discussion, as well as allowing me to undertake current tasks with more ease.

     Thank you for your explanation of your opposal- it's always interesting to see something from another viewpoint!

     EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME | IMPROVEME 15:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

   • I appreciate your long and well thought out reply, but I stand by my points. With more experience (both in terms of time and RC/xfD participation) I'm sure an RFA in a few months would go well. -- Steel 16:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

2. Oppose per Steel. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 14:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

   He still seems like a very nice editor, even if he hasn't made that many main space editor, hes still an excellent helper, anyway, cheers —Minun 14:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

3. Oppose Indeed, the Misplaced Pages space edits are quite limited to one area, as Steel said. I find the usage of the minor designation overdone significantly. And also, I noted that you had a fair-use image on your page quite recently. However, you're nothing but friendly; I just think you need to become more familiarized with a few things. Perhaps in October. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 14:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
   • I was unaware of the policy on fair-use images at that point, and I don't see the barrier to adminship created by this: I did not replace the image, but did feel it could have perhaps been handled more civilly. EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME | IMPROVEME 15:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
     • Who do you think was incivil: me or you? -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 15:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
   • Sorry, I should have clarified that- I think I was less civil than I could have been, but when I reviewed the relevant policy there was an option to request the image be removed- at the time I felt your direct removal was perhaps unnecessary, but it was efficient! EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME | IMPROVEME 15:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
     • • Everyone makes small mistakes, he's still helpful, cheers —Minun 18:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose not ready yet, sorry. Computerjoe's talk 15:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose too new and per above - and per signature, which you ought to shorten significantly. - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose. Sorry, I think you're a great guy, but you've not been around long enough. Please do contact me if you fail with this Rfa and then are nominated again in a few months time, as I'm fairly sure that (at the rate / quality you're currently working) I'll vote in favour. Sorry again. --Dweller 15:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

   Its mainly how good a user is you should judge on, cheers —Minun 18:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

   If I wasn't clear, then what I meant was lack of experience will necessarily hamper adminship. Clear now? It's not a particularly original/unusual argument - I'm surprised you found it worth questioning. I think user:EvocativeIntrigue will make a great admin in a few months' time. --Dweller 09:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

7. Oppose. Esperanza's great and everything, we've run into each other quite a bit at the coffee lounge, but I would like to see some more non-Esperanza-related Misplaced Pages edits. Also, you mentioned vandal-fighting, but I'd like to see a bit more of that as well. I'm sure if you follow everyone here's advice, your next RfA will be a landslide. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 15:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose. Fails two of my criteria (200 maintalk edits, 1000 mainspace edits). Please stick to it, and reapply in a couple of months, I'll be happy to support. Themindset 16:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose for three reasons: most WP edits of his concern EA, the article edits are not enough (in spite of the excellent total number of contribs), and, besides, he has only been here for almost three months. Wait until next year to renominate. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 17:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
10. Weak oppose I like the user's responses to the RfA questions (although the nomination itself leaves much to be desired), and I also like his enthusiasm. In fact, there's a great chance that the user would put the admin tools to good use. However, with so few mainspace edits (and so many of them pertaining to Esperanza), I absolutely think EI needs some more experience (not as far as calendar time, but as far as actual editing) before he should be an admin. -- Kicking222 18:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
11. Once you factor out Esperanza and other social activity, doesn't appear to have that much experience with the encyclopedia. Don't especially trust the nominator. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

    If it helps, I also vouch as a co-nominator, I thought EI was an admin. Highway 23:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

    That's good to know, but frankly the fact that the nominee even accepted this nomination worries me. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

12. Oppose too new Jaranda 19:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
13. Oppose Too new and inexperienced, lack os social communicative skills through actual editing and application of Misplaced Pages policy. Michael 23:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

    Oppose Not ready per User:Dlohcierekim#Standards. :) Dlohcierekim 00:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

    Switch to neutral to counter oppose based on 0FA. :) Dlohcierekim 13:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

14. Oppose. Needs more experience in terms of both time and editing in the main space and Misplaced Pages space. Potentially a good admin candidate in the future. Zaxem 00:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
15. Oppsose, more experience first please. Stifle (talk) 00:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
16. Oppose, 0FA. Articles listed in Q#2 are of insufficient quality. -- Миборовский 01:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
17. Oppose --cj | talk 03:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
18. Oppose per Steel and Miborovsky. Roy A.A. 05:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
19. Oppose per above --Masssiveego 07:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
20. Weak oppose. You meet my 3-month requirment, and you seem like a good contributor, but I really want to see more experience in XfDs and such before I support, especially given that you're a fairly new user. Get a bit more involved there or in some other admin-related area and I'll probably support in a month or two. BryanG 06:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
21. Strong oppose due to nominator. MonsterOfTheLake 17:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

    Comment Aren't we supposed to base our votes on how we feel the Candidate will perform as an admin? FWIW, I feel basing your opposition of this candidate's adminship on your opinion of the nominator seems a little harsh.--Firsfron of Ronchester 08:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

22. Oppose per Mib. Needs more experience too. - Mailer Diablo 23:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
23. If we could somehow combine this editor with User:Ryulong, we'd have a damn-near perfect admin candidate. However, the laws on human experimentation being what they are, I am forced to oppose... for now. DS 02:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

    to elaborate, EvocativeIntrigue's weak spots are the inverse of Ryulong's - high on interaction with other users, low on article-space work. DS 02:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

24. Oppose per Steel. I would like to point out to those that are judging this nomination by the person who nominated it, that we are supposed to make a judgement of the editor who has been nominated, not the person who nominated them. Viridae 06:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Viridae, thanks for your last comment, which I was about to bring up. Thanks also to everyone else who has added their opinions here. EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME 13:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
25. Oppose too new. I'd pick another nominator next time also -- Samir धर्म 06:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
26. Oppose Per the reasons expressed above, particularly concerning the breadth of contributions to the Misplaced Pages project space. --Wisden17 23:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Not just now. Sorry, you are a great editor, but a bit new and you want to help at AfD as an admin when your last AfD edit was a month ago (me thinks). I don't feel you require admin at this time but beg you stay and keep Esp going. :) Try again in a few months and you should pass.--Andeh 14:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
   • I only participate in AFD when my suggestions would be against current concensus, but have probably been more active in WP:MFD recently. EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME | IMPROVEME 15:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
     • If you vote on things you agree with, it can speed up the process. There are alot of AfDs at the moment which need dealing with.--Andeh 15:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Neutral Does not meet my 5-month requirement and I think this RFA is a bit premature but I have seen this user around Esperanza and seems like a good contributor. --Tuspm 14:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
   • I appreciate there may be some concerns about the time I've spent editing here, but I have addressed these above- in summary, I did edit as an unregistered user for some time (2 months) before registering. EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME | IMPROVEME 15:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

   Not sure per both votes so far. I won't state my reasons now because they have already been added by these two and last time it was an edit conflict. :) $ΡЯΙNGεrαgђ (-T|ε|C|L-) 14:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC) Changed to support per The Halo's comment.

3. Neutral Gain more experience but your presence here is deeply appreciated. --Siva1979 17:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Neutral I can't support yet, but no need for an oppose, either. Just a little too early and too little experience, but should not take long for this nominee to be qualified. Agent 86 00:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Neutral I think you need a bit more experience before you're ready for the tool, unfortunatly, because you are a really good user. I'll have no problems supporting in the future. Thε Halo 12:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

   #A positive neutral, as I have always had very good interactions with EvocativeIntrigue, and have been impressed with his kindness. I think a little more time editing on Misplaced Pages may be beneficial, but will be delighted to support in the near future. -- Natalya 04:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC) Changed to support.

6. Switch to neutral to counter oppose based on 0FA. I believe requiring a Featured Article of RfA candidates is overly strict but does not accurately gauge their suitability to be admin's. It artificially raises the bar for their editing ability while not addressing suitability in the areas of containing vandalism, *fD, or copyright. The backlogs in WP:AFD and WP:DRV are affecting the quality of Misplaced Pages. More admin's are needed to deal with the backlogs. The greatest threats to Misplaced Pages are legal-- litigation has been brought or threatened because of libelous content added by vandals, notable subjects having articles about them removed as not notable, and use of copyrighted material without the consent of the copyright holder. The need for admins with demonstrated knowledge and expertise in these areas outweighs the need for more Featured articles. Hopefully Bureaucrats will discount "oppose" votes based on lack of a Featured Article in RfA's where the candidate has demonstrated suitability in these areas. :) Dlohcierekim 13:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Rmrfstar

Final (45/20/8) Ended 13:06, 2006-08-09 (UTC)

Rmrfstar (Talk - Contributions) has over 2,500 edits under his belt, and after going 18-18-5 with his last nomination about a thousand edits ago, I feel that he is more fit and ready now to do it. --How dare you? 02:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you: I accept. But I'll say now that I shan't defend myself and argue with anyone so that I may spend my time working on, among other things, Atomic line filter's FAC and List of polymaths Afd. I'll also say that while I may not spend hours doing RC patrol or closing AfD debates, I shall use "the mop", but mostly for minor things: reverting extreme vandalism, fixing typos on the main page, etc. I will however take on the extra responsibility that comes with being an administrator, resolving disputes, for instance. -- Rmrfstar 13:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

An addendum to my previous statement: I don't think that one should have to use the tools often (as I admittedly won't) in order to become an admin. As I did in my last nom, I'll quote Misplaced Pages:Administrators. "Misplaced Pages's practice is to grant this access to anyone who has been an active and regular Misplaced Pages contributor for a while, is familiar with and respects Misplaced Pages policy, and is generally a known and trusted member of the community.". Thank you. -- Rmrfstar 22:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Note to closing bureaucrat; any chance of an extension here? Many oppose votes were on basis of candidate's poor initial answers, which have been changed. It seems to be swinging towards support, quite a few votes have changed. Apologies if this is seen as telling you how to do your job! --Guinnog 13:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

That would actually be helpful. The vote is supposed to end today and it appears that he doesn't have a 75-80% consensus as needed to gain adminship. --How dare you? 19:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

As I have been called upon to elaborate on my answers to these questions, I shall. I'd, too, like to apologize for my very curt answers from before. Hell, I wouldn't have voted for myself if I hadn't put the time into writing real responses to important questions. -- Rmrfstar 22:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

A: As per above, I'd plan on only using the mop for small things. Doing RC patrol, closing AfD and cleaning backlogs are not things that I often help with, so I do not need the admin tools in this respect; giving me them will not significantly decrease the amount of this work that anyone does. I probably will, however, make use of the tools often enough that they are worth giving to me. As per above, in my 17 months here, I've wished not a few times that I could execute some action more efficiently with an administrator's tools. I've requested page moves, nominated a few articles for speedy deletion, found and pointed out typos or other errors on the Main Page, and more. I think of myself of an established editor of Misplaced Pages, a decidedly positive user and undeniably good-willed; I don't think I'd be likely to misuse or abuse "the mop", and I swear that (if this nom passes) I'll be quite conservative with regards to my use of it.

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

A: Yes! You see, I love writing articles from scratch, often about topics that I initially know nothing about. A few of these in particular stand out, as I have taken them the farthest. Sylvia (ballet) was written after I saw my first ballet, and I worked for months researching and writing it, largely by myself. I never did nominate it for FAC; a friend did (Cpl.Luke): I was not confident enough of its qualifications. It did pass, though, and I've been proud of it ever since. Another work of mine with which I'm particularly pleased is Roman Vishniac, who was actually a friend of my father's and, I thought, greatly deserving of a good article. My current pet article is Atomic line filter, (now an FAC). This article I'm particularly pleased with because the topic is so obscure and so esoteric that I think it an accomplishment that I wrote so much on it, and I feel I've learned a lot in the process of writing it. Really though, I learn a lot whenever I edit Misplaced Pages. But I'm "particularly pleased" with the three mentioned above, as I have worked the hardest on them and they've come out the best, (I think).

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

A: To quote my last nom, "There is one particular conflict which I should mention. I once uploaded a work of art off of User:Jinwicked's homepage and used it in Universal Turing Machine, improperly claiming fair-use. User:Jinwicked discovered it, notified me and had it deleted. See the discussion on her talk page and on mine. If a dispute ever again happens, I will deal with it the way I did that one, calmly, respectfully and humbly."

I've been in no conflicts, nor had any negative interactions with any users since then, and my philosophy on the subject stays the same. -- Rmrfstar 13:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Question from tariqabjotu (joturner)

4. You mention reverting vandalism as one of the things you would like to get involved in. However, I don't see any warnings posted to user talk pages in your history. Can you point me to some evidence of vandal-fighting? Thanks in advance. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 13:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

A:I'm hardly a vandal-fighter, and I do not see myself becoming a greater one if I were to become an admin. I have reverted vandalism in the past, though they, I think, have been singular acts, and not repeated. See User:Rmrfstar/reverts for a list of edits I made since late Sept last year that had the word "vandal" in the edit summary.

To clarify, I don't want to spend my time reverting vandalism or doing RC patrol. I don't know where I mentioned that I do.

Questions from Tawker stolen borrowed from JoshuaZ and Rob Church and NSLE. They are 100% optional but may help myself or other voters decide. If I have already voted please feel free to ignore these questions though other editors might find them to be of use. You can also remove the questions you don't want to touch if you like. :)

I shall answer these; I do not have time right now. -- Rmrfstar 22:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

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

   A I would deal with it slowly and carefully, especially so, as I've never dealt with such a situation before. I'd read the policy, see if a precedent has been set and maybe email a more experienced admin and ask for advice. Such abuse does not have to be dealt with particularly quickly, but more importantly effectivly and in a way that hurts the encyclopedia least in the long-term. According to Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppets, all sockpuppet accounts should be blocked indefinitely and tagged accordingly. But before I do this, I think I would ask the editor himself if he has any explanation for what I percieve to be abusive sockpuppeting. I would talk to him; see if he denies it, apologizes or what... Depending on his reaction, I would tag him with Template:sockpuppeteer, and probably block him for a fixed period of time in the end. During and after this period, I'd monitor the editor for the creation of new sock puppets, using CheckUser (indirectly of course).

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

   A

2. If you could change any one thing about Misplaced Pages what would it be?

   A

3. Under what circumstances would you indefinitely block a user without any prior direction from Arb Com?

   A By User:Mindspillage/admin, the user would have to be comitting, "blatant, fast-moving vandalism (page-move vandals, mass insertion of disgusting images or hate speech)" or showing no signs of reforming after a few acts.

4. Suppose you are closing an AfD where it would be keep if one counted certain comments / discussions that you suspect are sockpuppets/meatpuppets and would be delete otherwise. The RCU returns inconclusive, what do you do? Is your answer any different if the two possibilities are between no consensus and delete?

   A

5. Do you believe there is a minimum number of people who need to express their opinions in order to reasonably close an AfD? If so, what is that number? What about RfDs and CfDs?

   A I've not spent enough time on AfD to judge.

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

   A

7. Why do you want to be an administrator?

   AMostly so that I may use the tools that come with being one. I also consider myself, "an active and regular Misplaced Pages contributor for a while, is familiar with and respects Misplaced Pages policy, and is generally a known and trusted member of the community."Misplaced Pages:Administrators

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

   A

Optional question from User:Dlohcierekim. Hello, Rmrfstar. On your previous RfA, I voted NEUTRAL, then changed to WEAK SUPPORT. At the time, I recommended, "more work in RFAs and AFDs". What has changed since then? Thanks,  :) Dlohcierekim 18:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, all I can think of is my very recent nom of List of polymaths for deletion. And you're absolutely right below: if my primary goal were to become an admin, I would spend more of my time on RfA, AfD and RC patrol. But my primary goal is to be an editor and it'd only be nice to be an admin. I strongly disagree, per my interpretation of Wiki policy and philosophy, that I should have to do these things. I don't want to do them; I want to do other things, and I think this won't change any time soon. I do think I should be an admin; I even want to be an admin. But the admin tools, to me, are the means, not the end, and I shall not pursue them to the point where I must neglect my true interests and skills. -- Rmrfstar 22:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. It can come in handy to be an admin when the AIV list backs up. The 2 FA's swayed me to support. Cheers. :) Dlohcierekim 22:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Optional question from Lar:

One big long question about categories of admins and your thoughts about them) Are you aware of the notion of adminstrators saying they're willing to be voluntarily recalled or reviewed, by a less onerous process than a new RfA (or worse) arbComm action? What do you think of the idea? Would you consider placing yourself (placement should only be done by oneself) in such a category if you were made an admin? Why or why not? Are you aware of the notion of Rouge admins? What do you think of the notion? Do you see it as purely humorous or do you see what it's driving at? Would you consider allowing yourself to by placed in this category (placement is traditionally done by someone else) if you were made an admin? Why or why not? (note: both these categories have some controversy attached to them, for different reasons, and note also, although I am a policy and process wonk I am in both categories, and finally, note that there is no wrong answer here...) ++Lar: t/c 18:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

A: Concerning the recall/review: sure. That sounds like a fine idea, though I do worry that such a process could be abused by those who simply disagree with an admin's actions. I would probably place myself on such a list, just as I would make readily available a log of all of my admin actions: I believe in that administrators should be accountable of and responsible for all of their actions. They should also, however, be able to excercise their own discretion when necessary without having a thousand users breathing down their necks.

I think I understand the Rouge Admins, and that if I were one, I'd not be a strong one. For the cabal does represent my own reservations about the above category. Again, though, I do believe in accountabliity and listening to the community when it disagrees with you.

In short, I believe that process is important, as I am as fallible as everyone else. But so are WP:BOLD and WP:IAR, for things must get done. I'm neither a policy or process wonk; neither is perfect... maybe I'm a product wonk: I believe the best philosophy lies somewhere in between the two, and so I might be in both of the above categories. That's my answer. -- Rmrfstar 23:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. First Support Good user, experienced and deserves the mop. Seivad 13:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Support Good user —Minun 14:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Support, as the nominator --How dare you? 15:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Weak support Good experience on Misplaced Pages, although I can't give full support because the answers to the questions aren't sufficient. --Gray Porpoise 18:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

   Vote changed to Strong support per improved answers to questions. A trustworthy editor. --Gray Porpoise 14:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC

5. Support, 2FAs, have proven his worth. - Mailer Diablo 18:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Support, unlikely to abuse tools. Molerat 19:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
7. Support inasmuch as it really matters not that a candidate will use the tools infrequently where one can be certain the candidate would not abuse the tools or, in ignorance of policy or in view of an indecorous or unilateral streak, misuse–even avolitionally–the tools. One need not to worry, I think, about Rmrfstar's acting irresponsibly, and he surely appreciates how properly an admin ought to conduct himself, both inter-personally and vis-à-vis consensus (recognizing, notably, that an admin acts only to interpret the views of the community and to implement whatever action it is behind which a consensus lies). Joe 23:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
8. Support Not everyone has all the time in the world, and I happily accept that the candidate could not initially answer the questions to the greatest extent. Having now completed them, I will happily support him and see no reason why oppose votes relating to 'weak answers' not do the same. --Draicone 06:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
9. Strong Support I know the user personally, he has written two featured articles almost entirely by himself and has anouther one on its way up that was written almost entirely by himself. He's dedicated to wikipedia to a fault (believe me, I sometimes ponder an intervention), and knows the wiki policy to the letter. He would make a fine admin. Cpl.Luke 16:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
10. Strong support per Luke and others. Great work on Roman Vishniac and elsewhere. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
11. Support - anybody who is too busy on other improvements to defend themselves here automatically gets my approval. Yomangani 19:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
12. Support now that answers are longer, experinced in writing articles Jaranda 19:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
13. Support-- meets User:Mailer diablo/One Featured Article with Roman Vishniac and Sylvia (ballet). However, still needs to spend more time RCPatrolling and participating at AfD. Cheers.  :) Dlohcierekim 20:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
14. Support Good user with strong record of significant contributions. Dryman 23:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
15. Support. Has been a positive contributor for quite some time and understands Misplaced Pages well. Zaxem 00:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
16. They has the preciousss! -- Миборовский 01:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
17. Support. Changed vote due to vastly improved answers to questions. --Aguerriero (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
18. Weak Support I like the answers above, and don't see much reason why this 2 time FA editor shouldn't have the mop at his disposal, though I do appreciate that a low mainspace edit-count could indicate weak knowledge of policy. Tewfik 17:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

    Support. - Mailer Diablo 23:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

    Um, I think the convention is one editor, one vote... Gwernol 00:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

    Oppps, didn't realise I double-voted. Sorry. - Mailer Diablo 07:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

19. Support. Passes my admin criteria of WP:TRI policy trifecta and m:Foundation issues. Also passes my nomination criteria, I would have nominated this person. Kim Bruning 19:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
20. Support This user is straightforward and says he will not use the tools often; I'd prefer that to the many users who claim they will be great admins and let the tools grow dusty. He also meets my 2k and civility criteria. --Firsfron of Ronchester 21:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
21. Strong Support After in-person discussion at Wikimania 2006, I support this nomination. This overcame any weakness in the written answers above, for me. BCorr|Брайен 19:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
22. Support. His participation and my conversation with him at Wikimania convince me that he is eminently qualified to be an admin. We would be silly to reject this candidate. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

    The question being asked on RfA is "do we trust this user not to abuse admin tools", not "do I like his eyes?". I encourage the closing bureaucrat to disregard this vote. :) -- Avenue 12:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

23. Support Fine editor with a straightforward approach to most situations. Æon 22:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

    Comment I am glad to see an improvement in the vote tally. Judging by his attitude towards Misplaced Pages, having been featured in his school's newspaper about it, writing 2 FA's, and having developed the idea for the Staples High Wiki, I can't see him not being an admin on this wiki as well as the Staples one. --How dare you? 01:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

24. Support. Has written 2 FAs and is well suited for the position. WAZAAAA 16:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
25. I met him at Wikimania and he seems entirely well-grounded and has good ideas for improving Misplaced Pages. I would support this RFA more strongly than RFAs of any users I have never met. --Cyde Weys 01:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
26. support Works well with others. Even if he won't use the tools often, I'm sure he won't abuse them, so we might as well give them to him for the few times he will. If anything, a lack of desire to use the tools frequently could be a good thing, since it means he will only use them when he absolutely needs to. There is no worry that such a user will abuse them. JoshuaZ 03:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
27. Support No concerns and the answers are a lot better now. --Guinnog 11:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
28. Support per Guinnog. — FireFox _{12:09, 8 August '06}
29. Support changed from oppose.--Kungfu Adam 12:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
30. Support HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 12:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
31. Support-- changed from oppose after candidate expanded on his answers. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
32. Support. DarthVader 22:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
33. Support. We either trust the user or we don't. Any other point is irrelevant. ed g2s • talk 00:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
34. Support excellent contributions to article space. Looks reasonable based on updated answers. -- Samir धर्म 01:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
35. Support with updated answers to questions. Kimchi.sg 03:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
36. Support as I did last time for the same reasons only now improved by his (and my) extra wiki experience, namely that this is the type of individual we need to hold admin powers, intelligent, sensible, fair and open minded, and balanced even under criticism. Whatever he says now, he will of course quickly learn to use admin powers properly and nothing will hold him back. He's the quiet type who means things and needs trust, which will be well placed. Tyrenius 08:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
37. Support: Only good editors make good administrators in the long run. --Bhadani 08:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
38. Support, a good editor.-gadfium 09:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
39. Support: on personal recommendation. Stephen B Streater 10:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
40. Support: Adminship should be no big deal and I don't see any reason to mistrust this user. --Ligulem 11:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
41. Support: No reason to deny access to the toolset.ALR 11:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
42. Support, good and apparently trustworthy editor. -- Avenue 12:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
43. Support I'm sure the nominee will find good use for the tools, somehow; I don't see anything to suggest otherwise. My oppose vote was changed to support because I misread the answer to question one (I didn't realize it said "are not things that often help with"). -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 12:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
44. Support. Adminship is no big deal. Almost certainly won't abuse the tools. --Sam Blanning 12:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
45. Support. Rmrfstar is a good enditor, and I am more than confident he will not abuse the tools. Rje 12:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose. The candidate's statements here suggest that he wouldn't take the time to explain his actions to other editors, which I feel is important for an admin. --Aguerriero (talk) 18:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC) Changed to

support per better answers. --Aguerriero (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

1. Oppose Weak answers to the questions, low wikipedia namespace edits, less than 3,000 total. Wouldn't abuse the tools, but an admin to me is someone who helps behind the scenes and uses the tools actively, as opposed to breaking them out in rare cases when they're needed. Perhaps I could accept someone on this basis if they had, say, 9000 edits, but as the nomination stands now I have utterly no evidence that this candidate is intimately familiar with policy, and would apply it justly. AdamBiswanger1 13:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

   The question being asked on RfA is "do we trust this user to not abuse admin tools", not "is this user likely to use them if we give them to him". I encourage the closing bureaucrat to disregard this vote. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

2. Weak Oppose Very weak answers to questions. Does not meet my 5-month requirement. See note below. --Tuspm 14:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC) - Objection: User has been registered for almost 17 months thank you --How dare you? 15:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

   Whoops! That was my fault. I misread it, thinking it said 2006 but it said 2005. I'll change my vote to Weak Oppose. --Tuspm 16:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

   Oppose Weak answers to questions.--Kungfu Adam 15:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

   Changed to support.--Kungfu Adam 12:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

3. Oppose Those are weak answers to the questions; if the user really has little desire or need for the tools, the user shouldn't have them. Many great editors simply have no need or want for the mop. Xoloz 16:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

   The question being asked on RfA is "do we trust this user to not abuse admin tools", not "is this user likely to use them if we give them to him". I encourage the closing bureaucrat to disregard this vote. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

4. Oppose Weak answers to questions. --Siva1979 18:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose Answers show a limited desire to use admin. tools, few talk page edits. Michael 19:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

   Are you aware of the internet maxim "beware of handing power to those who want it" ? Do you think it applies here? Kim Bruning 03:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

   The question being asked on RfA is "do we trust this user to not abuse admin tools", not "is this user likely to use them if we give them to him". I encourage the closing bureaucrat to disregard this vote. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

6. Oppose, per above. --CharlotteWebb 19:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

   The question being asked on RfA is "do we trust this user to not abuse admin tools", not "is this user likely to use them if we give them to him". I encourage the closing bureaucrat to disregard this vote. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

7. Oppose. I'm not convinced you're going to use the admin tools that much. Roy A.A. 21:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

   The question being asked on RfA is "do we trust this user to not abuse admin tools", not "is this user likely to use them if we give them to him". I encourage the closing bureaucrat to disregard this vote. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

   Oppose per Roy and Aguerriero. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 02:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC) change to support following extended answers. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

8. Oppose Per above. --Masssiveego 08:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

   The question being asked on RfA is "do we trust this user to not abuse admin tools", not "is this user likely to use them if we give them to him". I encourage the closing bureaucrat to disregard this vote. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

9. Oppose not active enough, time spent here to edit count ratio suggests they are not heavily involved. Putting editcountitis aside, I just don't feel the user is dedicated enough.--Andeh 08:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

   The question being asked on RfA is "do we trust this user to not abuse admin tools", not "is this user likely to use them if we give them to him". I encourage the closing bureaucrat to disregard this vote. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

10. Oppose: Despite the good setup of edits, he isn't that willing to use his admin tools. I fear this RFA could be withdrawn because of this concern. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 13:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

    The question being asked on RfA is "do we trust this user to not abuse admin tools", not "is this user likely to use them if we give them to him". I encourage the closing bureaucrat to disregard this vote. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

11. Oppose per WPspace edit count and doesn't seem to want the tools anyway. -- Steel 13:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

    The question being asked on RfA is "do we trust this user to not abuse admin tools", not "is this user likely to use them if we give them to him". I encourage the closing bureaucrat to disregard this vote. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

12. Oppose, lack of Misplaced Pages namespace edits suggests low policy knowledge. Stifle (talk) 00:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

    I strongly disagree, when I met him he spoke in a debate about consensus-forming that demonstrated an excellent knowledge of Misplaced Pages policies. --Cyde Weys 16:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

13. Oppose per above arguments.--cj | talk 03:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: This sucks. The nominee was doing better in his LAST nomination, with 1,000 fewer edits. --How dare you? 19:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

      True, but I see nowhere where he followed my recommendations. SIGH From what I've seen, subsequent RfA's do better if they follow suggestions made by oppose voters. I supported before based on his strength as an editor and again based on 1FA.  :) Dlohcierekim 20:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

    The question being asked on RfA is "do we trust this user to not abuse admin tools", not "is this user likely to use them if we give them to him". I encourage the closing bureaucrat to disregard this vote. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

    Oppose per above, regarding not having a use for the admin tools, and per the answer to my question. RC patrol and vandal-fighting are very similar; I'm not sure how one can want to do the former but say they rarely have and rarely will do the latter. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 17:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

    The question being asked on RfA is "do we trust this user to not abuse admin tools", not "is this user likely to use them if we give them to him". I encourage the closing bureaucrat to disregard this vote. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

    !Vote changed to support not because of Kelly Martin's comment, but because I misread an answer to one of his questions. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 12:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

14. Strong oppose, very weak editor. MonsterOfTheLake 17:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

    Very weak, how? he has written 2 FAs. Jaranda 18:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

    Yeah exactly. And almost 3000 contributions as well. --How dare you? 16:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

15. Weak Oppose It's kind of hard to explain, normally when I cast a vote for an editor, I way in his/her communications, his editing background and my past history with them. As it seems, you have relatively weak communications with editors, per low talk, user talk and WP talk edits, on the other hand, your editing history looks quite good with the 2 Featured articles. On the third note, I've never really heard of you actually, so I'm at a bit of a loss. Generally, I try to judge on whether the user will abuse the tools, and, ironically, all the stuff above links to it. As you noted, you don't plan to use the tools majorly in backlogs, which like a lot of admins, opens you to helping non-admins carry out tasks. Because of that, you need good communication, but due to your lack of talk edits I must oppose. Apologies, Highway 16:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

    This is a well reasoned response. Have you tried talking with rmrfstar yourself as well? Perhaps he speaks very carefully!

16. Oppose Fails my criteria, especially with regard to the amount and level of Misplaced Pages project space edits. --Wisden17 23:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

    Can you explain how wikipedia project space edits make one a good administrator? What other criteria do you hold? Kim Bruning 03:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

17. Oppose Wait till he has more experience.--Taxwoman 12:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    Two featured articles is not enough experience? Interesting. That's ok. What are your standards then? Have you met them yourself as well? Kim Bruning 03:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

18. Oppose too few distinct pages edited, needs to explore more of the site. —freak(talk) 12:56, Aug. 8, 2006 (UTC)
19. Weak Oppose I highly doubt you will abuse these tools, but it sounds like you really don't need sysop tools. The Gerg 13:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

    The question being asked on RfA is "do we trust this user to not abuse admin tools", not "is this user likely to use them if we give them to him". Given your above stance, your vote should be "support". I encourage the closing bureaucrat to disregard this vote or count it as a support. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

    Your point has been made. Please stop badgering those who oppose -- Samir धर्म 01:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

    I'm not badgering anyone; I'm just making suggestions to the closing bureaucrat. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

    And that's not your job. Either the bureaucrat is capable of handling any discrepancies on their own, or there's none to be handled. Stop putting on airs please, Kelly. -- nae'blis 02:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

    She can make any statement she likes. If you think it's stupid to make it in each particular instance, well, you could be right, please address those instances. Note that on a first sampling, her reply to several people here seems to be essentially correct however. Several people have been making statements that do not actually answer the question asked by Requests for adminship. Kim Bruning 03:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

    Kim Bruning has already set the precedent that it is no longer the candidate who is the sitting duck for a roasting — it is the opposers. He he. Tyrenius 08:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

20. Oppose, (late but it doesn't seem to bother others). I saw this earlier but was borderline so I figured I'd wait until he answered the additional questions (which he said he would). It took him a week and the answers are very weak, with two cut and pastings, one 'I don't know' and no answers to the rest. I really would expect an admin to be more timely and thorough with something he says he is going to do. - Bobet 07:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral. Seems like a good user, but your answers to the questions seem very vague to me. The answer to the first question, "As per above, I'd plan on only using the mop for small things" makes me wonder if this user actually needs the tools. I may support if the situation changes and/or answers are expanded on. — FireFox _{13:26, 01 August '06} Changed to support.

Neutral. per FireFox --Guinnog 14:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC) Change to support as answers have improved.

1. Neutral. I cannot bring myself to vote against such a high-quality editor. But none of the answers given actually require admin tools - also, fails my criteria by having less than 200 maintalk edits. The upside is that I think this user will not be overly upset if he does not get the tools, as he does not seem to really want them. Themindset 17:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

   Neutral written 2 FAs, but answers, please clafify Jaranda 18:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

2. Neutral - not enough edits for me to vote for you at present, but I would think about it another time. Deb 21:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Neutral You are a fantastic editor (keep up the good work) but I feel that you do not have enough of a need for the tools. Viridae 03:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Neutral, good editor, but your weak answers to questions worries me a bit. --Terence Ong _{(Chat | Contribs)} 08:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Neutral I have no reason to believe that you would misuse the tools, but I'd prefer administrators to demonstrate that they would use the tools in more than just a few cases - really, I'm looking for a minimal level of involvement before I consider the candidate's requirement for the tools great enough to support them. For that reason, although you're an excellent user, I'd like to see you involve yourself more in admin-related tasks before I vote to support. Sorry. RandyWang (/_{review me!}) 11:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Neutral. I don't know what to do with this one. On one hand, you're a great editor with several FA's to your name. On the other hand, I find the answer to question 1 very underwhelming, I'm just not sensing you really want the tools that much. I really do hope you continue your excellent contributions, and I would probably support in a few months with more admin-related experience, but right now I'm just not convinced. BryanG 06:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
7. Neutral per BryanG; I loved the Vishniac article and wanted to say that though. Phr (talk) 00:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
8. Neutral per the badgering of the oppose voters. I'll remove my vote if the reactionary comments above are removed or put in as footnotes. Attic Owl 02:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

   Reactionary indeed. Did you know that requests for adminship is a consensus process? It still is in name, at the very least. So lets allow people to discuss and form consensus. This does not need to be at all acrimonious, of course! Kim Bruning 03:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

   Of course, however Mr./Mrs. Bruning, discussion would be better served on the talk page or by footnote references like this rather than cluttering this area where the potential for percieving acrimony like what may have been construed above. Personally, I construed Mr./Mrs. Kelly Martin's comments above as an attempt at intimidation of voters who disagree with his/her opinion, per his/her character described by many at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin2. If you would like, we can continue to discuss this on the talk page after moving all the breathing over peoples' shoulders. Until then, I will continue to hold my vote, which seems to be the Wikipedian version of voting for a mistrial. Attic Owl 06:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

   Currently, RFA is still officially a consensus model, which is served well by discussion on the RFA page itself. If you state an opinion (it's not exactly a vote) on this page, you can expect people to want to try to discuss it. This is the correct venue to discuss a request for adminship however. I don't recall anyone officially suggesting any other venue. To keep the entire conversation visible and transparent, I'm keeping the discussion local to this page.

   Yes I do agree that certain people are making pointed statements where they would be better served asking polite questions. I don't entirely agree with making pointed statements like that, but I am sort of stuck having to defend peoples rights to make them. <scratches head>. Kim Bruning 07:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

   Are people opposing now because other people want a debate at RfA? Stephen B Streater 10:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

   It is supposed to be a debate towards consensus, not a vote. However, the idea of taking further discussion to talk seems a good one. --Guinnog 12:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• See Rmrfstar's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
• See Rmrfstar's _{(Talk ▪ Contributions ▪ Logs ▪ Block Logs)} contributions as of 16:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC) using Interiot's tool*:

Username	Rmrfstar
Total edits	2793
Distinct pages edited	921
Average edits/page	3.033
First edit	22:25, March 5, 2005
(main)	1883
Talk	190
User	178
User talk	183
Image	83
Template	6
Template talk	2
Misplaced Pages	257
Misplaced Pages talk	6
Portal	4
Portal talk	1

--Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 16:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

GHe

Final (62/23/7) Ended 21:55, 2006-08-08 (UTC)

GHe (talk · contribs) – In the few months I have known GHe, I've always thought him to be one of the most helpful, civil, and dedicated users around. In the four months he's been here, he has amassed well over 5000 edits (as compared to my six months and 4000 edits), showing an immense dedication to the project. He is one of Misplaced Pages's premier vandal fighters, beating me and other users to the punch about as much as the Tawkerbots do. For those users who like "material contributions," GHe has done lots of work on Lists of U.S. state insignia and other geography-related articles. This man is long overdue for the mop. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 17:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I humbly accept. G.He 23:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Beat the nom support! Highway 23:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
2. Support. Thought he already was one. 1ne 23:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
3. Support I would like to see more major contributions to articles, but I don't see how that would impede good judgement when it comes to using the admin tools. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 23:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
4. Support, of course. Sango123 00:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Support. I thought he was already an administrator. Kalani 00:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Support per nom. Michael 00:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
7. Support as nominator. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 00:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
8. Support Have seen user around Misplaced Pages. Adminship is way overdue. Also meets my standards. --Tuspm 00:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
9. Support I see him frequently on IRC while we're RC patrolling. My interactions with him have been pleasant, and he seems to be stable and capable of staying cool during rough cases of vandalism. Based on reports he made to AIV, he demonstrates knowledge of vandalism and blocking policies, and is very unlikely to abuse the admin tools. Here's your mop, start polishing! --Chris (talk) 01:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
10. Support although I'm in agreement with Biswanger's advice. Rama's arrow 01:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
11. Support! Thought you already were one! Viva La Vie Boheme

    Not to sound antagonistic, but has anyone found any evidence that this user is well-versed in policy? AdamBiswanger1 02:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

12. Support. Although I understand AdamBiswanger1's view, I find that GHe already has qualifications for adminship, in my opinion. A bit low on WP space edits, but he hasn't shown that he isn't well versed in policy. Picaroon9288|ta co 02:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

    Low on WP space edits? How many do you usually like to see? hoopydink 08:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

    Well that's the problem. It's not so much the number, but the quality, as I noted in my oppose vote. Many of them are tally adjustments or...well I already wrote it in my vote. AdamBiswanger1 15:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

    Yeah, I mispoke (er, typed). AB1 shows my view on wp edits, but I still support GHe for good edits elsewhere. Picaroon9288|ta co 19:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

13. Support - no problems are seen here, Admin status is not a big deal, and I see very little possibility of abuse of the tools -- Tawker 02:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
14. Support inasmuch as I am not particularly concerned about the candidate's non-conversance with policy. The relevant questions for me, are whether the candidate is possessed of a deliberative and cordial personality, such that he/she, as an admin, will interact well with others, will be able to interpret community discussions in order to appreciate where a consensus lies, and will not capriciously abuse the tools; and whether, in areas of which he/she is ignorant, he/she will recognize that ignorance and not act, in order that he/she should not misuse the tools (even avolitionally). If he/she is qualified only to partake of a small portion of the admin tasks but can be trusted to know that which he does not know and to leave action on such areas to other admins, there is, for me, absolutely no problem; any competent help in the completion of admin tasks, even those that are limited in scope and frequency of occurrence, is to be welcomed. Joe 02:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
15. Merovingian - Talk 03:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
16. Support seems good. I seem him occasionaly while on RC patrol. Viridae 05:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
17. Support. We must remember that not all members are good at everything, and using a member's strengths to everyone's advantage isn't a bad way of doing things. As a vandal figher, the mop will be useful, and I do not see any reason why he should not become an admin, he certainly does not seem like a user who will abuse the mop. --Draicone 06:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
18. Support, thanks for helping me out heaps at #wikipedia-en, and #wikipedia-bootcamp. :)--Deon555|talk|e 06:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
19. Hrm, thought he was already an admin Support hoopydink 08:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
20. Support Will use the tools well. Thε Halo 11:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
21. Support I've seen this user many times on RCP (and sometimes been a little angry when he beats me to a revert!!! :) ). This is exactly the kind of user who needs the mop. Seivad 11:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
22. Support. You're not an admin? That's news to me. alphaChimp 11:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
23. Support — FireFox _{12:28, 01 August '06}

    I want to be annoying and slow down the support train for a minute. Can anyone address my points, the neutral voters' points, or the fact that the user has not answered any of the additional questions? AdamBiswanger1 13:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

24. Support --Terence Ong _{(Chat | Contribs)} 13:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
25. Support, and good work on IRC!--Kungfu Adam 15:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
26. Support Stubbleboy 17:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
27. Support. - Mailer Diablo 18:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
28. Support. Thought he was one. --CharlotteWebb 19:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
29. Support for vandal-fighting. Four months is long enough to show he's trustworthy, and his responses to fuddlemark's questions are reasonable and show an acceptable level of understanding of deletion policy. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
30. Support A good user. --Siva1979 20:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
31. Weak support By and large a good user, although I am still concerned over a general lack of policy knowledge and failure to take iniative. However, overall, I'm convinced that GHe will use the tools well. JoshuaZ 21:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
32. Support looks good! —Khoikhoi 23:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
33. Support FellowWikipedian 03:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
34. Support; I trust him to use the mop and shotgun well. Some editors prefer to write articles, some prefer to fight vandals: GHe is one of the second category, and as such he, and we, would benefit from his being granted adminship. Antandrus (talk) 05:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
35. Support - Though it would be nice to see more mainspace contributions, we need a cleanup crew, too. I've run across GHe several times doing that, and doing it effectively and in a policy-compliant and polite manner. Georgewilliamherbert 06:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
36. JA! -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 06:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
37. Support Just got a gut feeling this one is a good one! TruthCrusader 16:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
38. TAK! Misza13 19:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
39. Support --Shane 21:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
40. Cleared --Pilotguy 22:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
41. SUPPORT duh...... Crazynas 23:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
42. SUPPORT Despite lack of breadth. Meets my standards. :) Dlohcierekim 23:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
43. Support, and best of luck. Stifle (talk) 23:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
44. digital_me 19:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC) — can't believe I missed this one!
45. Support. íslenska hurikein #12 _(samtal) 20:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
46. Definite Support. Will not abuse tools. That's simply all that matters. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 21:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
47. Support. Meets all of my criteria. While some have expressed concern that he might not meet the policy knowledge part of it, his answers to fuddlemark's questions as well as my own experiences have convinced me that he does. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 01:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
48. Support. I'm not really seeing as much XfD experience as I want from admins who want to close them, but the answers to fuddlemark's questions pushed me into the support column. Also meets the rest of my criteria. BryanG 05:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
49. Support. I'm confident GHe is on the right track, and he doesn't hide the fact that his speciality consists in vandal-fighting. His thoughtfulness and self-criticism regarding chores and areas in which he intends to become more familiar complement an overall highly positive analysis of his potential qualities as an admin, and therefore, he's cleared for the mop from me :) Good luck, G! Phaedriel ♥ The Wiki Soundtrack!♪ - 14:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
50. Support: --Bhadani 17:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
51. Support Good vandal fighter, plenty of edits (meets my 2k minimum), very civil. Give this man a mop. :)--Firsfron of Ronchester 21:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
52. Support shows he will be a good admin Betacommand 01:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
53. Support. I believe that he's unlikely to misuse admin tools. Aren't I Obscure? 16:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
54. Support per above. Semperf 01:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
55. Support The last thing I'll ever do on wikipedia was worth it. :) ILovePlankton 23:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
56. support just in time
57. Not-An-Admin!? support Sad to see you go, ILP... But I agree, even if it's not the last thing I have to do, though it might as well be. Fredil Yupigo 01:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
58. Support will be good admin --rogerd 02:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
59. Support Yanksox 04:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
60. Support: editor seems perfectly willing and capable of making good use of the Admin tools. Stephen B Streater 08:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
61. Support; while the criticisms are valid, I trust the user's judgement and civility. Teke 17:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
62. In under the wire Support. I've been mulling this one over (for too long), and I believe this editor could use the tools and will not abuse them. Agent 86 21:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose What Misplaced Pages namespace edits the candidate has are either tally adjustments for RfA (and plenty of them), or "_____ per nom"-type statements. The candidate's mainspace edits are almost entirely reverts, which is certainly something to be desired of an admin, but I'd like to see more effort on article-related matters. That, combined with the fact that he has only been here for 4 months is quite troublesome, and I am not convinced of a knowledge of policy. Given an increased effort in WP namespace and a few more months, I'd be glad to support. AdamBiswanger1 00:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Unfortunate oppose - clearly a good vandal-fighter, but that is not all there is to being an admin on Misplaced Pages. Lack of major edits and the answers to the questions below suggest a timidity and unfamiliarity with process. If this doesn't succeed, please come back later. 4 months and 5000 mostly procedural edits is too little for me, sorry. -- nae'blis 16:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose. I prefer a broader range of experience and more substantive article edits. I am particularly concerned about the candidate's answer to JoshuaZ's first question below; those diffs are definitely not shining examples of either thoughtful commentary or rank-breaking votes. --Aguerriero (talk) 18:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose per Andypandy (neutral) and Adam Biswanger. Roy A.A. 21:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose per Adam Biswanger. In response to JoshuaZ's question below, GHe listed a few RfA contributions — not all of which were particularly inspired — and failed to address his lack of expience in other wiki-namespace processes, including AfD. Nevertheless, he's a good vandal fighter, and I look forward to supporting in the future when he has more project and article-writing experience. ×Meegs 08:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose sad to oppose as per lack of breadth of experience. The Rfa looks set to succeed however, so pleased to wish you good luck. --Dweller 16:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose an excellent vandal fighter, but I see very little in article writing other than Don Mills Collegiate Institute. I would support in several months with more article writing. Jaranda 19:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose, contributions listed in answers and intro generally do not show heavy involvement from GHe. In other words, 0FA. -- Миборовский 01:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose per a lack of experience.--cj | talk 03:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
10. Oppose Per above --Masssiveego 07:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
11. Oppose for mostly the same reasons as User:Adambiswanger1 states. I really wanted to support, but can't convince myself that it would be a good idea, considering the edits he has in the Misplaced Pages and main article namespaces. It's not always about quantity. - Bobet 17:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
12. Oppose per Andeh. - CrazyRussian talk/email 20:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
13. Oppose 4 months' experience and almost exclusively in vandal-fighting do not a well-rounded admin make. Please take a couple of months and expand your contributions and involve yourself in the other areas of wikipedia. Even if vandal-fighting is your forte, it's encouraging to see admins with experience in multiple areas, not to mention who have edited more than one or two articles. --Vengeful Cynic 14:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
14. Oppose. I want to see broader experience. -- SCZenz 18:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
15. Oppose. Too soon. I agree that far broader experience is needed. --JJay 00:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
16. Oppose per Adambiswanger1. Kimchi.sg 07:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
17. oppose per Adambiswanger1. Pete.Hurd 05:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
18. Weak oppose per Adambiswanger1. I wasn't particularly impressed with answers to questions. If GHe is going to handle CAT:CSD, more substantive participation in AfD should come first.--Chaser T 06:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
19. Oppose per AdamBinswanger1. Although GHe has some project-space edits to his credit, his response to concerns regarding the quality of those edits is not reassuring. Editor appear to lack experience at this time. Xoloz 16:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
20. Oppose Experience at this time is not suffiecient for me to support this candidate's nom., in particular I feel Misplaced Pages project space edits should show more breadth. --Wisden17 23:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
21. Oppose per Xolox. Thumbelina 17:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
22. Oppose per Jaranda and Themindset --T-rex 15:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
23. Oppose per Jaranda. Bubba ditto 15:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral. Does not meet my criteria of 6 months. Themindset 02:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Neutral user states in A1 that they want to help out at CSD and AfD, though I agree with the user that this area is always in need of attention from admins. I could only find 24 edits to AfDs, suggesting the users experience there isn't that great.--Andeh 07:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Neutral: I place my trust in this user, but his chance has come too soon. He should be ready again come November or early December. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 13:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Neutral: I was waivering between Neutral and Support, which is why I chose to ask the question below (JT1). I was looking for some evidence that you see the conflict of interest. I would have expected that you would post on WP:ANI or WP:AIV for borderline vandalism that was attacking you. -- JamesTeterenko 21:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Neutral Tough choice, my interactions with this user are rather low; seems to be a great vandal fighter, but I too would like to see some more contributions to articles. KOS | talk 11:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Neutral per Slgrandson. The Gerg 23:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
7. Neutral, leaning towards support; both sides make valid points...--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 16:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: I greatly anticipate in helping with countering and dealing with vandalism by monitoring the IRC vandalism channels, WP:AIV, and the recent changes, as well as looking out for inappropriate new user accounts. Misplaced Pages is constantly experiencing vandalism, and sometimes there just isn't enough admins around to take care of the situation.

Aside from that, I would also help out with CAT:CSD, WP:AfD, and any other tasks that need to be done. I find that CAT:CSD often has a huge backlog, and speedy deletions aren’t so speedy at times. (I’ve experienced quite long delays after tagging some of my subpages for speedy.)

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

A: I am particularly pleased with my contributions towards vandal fighting on Misplaced Pages. Vandalism is definitely an issue on Misplaced Pages, and I’m happy to be of help on this matter. Besides that, I’ve also made contributions towards Inheritance trilogy articles (I’m a member of The Inheritance Trilogy Wiki), Don Mills Collegiate Institute, and some geographical articles and lists, such as Lists of U.S. state insignia.

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: As a vandal fighter, I sometimes run into difficulties with vandals. After giving warnings, I sometimes find my user page and user talk page vandalized. But regardless of what happens, I always keep calm, ignore the insults/attacks (though it’s quite hard to ignore in some more severe cases), and resolve the situation in a civilized manner. Other than that, I generally don’t experience much conflict. I am friendly, helpful, and polite, and I respect other people’s opinions and viewpoints in discussions. I plan to continue in this manner for any conflicts that should arise in the future.

Questions from JoshuaZ As always, all additional questions are completely optional.

1 How would you respond to concerns that almost all your Misplaced Pages space entries are as Adam observed tally corrections on RfAs or simple votes per someone else such as Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Hipty? Related to this, can you show us examples of votes or comments that you made in Misplaced Pages space that you think indicate thought and original input to the matter at hand? Do you have examples where you have voted or commented in a manner which is against the prevailing consensus at the time of your vote?

A: I do acknowledge that I’ve made simple edits like the examples above. However, the following are examples that either show meaningful input or a vote or comment that is against the prevailing consensus at the time: , , , , ,

2 How would you respond to concern that you have few substantial article edits and that almost all your edits in article space are reversions of vandalism?

A: I do acknowledge that most of my edits in the article space are revisions of vandalism. However, I believe reverting vandalism is an important task on Misplaced Pages. As for article edits, I do believe that I've contributed a fair amount in Garrow, Eragon I, and Don Mills Collegiate Institute. Unfortunately, I must admit that I've made a mistake with List of U.S. states and their state flower, tree, and bird. (We all make mistakes, this was just an unfortunate one for me.) At the time of creation, I did take note to search for possible duplications, but seemed to find none. However, TheGrappler later pointed out to me that there were already lists under U.S. insignia that concerned the topics. After discovering my unfortunate error, I made the article into a disambig and archived the list for any future references. If it were not for that unfortunate mistake, List of U.S. states and their state flower, tree, and bird would’ve been my most pleased article contribution.

Optional questions from fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 02:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC). Sadly, there are a lot of them. I know, I'm a bastard. Feel free to answer all or some or none, per your own preference.

F0 You mention you'd like to be able to help with the constant CAT:CSD backlogs. That's great! Many hands make light work, etc. We do see a lot of misunderstanding, however, particularly from "anti-vandal"-oriented Wikipedians (death to the CVU!), on what the CSD is and how admins ought to apply it. Could you give an example of an "assertion of notability" (per A7)? How does it differ, in your view, from the notability guidelines we see set out at WP:MUSIC and equivalent pages? Does it differ? Under what circumstances would you apply G4?

A: Examples of A7 would be an article on a non-notable student in a local school, or a small local music group formed that is not known to the general public. I believe that A7 differs from WP:MUSIC and equivalent pages in the way that A7 is for uncontested articles that fails to even claim that the subject of the article is notable. However, if notability is claimed or disputed, an AfD should take place.

I would apply G4 to an article with the same content that was previously deleted only per XfD and was not undeleted or does not fall under the user namespace.

F1 How would you react if someone undeleted an article you'd mistakenly speedied (you will make mistakes; we all do)? Under what circumstances would you consider it appropriate to undelete an article mistakenly speedied by another administrator, if any, and how would you approach this task?

A: I would show appreciation towards the admin that corrected my mistake. I would consider it appropriate to undelete an article mistakenly speedied by another admin if the article does not match any of the criteria for speedy deletion. Before undeleting, I would first consult with the deleting admin on why he/she speedied the article. If it was a mistake, then either he/she or I would undelete the article. If it was in fact not a mistake, then I’d question that admin if the article is not speedable based on the critera.

F2 Is vanity a speedy deletion criterion? Under what circumstances would you delete an article you believe to be vanity?

A: Blatant vanity, in my opinion, is a speedy deletion criterion. Articles that doesn’t fully meet CSD but is uncontroversial should go to PROD. If, however, the deletion is disputed or contested, the article should be taken to AfD for a full discussion.

F3 Imagine you came across an article about a borderline notable (i.e. not a public figure, per se, but not speediable), living person. The article contains extensive, unsourced details of a scandal this individual was allegedly involved in as a teenager. How would you react? Do you feel it would be appropriate to speedy this article? If so, why? If not, why not?

A: It depends on the situation. Like in the previous question, if the article is an obvious prank, then it could be speedied or prod’ if speedy requirements are not met. If there are doubts, the article should then be investigated. I’d search the article on Google. If very little hits show up, the article is probably invalid or not notable enough. However, if there are disputes or contests regarding the article’s deletion, an AfD would be more suitable.

F4 You also mention closing AfDs. What is your general philosophy towards AfD? How important, in your view, is the role of evidence and expert testimony in an AfD discussion? If an article is nominated for deletion: "nn d, anon deprodded without explanation", and nineteen other users chime in with similar views: "nn d", "merge then speedy", and so on ... then an Expert enters the fray and provides evidence that the article's subject is listed in the Guinness Book of Records for climbing Mount Everest naked whilst composing a dissertation on cosmic string theory and how it relates to sheep-shearing in New Zealand, what would you consider an appropriate close for that AfD?

A: I believe that evidence and expert testimony is important in AfDs. Sometimes, users can’t really tell the difference between sense and nonsense in articles they don’t fully understand or articles with lesser-known topics. An article may seem like nonsense to a group of individuals who are clueless regarding the topic, but an expert can then come along and prove them wrong. If that is the case, the expert’s proof should then be analyzed to verify validity. Most of the time, voters change their votes after persuasive evidence is given, so the final result may very well be a keep. Even if the final tally still has more deletes than keeps, a good arguement still outweights the clueless ones, and keep should be the result.

F5 I notice you have that Wiki-DEFCON template thing on your userpage. Why is that?

A: I have the Wiki-DEFCON template on my user page since it’s helpful for me to know the current level of vandalism whenever I go to my user page.

Thanks, fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 02:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Optional question from Lar:

L1. (one big long question about categories of admins and your thoughts about them) Are you aware of the notion of adminstrators saying they're willing to be voluntarily recalled or reviewed, by a less onerous process than a new RfA (or worse) arbComm action? What do you think of the idea? Would you consider placing yourself (placement should only be done by oneself) in such a category if you were made an admin? Why or why not? Are you aware of the notion of Rouge admins? What do you think of the notion? Do you see it as purely humorous or do you see what it's driving at? Would you consider allowing yourself to by placed in this category (placement is traditionally done by someone else) if you were made an admin? Why or why not? (note: both these categories have some controversy attached to them, for different reasons, and note also, although I am a policy and process wonk I am in both categories, and finally, note that there is no wrong answer here...) ++Lar: t/c 21:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

A: I am aware of administrators saying that they're willing to be recalled. I think that the idea is okay. Through my past interactions with admins, I found them generally to be kind and helpful. But should an admin become uncivil or go amiss, appropriate actions should take place.

I am also aware of "Rouge admins". Honestly, I think that the category is more of a joke than a serious issue. I really don't mind if I'm added to the category or not should I become an admin. If others think I'm rouge, that's fine, let them add me. If not, that's fine too. As of now, I'm uncertain if I consider myself rouge. But we'll just have to wait and see.

Optional question from JamesTeterenko:

JT1. How would you react if your user page was vandalized? Under what circumstances would you block the offender? Is there anything else that you would do in this situation?

A: If my userpage is vandalized, I would deal with it pretty much the same way as I deal with vandalism on other pages or articles. Depending on the vandal, the page(s) vandalized, the warning(s) given, and the severity of the vandalism, I would take the appropriate action. Most of the time, vandals vandalize user pages after the user has given them a warning regarding their vandalism. If the average IP vandal has vandalized an article and received a test2(a)(-n), for example, I would probably follow up with a test3(a)(-n) (tpv for more targeted attacks). If he/she is on test3(a)(-n), a test4(a)(-n) would most likely follow. If he/she has vandalized (an) article(s) and received a bv(-n), I would probably still give a last warning, depending on the severity of the vandalism. If he/she is already on the last warning, a 24h block would be appropriate. (Of course, all of the warnings have to be recent. If they're from a long time ago, they wouldn't really count.) For repeated vandalism (I.e. Re-vandalizing after the block has expired), I’d probably first give the vandal a reminder warning. If he/she continues to vandalize, a longer block would be then given. For AOL or other shared IP ISP, shorter block times (I.e. 15 min.) will have to do. For obvious vandal accounts (I.e. Inappropriate username or all the edits have been vandalism), an immediate indef-vandal block would be performed.

Comments

Last 5000 edits.Voice-of-All 08:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Viewing contribution data for user GHe (over the 5000 edit(s) shown on this page) (FAQ)
Time range: 102 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 8hr (UTC) -- 04, Aug, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 22hr (UTC) -- 23, April, 2006
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 100% Minor edits: 100%
Average edits per day: 46.41 (for last 500 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 322 edits): Major article edits: 100% Minor article edits: 100%
Analysis of edits (out of all 5000 edits shown on this page and last 22 image uploads):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/major rewrites/sourcing): 0.02% (1)
Significant article edits (copyedits/small rewrites/content/reference additions): 0.32% (16)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 10.86% (543)
Superficial article edits marked as minor: 63.65%
Unique image uploads (non-deleted/reverts/updates): 9 (checks last 5000)
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 2161 | Average edits per page: 2.31 | Edits on top: 15.02%
Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 44.84% (2242 edit(s))
Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 26.04% (1302 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 28.44% (1422 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 0.08% (4 edit(s))
Edits by Misplaced Pages namespace:
Article: 31.46% (1573) | Article talk: 3.26% (163)
User: 8.9% (445) | User talk: 37.18% (1859)
Misplaced Pages: 13.14% (657) | Misplaced Pages talk: 0.68% (34)
Image: 0.66% (33)
Template: 4.1% (205)
Category: 0.12% (6)
Portal: 0.06% (3)
Help: 0.02% (1)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.42% (21)

• See GHe's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
• See GHe's _{(Talk ▪ Contributions ▪ Logs ▪ Block Logs)} contributions as of 00:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC) using Interiot's tool*:

Username GHe
Total edits 5795
Distinct pages edited 2255
Average edits/page 2.570
First edit 16:47, March 23, 2006
(main) 1736
Talk 168
User 785
User talk 2097
Image 31
Image talk 2
MediaWiki talk 5
Template 226
Template talk 14
Help 1
Category 6
Category talk 1
Misplaced Pages 681
Misplaced Pages talk 38
Portal 3
Portal talk 1

--Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 00:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

MisfitToys

Final (54/7/5) ended 22:44, 2006-08-07 (UTC)

MisfitToys (talk · contribs) – MisfitToys has been a valued contributor here since March 2004 and has more than 15,000 edits. Even though his wikipedia and user talk space edits are a bit low, he is a dedicated editor who copyedits or expands tons of articles , , fights vandalism , and helps new users out, . I think MisfitToys would be an excellent admin Jaranda 01:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: ACCEPT. MisfitToys 22:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: There are some areas such as articles needing categories and very large categories which I'd probably sort through; I've done a lot of past work in organizing categories - for instance, I created about half the subcats under Category:Baseball, and recently set up most of the subcats under Category:State elections in the United States. Articles needing context might be another area I'll work on. Not having referred many matters such as blocking/suspension requests or vandalism notices to admins myself, I'm not sure how adept I'd be at handling things in those areas; my experience is a bit limited. I'll probably also try to work on fixing vandalism and watching new pages for deletion, both of which I've worked on intermittently in the past. I've done a lot more work on copyediting and writing articles than on the administrative side, which is the main reason I've been somewhat reluctant when asked about adminship in the past.

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

A: My user page notes a lot of the articles I've worked on, with the ones to which I've made sizable contributions bolded. List of lifetime MLB hit leaders through history was a difficult project, and List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame (chronological) is now a featured list; I started most of the articles for Years in baseball. I think Baseball Hall of Fame balloting, 1946 is pretty good, as are some of the bios I wrote (Biz Mackey, Hank O'Day, Andy the Clown, and especially Sam Barry). Some of my more recent contributions have been to articles such as Gil Hodges and Joe Judge. I've tried to add a lot of material that puts data from primary sources into context, which I think is a primary strength of the articles. I know some of the articles (particularly older ones) need better citing of sources; I've been working on that lately.

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: In January I got into a long battle with an anon contributor over the USC Trojans football article; the arguments are here. More recently, I've gotten into a dispute with another contributor over the length of the 2005 in baseball article; that discussion is here, though I now see that the other user has been suspended a few times. I also got into a minor disagreement regarding the original research policy's intent/application at the 78th Academy Awards article. I've tried to double-check Misplaced Pages policies and be sure of my facts when I've gotten into these disputes, though I concede I've become a bit overheated a couple of times. But in general, I think I've tried to present my arguments as completely as possible, and I've invited comment from admins when I thought the debate was getting a bit entrenched (and I've usually just asked the admins to look at the discussion, without making my arguments directly).

Optional question from User:Themindset

4. Your mainspace edit count is quite high. How do you account for the relatively low amount of concurrent talk and usertalk edits?

A: I suppose I've done more work editing short articles into longer ones than I have on helping turn already sizable articles into truly great ones, so a lot of what I've worked on have not had existing talk pages or ongoing debates. Also, a lot of my edits have been of a copyediting/maintenance nature, which tend not to prompt much discussion, and a lot more have been toward improving links to more appropriate articles. I'll also note here that some voters have expressed concern that much of my work has focused on baseball articles, and they would hope that admins would be knowledgeable in more than one area. To that I would note that I've been one of the top 100 contributors to the Internet Movie Database for each of the last four years, and I'm also on the advisory committee for The Political Graveyard, to which I've also contributed. (Those who are determined to do so may no doubt figure out my name by cross-checking the pages.) Yes, there are other areas to which I'd like to contribute, but there's only so much time. MisfitToys 21:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Optional question from Alphachimp

5. Can you please enable email?

A: Done. MisfitToys 01:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Question from tariqabjotu (joturner)

6. You mention in your answer to question one that you have been involved in fighting vandals in the past. However, I couldn't find any warning templates added to user talk pages. Can you point me to some evidence of that vandal-fighting? Thanks in advance. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 03:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

A: Well, it's mostly been catching things as they come up rather than devoting blocks of time to vandalism, but here are a couple of commendations from last year; the first was for a series of Willie on Wheels page moves that I reverted quickly. MisfitToys 21:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Optional question from Lar:

7. (one big long question about categories of admins and your thoughts about them) Are you aware of the notion of adminstrators saying they're willing to be voluntarily recalled or reviewed, by a less onerous process than a new RfA (or worse) arbComm action? What do you think of the idea? Would you consider placing yourself (placement should only be done by oneself) in such a category if you were made an admin? Why or why not? Are you aware of the notion of Rouge admins? What do you think of the notion? Do you see it as purely humorous or do you see what it's driving at? Would you consider allowing yourself to by placed in this category (placement is traditionally done by someone else) if you were made an admin? Why or why not? (note: both these categories have some controversy attached to them, for different reasons, and note also, although I am a policy and process wonk I am in both categories, and finally, note that there is no wrong answer here...) ++Lar: t/c 21:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

A: I suppose I would consider placing myself in the first category if other users found my conduct as an admin objectionable, though I don't believe I'd do it right away if I'm confirmed. From my own answers and the concerns posted below, however, it seems everyone believes there's a greater likelihood that I'll not use the admin tools enough, rather than using them too much or indiscriminately. As to the second category, I primarily see it as humor but also recognize the point being made. I suppose if someone wanted to put me in there, I'd be surprised - but probably wouldn't object. MisfitToys 01:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• See MisfitToys's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
• Edit count (wow) care of Interiot's Tool 2. alphaChimp 22:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Username MisfitToys
Total edits 22069
Distinct pages edited 10884
Average edits/page 2.028
First edit 16:48, March 25, 2004
(main) 19931
Talk 311
User 365
User talk 207
Image 8
Template 128
Template talk 12
Category 527
Category talk 7
Misplaced Pages 564
Misplaced Pages talk 7
Portal 2

Support

1. Weak Support I would, of course, like to see quite a few more edits on a variety of pages (talk and Misplaced Pages, as noted above). Michael 22:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
2. Support. He's honest and obviously a dedicated, thoughtful contributor. He's been here since 2004, will likely be here for quite some time longer. I'd be pleased to see him as an admin. alphaChimp 23:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
3. Support. Though I agree with the low edit counts in the two noted namespaces, this user seems to be a great candidate, with over 10,000 distinct pages edited. Kalani 23:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
4. Support as nom Jaranda 23:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
5. Clearly won't abuse tools. --W.marsh 23:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
6. Support per nominator. --Shane 23:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

   Could you clarify your comment? alphaChimp 23:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

   Done. :) --Shane 23:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

7. Support per nom. --Tuspm 23:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
8. Support Long time editor, tons and tons of work, seems good. User admits, and from question 1 I'd agree that he doesn't have much need for the tools for what he does, but surely someone who's done this much won't abuse them, and any admin work they do is better than none. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 23:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
9. Support Rama's arrow 23:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
10. Support per nom. G.He 23:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
11. Support - BT 00:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
12. Merovingian - Talk 01:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
13. Edit Conflict Support - after 22000 edits on 10000 distinct articles pages, in my book he doesn't need significant Project space edits for me to be sure he'll be a good admin. If he was going to be a problem admin, it would have been apparent long ago. -- I@n 02:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
14. Support 20000+edits... wow. Total yes. Viva La Vie Boheme
15. Support, why not? Stifle (talk) 02:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
16. They tell me you're a terrific editor. Please stay an editor. I pledge to fulfill all your admin requests ASAP. I am supporting you because I am sure you will not abuse the tools, though I don't think you'll help us too much with backlogs either, and besides, we have plenty of non-creative drones who can't write to save their lives (read, me) whose job it should be clear the backlog in CAT:CSD or Special:Shortpages. So I respectfully support - and suggest withdrawal. - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
17. Support mind-boggling number of edits. Content specialists are a good idea and just because there's no immediate need for the tools doesn't mean they won't be useful to him. Opabinia regalis 04:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
18. Support no big deal and I can't see him misusing the extra buttons hoopydink 08:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
19. Weak support, won't abuse the tools, but I'm unsure of the need for the tools. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you'll find a task to do, given your astounding record in the mainspace. RandyWang (/_{review me!}) 08:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
20. Support — FireFox _{12:28, 01 August '06}
21. Support. Great editor. No reason to think he will misuse the tools. -- DS1953 14:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
22. Support looks good to me.--Kungfu Adam 15:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
23. Support Stubbleboy 17:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
24. Support. - Mailer Diablo 18:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
25. Support, you don't stick around for two productive years without knowledge of how things work. In particular I'm voting here because of the reasons given to oppose. Since some tools just make it easier to edit, experienced editors should have access to those tools. If people want admins to be "policemen" then they should form a new level of admin defined to do that. That isn't what admins are for now. Those opposition votes seem directly counter to the idea that admins don't have special authority compared to non-admins. SchmuckyTheCat 19:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
26. Support It is time to give him the mop. --Siva1979 20:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
27. Support, a slam dunk, err, home run, eh... nevermind. --CharlotteWebb 22:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
28. Support per above. —Khoikhoi 23:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
29. Strong support per Schmucky and inasmuch as, quoting myself (a neutral and reliable source, to be sure) from the current Rmrfstar RfA, inasmuch as it really matters not that a candidate will use the tools infrequently where one can be certain the candidate would not abuse the tools or, in ignorance of policy or in view of an indecorous or unilateral streak, misuse–even avolitionally–the tools. One need not to worry, I think, about Rmrfstar's acting irresponsibly, and he surely appreciates how properly an admin ought to conduct himself, both inter-personally and vis-à-vis consensus (recognizing, notably, that an admin acts only to interpret the views of the community and to implement whatever action it is behind which a consensus lies). Joe 01:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
30. Support, demonstrates understanding of policy through application. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
31. Support -- strong editor, will make an excellent admin. -- No Guru 03:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
32. Support of course. — Deckiller 06:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
33. Strong Support - in my view, it should never be forgotten that we are writing an encyclopedia, and all the rest is only subsidiary. I simply don't see any reasons for not making him an admin.--Aldux 11:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
34. Very Weak Support: The edits and longevity are astounding, but... what makes me worried are the low use of summaries, (user) talk participation and Misplaced Pages activity. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 13:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
35. Support Low use of summaries doesn't bother me when held against other deeds. TruthCrusader 16:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
36. Support - strong editor, great history of adding to wikipedia. Kukini 16:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
37. Support. If any of his numbers seem low, that is only in respect to his massive contributions to the mainspace, which should not be held against him. He satisfies my criteria and his answer to my question (#4) satisfies me completely. Good luck. Themindset 21:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
38. Support - hard working editors make good admins. abakharev 23:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
39. Support per Joe. Would have like to see more AfD and RCPatrol. COntributions offset. :) Dlohcierekim 00:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
40. Support per the rest. --Ghirla 15:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
41. Support, from his contributions and his answers, I don't see a reason to believe he'd abuse or misuse the tools. Clearly stating what he would or wouldn't be confident doing shows maturity and trustworthiness to me. - Bobet 17:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
42. Non-main namespace edits are a useful indicator of experience and familiarity with common practice, when there is evidence to the contrary. When it is clear that we do have an intelligent editor with good judgment and experience, and much good work in the encyclopedia (where it should be), then to oppose based on numbers is absurd. Dmcdevit·t 20:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
43. Support --Ed (Edgar181) 17:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
44. Support. Mildly surprised he's not an admin already. I don't see how low edit counts in other namespaces should be counted as a negative, unless there were some other indications that there might be a problem. older ≠ wiser 19:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
45. Support as my standards met and no significant rationale to oppose (incivility, vandalism, etc.). I'm a little puzzled by the allegations the user spends too much time editing articles, that's why we're here. Ifnord 23:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
46. Support per Joe—WAvegetarian•(talk) 09:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
47. Support: --Bhadani 11:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
48. Support: --SynergeticMaggot 16:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
49. Support per all of above. Newyorkbrad 18:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
50. I see no possibility of abusing AdminPowers™ Highway 22:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
51. Good user who deserves the tools. JYolkowski // talk 23:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
52. Candidate will find out about how being an admin is different in his/her own time. It's an interesting ride. Support. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
53. Support - 20,000 edits should exceed anyone's standards. --CFIF (talk to me) 17:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
54. Support looks like a good candidate Semperf 18:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose This user is a fantastic editor and has made invaluable edits to this project. However, the administrative aspect is a completely different side of Misplaced Pages and not a "promotion," or an "upgrade" from being a "common user." I don't believe there is a need for the tools, since once you get admin status (and you are interested in doing the chores required), you can't assist on the level of articles, you need to focus on the whole scope. The answer to question one shows a lack of knowledge of what being an admin entitles, I also really don't like reading, "I've done a lot more work on copyediting and writing articles than on the administrative side, which is the main reason I've been somewhat reluctant when asked about adminship in the past." Sorry, I don't want to seem like I am bashing this user, but this request isn't needed since there really isn't a request for the tools. Yanksox 02:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

   Why do you say you can't "assist on the level of articles" once an admin? I think I'm probably just interpreting that differently than you mean, but it seems like... why not? -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 03:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

   I did alot of Copy editing before I was an admin, but I am slowly realizing that you can't spend your time doing that when you have alot of other admin tasks that need ot be done. There is a never ending backlog at CAT:CSD, once an admin, if you want to be a productive admin, you can't keep editing articles. You need to act like a policeman-type. The nominee hasn't given me any reason to support this request for the additional tools. Yanksox 03:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

   Wouldn't we be better off with more admins who clearly aren't going to abuse the tools? If we only promote people who are going to make 5,000 deletions a month or whatever... that just seems really short-sighted. Misplaced Pages is about a lot of people doing a bit, rather than a few people making herculean efforts (that just leads to burnout anyway). Even if he just makes 20 admin actions a month, that's better than him making 0. --W.marsh 03:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

   • Reading "once you get admin status..., you can't assist on the level of articles" and "if you want to be a productive admin, you can't keep editing articles. You need to act like a policeman-type." made me almost fall on the floor. No, becoming an admin does not obligate you to drop your normal tasks to do the never ending backlog you mention. Indeed, I don't really want admins who do not appreciate that admin tasks should not become your total focus once you become an admin. I want admins who can routinely step back and let other admins do the admin work for a while, and never lose touch with normal editing tasks. Adminship is not an all or nothing thing, don't give up being a user to become a full time admin. NoSeptember 12:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

   I went on a bit of an off topic tangent, I guess what I really am trying to get to is the fact that the candidate is an excellent editor and a great asess to the project. However, I don't think he fits the role of what I perfer an admin to be. I don't mind or care if an admin edits articles and contributes. What I meant to say is that I care if a substancial part of what they do isn't helping in admin tasks since other users can't assist there. This is just based upon a few days of me being one of the newest SysOps, but I believe a need for the tools and confidence in the user's ability to be a solid admin is there. I'd rather not support for now. Yanksox 21:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

   Oppose 22,000 edits is astounding, but the WP: edit count is too low. And it's not just the number that I don't like, it's more so the distribution. Most are towards Misplaced Pages:Requested articles/sports, Misplaced Pages:Find-A-Grave famous people, Misplaced Pages:Non-unique personal name, and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Matt Hollowell (see WP: contributions). Perhaps more importantly, there are few talk and user talk edits, which may demonstrate lack of communication skills. In a sample of the few talk edits available, I did see a bit of impatience (, ) as well as biting a newcomer by repeatedly telling someone to sign his/her posts without actually explaining how to do it (see Talk:USC Trojans football#Titles won). I do also echo Yanksox's sentiments about that statement in the nomination. Nevertheless, I'm more than willing to change my mind (at least to neutral) if some of the support voters can provide me with evidence that these issues are atypical, but so far I see mostly comments on the immense number of edits. One can be a wonderful, dedicated editor, but not be ready for adminship. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 02:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

   I don't see how wikipedia edits would affect a canitdate, he clearly won't abuse the tools though and we need more specialist admins. Jaranda 02:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

   In what are you suggesting MisfitToys is specialized? -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 02:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

   MisfitToys is one of our top baseball editors, and we need more admins that knows about one subject. Jaranda 02:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

   Why do you think that? I don't see how being knowledgeable in one subject would make someone a better admin. I'm, of course, not opposing on those grounds, but I'm curious; that just seems like a non sequitur. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 02:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

   Not to speak for Jaranda, but - because they're more familiar with the community of editors that focus on a particular family of articles, and because they're more able to distinguish a real correction from a well-intentioned but erroneous edit from subtle vandalism in their area of expertise. Opabinia regalis 04:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

   I have a week to think about it, and the answer to my question above would help too. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 04:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

2. Oppose Per Jo above. His percentage of Misplaced Pages project space edits, at just over 2.5% is a bit too low for my liking I must admit. I would very happily support in the future when the user imporves his amount of Misplaced Pages project space activity. --Wisden17 14:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose for two reasons - I'm not convinced he needs the tools, and his edit summary usage is poor. He is a very active editor, and that is great; but I don't think we need any more marginally active admins. This oppose vote is not meant to impugn the editor at all; I hope he keeps up all the great work (and starts using edit summaries). --Aguerriero (talk) 15:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

   Yes, I've been working on that (particularly since this nudge in March. MisfitToys 18:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

4. Oppose. Sorry, MisfitToys, but there just isn't a good enough balance of edits: 207 user talk and 311 article talk in well over two years shows almost no community interaction; and seven edits to project talk shows no discussion about policies or guidelines. SlimVirgin 01:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose More non-article space activity, please. Attic Owl 15:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose per above --Masssiveego 07:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose A great editor, but not enough evidence of the need for admin tools or experience in those areas. -- Mike Christie 17:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Until questions are answered.--Andeh 06:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

   Sticking after reading answers and reasons under Oppose.--Andeh 08:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

2. Neutral Seems like an excellent editor, but unfortunately answers do not seem to require admin tools. If you were to complete some active RCP and some other participation on WP: then I will be happy to support if you run for admin again. And of course admins can still participate in article contributions, as the idea is that they are still normal users, but they also have the duty to participate in the wider scale of Misplaced Pages. Seivad 11:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Neutral WP space edits are a bit on the low side and it seems like he wouldn't use admin tools much. Roy A.A. 21:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Neutral per my comments in the oppose section, but the user doesn't appear untrustworthy. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 17:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Neutral I find it really doubtfull that you will missuse the tools, but I also doubt that you especially need them. YOu seem to be a fantastic editor and we can never have too many of them. Keep up the good work. Viridae 07:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

SynergeticMaggot

Final (32/31/5) Ended 20:55, 2006-08-06 (UTC)

SynergeticMaggot (talk · contribs) – SynergeticMaggot very much reminds me of my early days on Misplaced Pages - A hardworking janitor devoting a lot of his time welcoming and helping newcomers, doing stub-cleanups, and vandal-fighting. He has also shown much interest in the sysop process of Articles for Deletion, being concerned of a possible backlog has started discussion on the feasability for non-sysops to take over part of the job. Personally I think it'd be better if he were to actually hold the mop and bucket. :) - Mailer Diablo 18:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the mop and bucket. SynergeticMaggot 20:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: In a word, backlogs, although I think I'd enjoy doing all of them. Most improtantly, taking care of all xfD's(WP:MfD's, WP:SFD's, WP:TFD's, WP:RFD's, WP:IFD's, WP:CFD's, and lets not forget my fav., WP:AfD's ), copyvio's, speedy deletes, moves, blocks, protects, unprotects, help via WP:RAA, and watching all the important or semi-important pages that admins watch (such as WP:AN, WP:ANI, WP:AIV, etc. etc.). I'll also continue to do my normal chores and various projects I am currently in (if I have time mind you, admin tasks might prove to keep me busy but who knows, I love to keep busy), such as recent changes patrol, new pages patrol, welcoming committee, mediation cabal, stub sorting and stub removing, and counter-vandalism unit (please note that I prefer not to call it fighting vandalism, just fixing minor or the usual mistakes made by new users or unfamiliar editors). Also I'd continue to help others through IRC wikipedia-bootcamp, help desk, and contributors' help page, as I'm a member of Concordia and Esperanza. Plus I'm just starting out in advocating, and I've created a WikiProject called WikiProject Occult that I'm looking forward to getting it off the ground.

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

A: Anything I do I take pride in on Misplaced Pages, so I guess anything I listed in the above response under currect projects. As for contributing via non backlog means, I think I'm most proud of my additions to Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (rewrote from scratch) with the help of Hanuman Das, saving Stella Matutina from deletion by sourcing the whole article and expaning, and anything else found here. I'm also please I was able to help other admins on AfD, by closing a few (all of my closes:here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and 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: My past conflicts between other editors usually result in friendships. I'd be naive to assume I would never run into them again on similar article topics. When I first started editing, I ran into conflict on the Aleister Crowley articles talk page. Although it caused me stress, I have since left this behind and started anew with dispute resolution by becoming a med. cabalist. This allows me to see both sides of a conflict with much clarity, and also allows me a venue to help. So in other words, no users now cause me stress now. :p But I'm not sure that any editors/users can say that they havent been in a conflict. But if they havent, I applaud them for their capabilities of never being in one, and making sense to other editors who have strong feelings about an article they wish to edit, without it resulting in reverts. These are true role models for Misplaced Pages.

Comments

All user's edits.Voice-of-All 00:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Viewing contribution data for user SynergeticMaggot (over the 4605 edit(s) shown on this page) (FAQ)
Time range: 99 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 0hr (UTC) -- 31, Jul, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 19hr (UTC) -- 22, April, 2006
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 100% Minor edits: 87.09%
Average edits per day: 249.57 (for last 500 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 588 edits): Major article edits: 100% Minor article edits: 99.83%
Analysis of edits (out of all 4605 edits shown on this page and last 0 image uploads):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/major rewrites/sourcing): 0.28% (13)
Significant article edits (copyedits/small rewrites/content/reference additions): 0.74% (34)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 32.01% (1474)
Superficial article edits marked as minor: 85.67%
Unique image uploads (non-deleted/reverts/updates): 0 (checks last 5000)
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 2380 | Average edits per page: 1.93 | Edits on top: 26.95%
Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 11.31% (521 edit(s))
Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 40.76% (1877 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 6.43% (296 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 35.59% (1639 edit(s))
Edits by Misplaced Pages namespace:
Article: 43.97% (2025) | Article talk: 18.74% (863)
User: 2.84% (131) | User talk: 14.68% (676)
Misplaced Pages: 18.37% (846) | Misplaced Pages talk: 1.26% (58)
Image: 0% (0)
Template: 0% (0)
Category: 0.04% (2)
Portal: 0% (0)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.09% (4)

• See SynergeticMaggot's _{(Talk ▪ Contributions ▪ Logs ▪ Block Logs)} contributions as of 20:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC) using Interiot's tool*:

Username SynergeticMaggot
Total edits 4585
Distinct pages edited 2372
Average edits/page 1.933
First edit 15:47, April 22, 2006
(main) 2017
Talk 859
User 130
User talk 674
Category 2
Category talk 4
Misplaced Pages 841
Misplaced Pages talk 58

• See SynergeticMaggot's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
• I have other comments I'd like to make, but I'm unsure if I can leave them here, so if someone who has more experience with these requests see's this, please move it! I'd like to thank Mailer diablo for nominating me, as it was very unexpected. I've also been looking over RfA for some time now, and know that there are optional questions, so bring them on! :p

Support

1. Support - works well with other editors even during disputes, discusses thoroughly on talk pages, is open to other editors' positions and sometimes evem changes his position based on well-reasoned arguments. I think I introduced him to AfDs and since then have seen him take on all kinds of tasks beyond what the average newer editor usually does. —Hanuman Das 20:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Rama's arrow 20:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
3. Support I trust the nominator, and see nothing wrong with this user after a cursory glance of their work. RandyWang (/_{review me!}) 20:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
4. Support I originally voted "oppose" on the basis of inexperience, but in viewing the candidates talk page contributions, I found several examples of exceptional skill and maturity, especially in dealing with conflicts, such as this thread. I have found enough knowledge of policy, and enough demonstration of capability for me to ignore my usually high standards for time with the project. Good luck, AdamBiswanger1 21:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
5. Support. Great contributor, even if most of your contributions are to minor cleanup. Roy A.A. 21:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

   Support yet another "I thought you already were" vote from me. Viridae 23:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC) Changed to Oppose because the cadidate arguing with the oppose votes. Viridae 00:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

   Support The nominee really could help us out significantly with the extra admin tools. Three months and four thousand edits is certainly enough, as long as the nominee demonstrates understanding of how things work, dedication, and trust. I don't see anything that makes me think otherwise. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 23:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

6. Support. SynergeticMaggot clearly has both the desire and the ability to help us out, the answers to the questions are good also. I fail to see how we would benefit from making him wait for adminship, he is ready for it now. Rje 23:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
7. Support Even though this user hasn't been registered for 5 months (as stated in my standards), they have accomplished a lot in their short time here. --Tuspm 00:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
8. Support I think he is very skilled in nominating unnecessary articles for deletion. The greatest man in the universe 05:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

   This is User:'sed an admitted sockpuppet account of indef banned User:1028 as well as co-operator of a joint account User:The Breakfast Club. Gwernol 10:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

9. Support per Hanuman Das. Joe 05:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
10. Nominator's support, I almost forgot. =P - Mailer Diablo 10:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
11. Support As a new member on Misplaced Pages, I'm impressed by the way he has contributed and helped the newbies. From some of my experiences, he always improves my articles and warn me (not straight to delete it) which is good so I can improve it rather than lose it. So I'm a newbie and I see he is very helpful especially for the newbies and I'm sure he will be a good admin. I also think, quality is more important than quantity, so his time on wiki and the number of edits are not that important (although it is still important), but the most important thing is how he can contribute and help the others with his somewhat small number of edits. -- Imoeng 11:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
12. Support. I've seen this user around a bit and I'm convinced that this user would make a good admin. DarthVader 13:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
13. Support excellent contributor for just a 3 month stay, brilliant vandal bopper. Would do well with the tools, although it would be even better if you slowed down just a touch (which you say you've done) in response to what was brought up down below. --james 13:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
14. Support I agree with most, if not all, of the positive comments above. -999 (Talk) 14:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
15. Support. Looks good to me.--Kungfu Adam 15:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
16. Support. Looks like a hard-working and dedicated editor, and extremely unlikely to abuse the tools. I see a few incidents of growing pains, but I can't begrudge anyone those. --Aguerriero (talk) 16:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
17. Support. A tireless contributor, SynergeticMaggot, despite having had made a couple of mistakes in the past and being a relatively new editor, would most likely not abuse admin powers. --Gray Porpoise 19:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
18. Support He has almost 5k edits, how can this not be enough for some people?? He also seems like a good user, so we should be happy to hand over the mop. Seivad 11:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
19. Support — FireFox _{12:28, 01 August '06}

    Support Stubbleboy 17:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC) Changed to neutral vote. Stubbleboy 19:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

20. Support A good contributor. --Siva1979 20:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
21. Support per above. Very sensible person, good for AfDs especially. --Musaabdulrashid 00:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
22. Support Whilst we've had our differences they've generally been personable and productive dialogues. This user is certainly developing and could use the admin role usefully.ALR 13:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
23. Support a hardworking editor who already knows his way around. Kimchi.sg 17:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
24. Support If Mailer trusts him, so do I. Here's to getting out of Singapore. Karmafist 20:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
25. Support per nom. Ryūlóng 20:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
26. Support Good users make good admins. I've had some dealings with SM and I'm glad he's running... just a little sad he won't make it this time around. ---J.S (t|c) 01:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
27. Support: I am sure all intelligent editors would learn! He does not have to learn about theory of relativity, but few policies of wikipedia. Yes, I agree that learning to twist the policies would be difficult! --Bhadani 11:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
28. Support Industrious and capable. I have no objection to the username.--Runcorn 17:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
29. Support per above, plus appreciation for his having just answered my WP:help question within two minutes of my having posted it. Since consensus is not going to be reached, urge candidate to continue as an active editor, address issues raised by oppose and neutral voters, and re-apply down the trail. No comment on username, but if you do change it, let us know. Newyorkbrad 18:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
30. Support very efficent, clears through backlogs like a bulldozer. Yes he is new, but he knows the policy fairly well, and what he does not know he is willing to listen to others. (saw on IRC) —— Eagle (ask me for help) 00:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
31. Support why not? Semperf 18:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
32. Support. From what I've seen of him, I think he's a pretty high quality guy. Nobody is perfect, and I've appreciated his help in times past. I realize this probably won't succeed, but I'd just like to register that opinion. alphaChimp 19:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose Has been here only 3 months, and just about 99% of the last 500 mainspace edits are minor. However this seems to be part of an extensive project. Certainly this user would be a fantastic candidate in a few months, but I cannot ignore time with the project, because time here shows a determination and unwilting interest. Very, very good user, but I'm not so blown away so as to ignore the inexperience. AdamBiswanger1 20:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC) Moved to Support AdamBiswanger1 21:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

1. Oppose I'm sorry, but this candidate seems too new. Three months is really not long enough, esp. considering edit count. However, this candidate should, indeed, be re-submitted in the future when he has more experience. Michael 21:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

   Comment. Forgive me for asking, but I'd like to know what constitutes as experience here? Is it just that I have only been here for 3 months? Or is it that I dont have experience in such tasks equivalent to that of which an admin does? Also I thank you for your decision and look forward to the clarification :) SynergeticMaggot 21:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

   Comment. Having been a Wikipedian for three months really does not give one a full range of experiences. I've been on just a bit longer than you and have approximately the same number of edits. Considering such as well as your experience with your limited experience with many of the technicalities of Misplaced Pages, I think it would be best for you to re-submit in the future, at which time I am certain you will pass through. Right now seems a bit too soon, and I'd like to see just a bit more experience. I would be happy to support your RfA in the future, but I just do not feel you are quite ready yet. Michael

   I don't think that the time matters so much when you make a high number of edits in a short amount of time (as long as they are involved in all aspects of the encyclopedia) what makes someone who has less edits but has been here for a lot longer more experienced? I have noticed SM involed in a variety of areas accross the encyclopedia, obviously picking up a lot on the way. Speaking as a fellow high volume editor, I have no qualms supporting SM because I know just how much you can pick up in a short amount of time. I think that as long as SM has been involved in all aspects, he could not have got this far without knowing policy because he would have been pulled up on it by those he came accross in his travels in the encyclopedia Viridae 23:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

   I'm afraid the problem with that is the idea of having a large amount of edits in a small time. When voting in the RfA, I usually like to see that a candidate has maintained having a large amount of quality edits over a more extended period, thus illustrating a deeper devotion indicated by both time and involvement on Misplaced Pages. Michael 01:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

   Understood. But the reason I have a large amount of edits in a small time is because I take care of backlogs, and I do this fast. Just wanted to clarify this :) SynergeticMaggot 01:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

   Weak Oppose You are a good contributor and editor but I would like to see someone who has been registered to Misplaced Pages for at least 5-6 months (as stated in my standards). --Tuspm 21:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC) Changed to Support --Tuspm 00:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

2. Weak Oppose per Mike 7 and my own experience and what I see around here.Voice-of-All 00:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose sorry, but back in June there were some worrying conversations on your talk page. For example suggesting that you'd only change your confusing signature when you ran for adminship or the mediation cabal. That seems to imply you were aware that this was wrong but would only change it when you believed it was in your self-interest. Later there is this where you say you are going to recreate an article that you are aware fails WP:BIO because you consider guidelines like this something you have to "submit to". You have improved, but these are still relatively recent and you have a habit of resorting to borderline incivil comments such as this. All together these add up to an oppose from me, although with more time I could see supporting you in the future. Gwernol 02:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

   Comment. I believe I've cleared this up on Gwernol's talk page. SynergeticMaggot 10:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

   See my response at on the candidate's talk page. I do not consider this "cleared up" and my oppose remains unchanged. Gwernol 11:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

   And I have made an additional response now. Although I never wished to change the decision, but I somehow feel I have to respond to a number of misunderstandings in other places. Is there not somewhere else I can discuss these with others? SynergeticMaggot 11:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

   Its entirely appropriate for you to respond, and I agree that this discussion is valuable to more than just you and I. Probably the best place to continue it is on this RfA's talk page. Gwernol 11:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

   (the conversation referred to has been moved, with permnission, the this RfA's talk page) Gwernol 12:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

4. Oppose. Uses non-admin rollback equivalent for edits that are not vandalism. Sends vandalism warnings in content disputes. Those templates are for warning anons or newly-registered vandals who may not be aware of the blocking policy. They are not intended for established editors during a disagreement over article content. And a would-be admin should know to subst those templates if he is using them. Also, I don't care for this edit. Since you know King Vegita in real life, that comment, if absolutely necessary, could have been made in private. AnnH ♫ 07:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose. Needs more time on the 'pedia. 1ne 22:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

   Comment. He was neither offended by it, nor complained about it, yet apologized for what he has said about me on WP:AN. As for giving warnings to him using the test templates...When I did that, it did not say I couldnt use it for the purpose I used it for. But JKelly cleared this up for me. Also, I've commented below about my few mistakes (5 out of a possible 90 accurate vandal reverts) using VandalProof in the Neutral section below. I've also discussed the matter with a moderator of VP on irc channel WP-bootcamp. He has informed me that they are in fact common mistakes that will be fixed in a newer version. SynergeticMaggot 10:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

   Oops. I just realized that those were content dispute diff's. This was also cleared up by JKelly. Please ignore what I previously said, I had thought that the diff's represented mistakes I had made on recent changes patrol that were cleared up. My apologies. SynergeticMaggot 10:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

   As others have also objected to this edit, for the sake of fairness, I'd like to clarify something. Obviously, posting details that could identify another editor in real life is a complete no-no; but I do not consider that that happened in this case. The user in question gives his real name on his user page, along with other personal details, and links to his Myspace profile, which gives more details. SynergeticMaggot did not add any information that would suddenly make it possible for a stalker to track down someone's identiy; it was more a case of some silly bickering between two users who know each other in real life — nothing more. AnnH ♫ 12:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

6. Oppose per the others above. I don't think it's time yet. --Lord Deskana (talk) 07:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose I feel this RfA is a bit premature. hoopydink 09:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
8. Weak Oppose "Oppose" per AnnH, especially the misuse of vandalism templates. Would support in future after more experience, assuming he tempers the behavior observed by AnnH and others above (also see Andeh's perceptive "Neutral" comment below) --A. B. 10:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

   Comment: The question came up on the talk page about a checkuser I requested on SynergeticMaggot and other editors in connection with an AfD that was flooded with apparent sockpuppets at the last minute. SynergeticMaggot was cleared. I cannot emphasize enough that this should not be held against him. Someone else happened to unleash what turned out mostly to have been meat puppets/brand new editors voting the same way he voted. It was a pure coincidence in his case. --A. B. 20:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

9. Per Gwernol's notes and the mis use of VP. Sorry, Highway 16:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
10. Oppose per above. Also, I have to add that I do not like the idea of having an admin, who is often perceived as an authority figure on Misplaced Pages, with a name of "Maggot". Admins need to set good examples, and be aware of the fact that they are often perceived as representatives of Misplaced Pages culture. Having a pseudonym is one thing, but in my mind, this particular name goes a bit too far, sorry. As such, I would be more comfortable if he created a different handle first. --Elonka 16:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
11. Changing to Oppose per VP concerns - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

    Weak Support waiving my criteria. - CrazyRussian talk/email 22:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

12. Oppose. Premature. I usually think an admin should have one year of wikipedia presence, or six months at a minimum for exceptional cases. Three months is too short and the inexperience is manifested in some of the diffs and AN/I messages recently involving the candidate. --JJay 17:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
13. Sorry, must oppose. Not confident that nom has a good understanding of Misplaced Pages policy and guidelines. 1. Nom marks all edits as minor, and argues that usage is correct per policy. See comments in top thread on this RFA talk page. IMO, few if any of nom's edits should be marked minor. Clearly these edits should be marked major. 2. On July 27, 2006, nom spams talk pages for support of a proposal. 3. Per concerns raised by AnnH, which do not actually involve mishaps with VP as some other oppose comment indicate. FloNight 19:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

    Comment. Taking this up on talk page.

14. Oppose per pretty much everything that's been said above. -- Steel 20:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
15. Oppose per evidence of need to learn more of wikipedia policy and guidelines, as well as problems noted above. Kukini 21:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
16. Oppose, too new. Tom Harrison 23:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
17. Oppose per use of VandalProof and odd patterns of marking edits as minor. I understand that marking edits as minor is a matter of personal judgement, but that's not a good judgement call. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 01:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
18. Oppose per AnnH. Stifle (talk) 02:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
19. Oppose. I have concerns about the maturity and general Wiki-fu of this candidate, in light of the behaviour AnnH has dug up, and his comments here and on the talkpage. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 06:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
20. Oppose per the above. --HResearcher 09:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
21. Oppose. SynergeticMaggot would be a good administrator in the future, but he is not ready for the job yet.KV(Talk) 11:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
    1. Comment. SynergeticMaggot has both good and bad qualities. He certainly has developped in his three months the technical proficiency to be an administrator, involving himself in just about every aspect of Misplaced Pages. He knows AfD, the administrator noticeboard, most of the Misplaced Pages policies, and other things an administrator should have. However, he lacks the spirit of Misplaced Pages and has recently used this proficiency to convince me to stop editting for Misplaced Pages. He is an ardent deletionist and has opted to use Misplaced Pages procedures such as AfD rather than work with his opposition to improve the article. When many large chunks of text were deleted without discussion, I reverted, and he accused this of being vandalism to the point of actually threatening blocking without being an administrator. That certainly wasn't good faith. I can vouch that he is not the same as 999, as I have known 999 to edit while SynergeticMaggot was not at the computer. However, since their original skirmishes, they have been working together to get articles they don't like deleted rather than improved. I have faith that one day he will see the err of his ways, but until he does and actually works to improve Misplaced Pages articles rather than just get them deleted, it would be a bad move for Misplaced Pages to honor him with this.KV(Talk) 11:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
22. Oppose (I could've sworn I'd already done this yesterday, but I think I was having trouble connecting to WP at the time.) I'm really not concerned with how long SynergeticMaggot has been editing on WP, as I think that can be (although is not always) an unfair criteria. However, I am very concerned with his interactions with other users, I am in no way convinced that the user fully understands WP's policies and guidelines, and marking pretty much every edit as minor is... odd. In particular, Gwernol and AnnH bring up some important points that need to be addressed. -- Kicking222 15:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

    Would you mind giving diffs on the talk page. I'm supposed to be taking these as things to work on. Although I cant see what I've done wrong by you if you dont show me :) Thanks. SynergeticMaggot 15:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

23. Weak oppose, username worries me a bit. --CharlotteWebb 22:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
24. Oppose. I don't think 3 months is long enough, plus there are too many concerning diffs above that are just too recent to overlook. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
25. Oppose: This user is far too new to be considered an admin. Even 74% for major edit summaries is not enough. And where are the rest of the namespace contribs?! --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 14:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
26. Oppose I love his edits, but he is too new, according to my critia. If you put him up in a month I'll support him. --Kitia
27. Oppose: My original encouters with this user were positive, in administrative comments that indicated a reasonable, new user. So, though I was surprised to see an RfA so soon, I was favorably compelled to investigate the user further. Before that, however, newly arrived on an (ancillary) Misplaced Pages IRC channel, he proceeded to try to give me what I can only describe as an abrasive lecture first on article content disputes and, more surprisingly, on how this low-traffic and otherwise friendly channel ought to be run, and then again the next day. I find his comments there, here, and others brought up here to raise flags on civility and AGF. They also indicate a rather peculiar view of policies and practices: whereas he seems to consider the letter of policy to be inviolate and beyond any independent judgment, he also seems to think that matters not fully and explicitly covered in a Policy page are open to whatever personal notions, regardless of long-standing practice and reasonable implications of existing guidelines. His responses to hypothetical questions on the RfA talk page do not relieve these concerns and otherwise show some unfamiliarity with Misplaced Pages workings. Such concerns and unfamiliarity in combination with brief tenure and my examination of edits lead me to believe that this user must have more experience before being given the keys. —Centrx→talk • 23:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

    I didnt seem to understand most of this, but will address any further unofficial optional questions (I believe you gave me 5 of these) on the talk page. I also changed the counter for you. SynergeticMaggot 00:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

28. Opposeper AnnH. Marginal on time and edits, but appears unready for the tools. :) Dlohcierekim 00:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
29. Oppose per personal attack at the bottom of the page. And the attack is incorrect, as I only changed my vote once from oppose to neutral. Stubbleboy 23:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
30. Oppose, still doesn't see the need to have changed his signature, argumentative with opposers (and even neutrals) here, marking far too many edits as minor, has only been here three months. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
31. Oppose. Changed from Support because the candidate keeps arguing with the oppose votes. Viridae 00:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral obviously a hard worker, the stuff mentioned under oppose by AnnH were just silly mistakes that is caused by using VP at high speeds. User needs to slow down a little, and understand that having arguments across WP to users whom you personally know should be avoided and ignored. Should wait a little longer (3 months?) and re-apply. I can't support due to the confrontation with a user they know in real life, yet I can't oppose because they obviously have good intentions for WP, and time isn't everything.--Andeh 09:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

   Comment. Yeah. I had in fact slowed down once I made 5 mistakes out of around 80-85 accurate reverts from vandals. All mistakes were cleared up and I have receieved no warnings. SynergeticMaggot 10:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

   I know, i've had the same problem. Which is why I stopped using VP for now as it doesn't beat manual rc patrol. ;) I don't suggest you withdraw your RfA just yet as you may get some helpful criticism to act upon to ensure your next RfA passes (assuming you will try again). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andypandy.UK (talk • contribs)

   Oh I wont be withdrawing! Mailer might have to pull me away :p Also, I adding the unsigned for your comment. Thanks, if i'm rejected I will in fact be self nom'ing myself. SynergeticMaggot 14:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

2. Neutral, I would love to vote support but in my dealings with this user I had one niggle: I was the mediator in the Medcab case Golden Dawn tradition (SynergeticMaggot was not involved in this case) which was highly complicated on a very complicated subject. In fairness a certain user was the only one at fault however I was able to get both sides of the story and was working out a way for everyone to be happy. I left for a 2 day holiday (informing the participants of this) and when I returned SynergeticMaggot had merged the disputed article into Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. In fairness this was probably a good solution however I saw no discussion that had taken place over the merge and no agreement to it - he was lucky the dispute did not follow the merge. This was all very well and good however what I found slightly annoying (although I am sure he did not intend it that way) was that he had closed the mediation in my absense and did not even inform me, either of the merge or closing the case, on my talk page, on my talk page. I would worry that given admin tools SynergeticMaggot would perform correct and prudent admin functions but without taking the time to notify any users who may wish to know. - I was informed that my impression of events is incorrect, I apologise to SynergticMaggot and am retracting both my comments and my vote as I feel it would be unfair for me to vote. --Errant Tmorton166(Review me) 22:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
   1. Comment Also I am put off by the users comments here and here as they suggest an inability to accept constructive criticism and opinions. --Errant Tmorton166(Review me) 12:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

   Response. I apologize that no one informed you about the merger. I had suspected that someone already did, and closed the case. Why leave a case open when it was merged already? Mind you, the case was left open far too long, the merge had taken place weeks ago, and not by me (also there was discussion on the talk page about the merger). Since then I have rewrote the artilce, heavily citing my sources, and no further disputes have arose. I just figured you had forgotten to close the case, and did it for you in a kind gesture. Again, my apologizes and best wishes, you never can tell if a cabalist is MIA. Although you did not however, adress this concern with me before this RfA :) And please explain on the talk page of this RfA what exactly you dislike about my comments, and which ones. SynergeticMaggot 12:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

   Actually, I did that merge. SynergeticMaggot simply reported it in the mediation case. -999 (Talk) 14:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

   Here is the link if anyone wishes to view it. SynergeticMaggot 15:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

3. Neutral. Does not meet my criteria of 6 months. As this is the only criteria missed, and everything else looks great, I will support on reapplication in October. Themindset 19:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
4. Neutral: seems reasonable person, but some mistakes are due to inexperience. Would prefer to see a period without mistakes like these before supporting. Stephen B Streater 21:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
5. Neutral: per Stephen B Streater --Guinnog 14:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Neutral: leaning towards support with more time. Stubbleboy 17:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

1. Thank you for contributing to my RfA. Although I'd like to point out that you changed your decision three times now. Please review the full RfA before doing this again. Thank you. :) SynergeticMaggot 19:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Changing my vote to oppose per the above personal attack. Perhaps you should review the policy WP:BITE. Thanks! :-) Stubbleboy 23:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• You interpreted that as me biting? SynergeticMaggot 00:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Actually yes I do, and apparently I wasn't the only one per the recent oppose votes above. Thanks! Stubbleboy 00:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Well I think you are wrong. I kindly directed you to carfully review this RfA, due to your constant decison changing. My apologies if you still feel I bit you. As I was told, you have to have thick skin on Misplaced Pages. SynergeticMaggot 00:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• You said "please review the full RFA before doing this again." So I made a mistake, was told about it on my userpage, and corrected it. Besides, there is no rule against changing your vote on an RFA. And yes you should change your username, as a Maggot is a term for the larval stage of the fly life cycle, famous for eating decomposing flesh. Stubbleboy 00:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Which of course is symbolic. I don't expect you to understand it, but if you wished to know more, you should check out WikiProject Occult and my newly created Portal:Occult. A statement that covers why a maggot is preferred to a butterfly (i.e. SynergeticButterfly , plus it doesnt have a good ring to it) can be attained after reading the first "...Did you know?" (I also just created Portal:Thelema) Anyhow, have a nice night. :p SynergeticMaggot 01:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• You don't expect "me" to understand it. So if you don't expect "me" to understand it, please keep in mind that "they" probably won't understand it either at first glance. No one is going to research your username before quickly drawing a conclusion, true? I rest my case. Stubbleboy 05:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• I dont expect anyone to care what my username means, but if you are going to take an issue over it, you could at least read my userpage. Its specified there. The real issue here is whether its offensive or not. And thats a no. SynergeticMaggot 05:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Crazycomputers

Final (55/13/5) Ended 19:35, 2006-08-06 (UTC)

Crazycomputers (talk · contribs) – A classic Wikignome. Generally I like to stay out of the spotlight and help tidy up Misplaced Pages. Recently my interest in RC patrol has grown, which is where I spend most of my time. (Also I develop tools to make this process more efficient.) I still do the occasional edit on an article, clarifying information, fixing spelling, and so on.

My self nomination is due to how often I see WP:AIV pile up, with few, if any, admins attending to it, leaving me to have no recourse but revert, revert, revert. I'm not a fantastic editor by any stretch, but I believe that I would greatly assist with the defense of Misplaced Pages from intentional vandals, and helping to inform users who don't know better about Misplaced Pages policy, and guide them as new, constructive editors.

When it comes to knowledge of policy, I am quite familiar with the specifics of vandalism: what is, what isn't, how to deal with it, etc. If I do act in other categories of adminship it will only be after a thourough review of relevant policies. I am aware that most people will want admins who know as much policy as possible, but I feel that I would be spreading myself too thin were I to try to learn "everything." In short, I know the policies I will be acting on most, and when I do act somewhere else, I know where to find the policy I will be acting on.

Ultimately, I intend to uphold community consensus, whether I agree with it or not. I am here as part of the community and to support its decisions. --Chris (talk) 16:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Accept, self-nom. --Chris (talk) 16:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Note: I will be leaving on vacation Friday, 2006-08-04. I will try to check in periodically, but I will be unable to devote any considerable time to Misplaced Pages for the duration of my trip (~3 weeks). As a result, I may not be able repond to questions between Friday and the closing of this vote. --Chris (talk) 14:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it turns out that my grandparents got DSL. I brought my computer to do some work on, so I should be even more active here than ever. --Chris (talk) 01:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Odd twice edit-conflicted Weak Support I like the fact that you're willing to spend some of your valuable time monitoring WP:AIV (you're a very active participator at AIV, which I also liked) and I appreciated and enjoyed your rather honest self-analysis. Based on that, you seem have a very level-head, a trait I highly value in administrators. The only thing that prevents me from strongly supporting your request is that you admittedly don't write or add much information to articles, which is our primary reason for being Wikipedians. hoopydink 17:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

   The way I prefer to look at is that I deal with the ugly stuff so the people who can actually write well can do their job with minimal interruption. =) I do agree with you though; I would like to be more involved with editing, bit since it's not one of my strengths, I help out where I can. --Chris (talk) 17:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

   Again, I appreciate and am quite amazed by your ability to know your strengths. The "ugly stuff" as you put it is quite necessary and is something that I imagine well prepares one for becoming an administrator as much of the administrator duties are also grunt work. The bit about the article writing is just another important thing that I feel is good preparation for adminship as well. Thanks for commenting! hoopydink 18:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

2. Support in good faith. You've done some valuable work. A sober and experienced editor. Rama's arrow 17:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
3. Support While you do have a low number of Misplaced Pages space edits, you still meet my standards. --Tuspm 17:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
4. Support. - Mailer Diablo 17:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
5. Why-is-this-section-at-the-bottom-and-the-questions-and-answers-at-top?-support! Misza13 18:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

   The almighty template made it so! --Chris (talk) 18:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

6. Support. Why not? Roy A.A. 19:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
7. Support --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 19:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
8. Support. G.He 19:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
9. Support Looks good. KOS | talk 19:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
10. Support. Crazycomputers has proved himself to be a very good RC patroller, his acceptance that he is not necessarily up to scratch on all of our policies stands him in good stead - a willingness to learn is far better than a delusional belief in one's ability any day. Rje 19:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
11. Support His prices are INSANE!!!!! TruthCrusader 19:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

    That from I Can't Watch This? (Or some show mentioned therein?) --Chris (talk) 20:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

    No its the tag line for the old Crazy Eddie tv commercials circa late 70's mid 80's TruthCrusader 07:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

    Ah, I wonder if that's what Al is referencing. --Chris (talk) 07:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

12. Support per nom. Michael 21:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
13. Support with absolutely 100% NO cliches! I swear I'm going to get VandalSniper running, I really am. --james 22:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
14. Support - editcount is useles for basically everything, looks great to me -- Tawker 00:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
15. Support support of course of course good vandalfighter, good programmer Crazynas 02:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
16. Support - very good! --Bigtop 03:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
17. Support. Zaxem 03:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
18. Merovingian - Talk 06:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
19. Weak Support I get the impression the user mostly wants admin to fight vandalism, does that bother me? Not particularly, yet the answers to my questions didn't blow me off my feet nor shock me. I can't see the user doing anything mad/destructive with admin, though I have to weak support as I believe the user only wants to close AfDs after they've got a bit of experience. As the user has quite a bit of experience vandal fighting, I've looked at their edits and had to agree with the actions taken in most cases. And I have to agree with the nom, I also sick of giving vandals {{test4}}, they continue and I report them and 30+ minutes later they are finally blocked, or not blocked because it's too late and they've stopped vandalising. I suspect the user will be a fine addition to the anti-vandalism force. Charge! --Andeh 10:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
20. Support. DarthVader 13:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
21. Support - A good user. Iolakana| 15:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
22. Support. — FireFox _{18:11, 31 July '06}
23. Support per Hoopydink and inasmuch as deliberative and cordial demeanor, combined with his sense that admins are not infallible and act only to interpret (and subsequent to act on) the wishes of the community, make him altogether unlikely to abuse or misuse the tools. Joe 19:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
24. Support. Giving this vandal-hunter the tools to block vandals will be good for the overall project and is sufficient justification for giving him the map-and-pail. Bucketsofg✐ 20:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
25. 1ne 22:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
26. Support A good user who has a need for the admin tools and shouldn't abuse them. Knows his shortcomings and can learn to overcome them on the job. Eluchil404 23:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
27. Support - My concerns about article edits are balanced by his RC patroling and VandalSniper. Tom Harrison 00:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
28. Support no worries here --rogerd 02:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
29. Support self-nom shows a committed honest user. Seivad 11:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
30. Weak Support per AndyPandyUK --Guinnog 14:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
31. Pepsidrinka supports. 16:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
32. Support good vandal fighter. Stubbleboy 17:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
33. Support. Good editor, unlikely to misuse tools. -- DS1953 17:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
34. Support A good vandal fighter. --Siva1979 20:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
35. Support. Meets my criteria. Would have liked to see more XfD experience, but I don't see you misusing the tools. BryanG 21:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
36. Support per nom. —Khoikhoi 23:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
37. Support I respect someone who knows his strengths and weaknesses, and declares his intent and purpose upfront without ambiguity. We can't all be prolific authors. There's enough work to go around for everyone. Give the guy a mop. Baseball,Baby! 05:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
38. <?php echo("Support"); ?> WP: edits could be more varied, but his contributions to AIV are valued and I'm not afraid he will abuse the admin tools. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 14:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
39. Support Blnguyen | rant-line 01:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
40. Support He always uses vandaltool to revert all vandals on articles in Misplaced Pages, and deserves to be an admin. *~Daniel~* ☎ 01:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
41. Support as per most of the above Betacommand 02:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
42. Support --Jay(Reply) 17:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
43. Support. Won;t abuse tools. End of story. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 05:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
44. Support --Ed (Edgar181) 17:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
45. Support Looks good to me. --Tom 02:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
46. Support: edits look consistent (mostly vandal fighting). Looks trustworthy to me. Stephen B Streater 07:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
47. Support will be more effective with tools—WAvegetarian•(talk) 09:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
48. Support: Better than many of us! --Bhadani 11:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
49. Support per above. A candidate doesn't need to intend to use every tool. Newyorkbrad 19:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
50. Support makes some good points countering oppose votes --Robdurbar 21:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
51. He won't abuse the tools, Highway 21:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
52. Support I am convinced by the balance of the arguments.--Runcorn 22:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
53. Support. He'll do well. Czj 22:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
54. Support per all of the above. SynergeticMaggot 00:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
55. Weakish Support You seem very eager to help and are willing to help out with alot of needed tasks. I would like to see you take it slow or get in contact with a vet of somekind to ease into the role. I do, however, think the tools will be put to good use. Yanksox 03:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

    I had already registered at Misplaced Pages:Esperanza/Programs/Admin coaching. I think coaching will help me expand into other areas of adminship quicker and more easily. --Chris (talk) 17:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose per WP: editcount. - CrazyRussian talk/email 23:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

   Editcountitis is fatal. 1ne 22:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

   Ja... your call is important to us... please leave a message... - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

   I have posted counter points to the ones made here in the comment section. (Just thought I would point that out as the last few votes don't appear to have taken them into account.) --Chris (talk) 22:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

2. Oppose per Crzrussian AdamBiswanger1 12:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose Relatively low number of wikispace edits suggests a lack of familiarity with process. Xoloz 15:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose as per Xoloz, unfortunately. -- Миборовский 18:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose per WP space edits and his own comments about infamilliarity with some policies. Reading up on a policy 5 minutes before enforcing it as the official face of Misplaced Pages is not good enough in my book. Great vandal fighter though. -- Steel 18:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose while I could pass the WP edits some, I don't really see much in the case of article writing which the answer for number 2 leads me to. This is an encyclopedia first, I'll support in a later date with more article edits as you are an excellent vandal fighter. Jaranda 18:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose as per Xoloz. Thumbelina 22:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
8. Weak oppose, lack of Misplaced Pages namespace edits signifies a probable lack of process knowledge. Stifle (talk) 02:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose. The applicant says he is interested in stopping vandalism. If this is true, then he should be more involved with AfD. Bots can pick up a large amount of the normal vandalism. The vandal-articles are another thing. The only way to understand this process is to participate in hundreds of AfD debates -- really! It wasn't until I had done that myself that I understood it (and not just Delete per nom -- really get involved). It doesn't take too long to get that under the belt. Come back when you have and we can have a look-see again. Ted/_{Contributions} 23:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

   Bots pick up maybe 25% -- if that. (Rough estimate.) And that's being generous. --Chris (talk) 03:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

10. Oppose per lack of exposure to community; too inexperienced to be adequately assessed.--cj | talk 03:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
11. Oppose per above --Masssiveego 07:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
12. Oppose; I can't support a user who would nominate himself knowing that he'd be going on vacation three days before the end of the request. Ral315 (talk) 02:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

    I didn't know. My parents were finalizing the schedule early this week. The nom was Sunday, and it wasn't until Monday night that we knew we were leaving this week. We originally thought it might be this coming Monday. I regret that the timing worked out this badly, but I did not have prior knowledge that this would be tha case. --Chris (talk) 04:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

    Ral, despite how much I love the project, I personally would let other matters come before it. I think opposing under this circumstance is a little ridiculous. It doesn't quite click to oppose for one matter when he could have a full career of quality use of the tools. RfA is a general request where we try to get a consensus on if the tools would be used or abused. Denying a request on the basis of not being able to be around for a few days seems just not sensical. Yanksox 05:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

    I really don't understand how we can oppose someone on the grounds of his real life. Life comes at you, and it obviously bears a little bit more priority than Misplaced Pages (however cool it is). I'd respectfully ask you to reconsider your vote. alphaChimp 05:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

    I understand that things come before Misplaced Pages. Chris' comment is enough for me to withdraw my opinion, but for what it's worth, I do believe a candidate shouldn't leave knowing that they won't be there for half the nom. Ral315 (talk) 16:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

13. Oppose per CrazyRussian and others. A lack of familiarity with the process as a whole and a lack of time spent on the project seem to indicate that this RfA is a bit premature. --Vengeful Cynic 14:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral. VandalSniper is an amazing tool, and you should certainly be commended for your excellent work on it. I'm just a little bit troubled by your Misplaced Pages space contribs matching up with the admin tasks you are interested in - specifically, closing WP:AFD debates. You have a somewhat limited involvement in AFD. alphaChimp 17:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

   Sorry, I should have been a bit more clear on that. When I enter a new category of adminship I intend to get my feet wet first; that is, I will participate more in AfD before starting to close things. Because I will admit right now I don't even know how to close things =) --Chris (talk) 17:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

   Thanks for the courteous response. Closing AfDs isn't that hard. I'm going to keep my vote neutral because of that issue, but please don't take it the wrong way. alphaChimp 17:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

   Nah, I'm generally pretty hard to offend. Thanks for your comments. --Chris (talk) 17:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

2. Neutral on the same basis as Alphachimp; Low WP-space edits, while not an enormous issue, just makes me unsure of how to vote here. Can't oppose, not completely confident to support. Sorry. :( RandyWang (/_{review me!}) 20:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
3. Neutral. Falls short of my standards. Namely, needs more article talk edits. Will support on the next go around if this editor displays more article-interaction (we are, after all, here to build an encyclopedia). Themindset 16:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
4. Neutral you've got some good vandal fighting powers, but would like to see more contribution to the rest of the project related areas. — xaosflux 02:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Neutral: I'm torn as to whether he'll be good with the mop, or he'll wait a few more months for renomination. This is because of the scenario about the the talkspace and Misplaced Pages edits. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 13:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: Mostly monitoring of WP:AIV and other channels of vandalism information (IRC, etc), and occasionally sort through C:CSD and WP:AfD. I will be happy to serve in whatever capacity is required, though I will try to stick to WP:CVU related matters, as I believe I will be most effective there. My reasons are explained in my self-nom.

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

A: VandalSniper, definately. I don't have a lot of "article-writing" edits ( is the last one I can recall... oh and I dealt with moving Yahoo! 360º to Yahoo! 360°), but for the area I am focusing on I don't see this lack as a problem.

Oh, and the fun case of Mitch Modeleski. I tried, with some other editors, to help this person find an alternative route to resolving his dispute, instead of legal threats, and evetually sent it to WP:ANI. (It's archived somewhere.) --Chris (talk) 17:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

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

A: Not really. One case on RC patrol comes to mind. I always assume good faith from what appear to be vandals until they have proven that they do not intend to comply with policy. I usually ignore users who insult me (though sometimes I do reply -- it's hard to tell sometimes what is trolling and what isn't); I act on the faith that the community is behind my actions and will support me. Getting stressed doesn't help me, so if I feel pressure (which isn't that often) I take a break and do something else for a while.

However, as an admin, I am aware that the attacks and conflicts will only become more frequent and convoluted. But as I stated, when I act in what I believe is established consensus, I feel little need to defend my actions against others (though I will be prepared to do so if the community feels it necessary).

Optional Question from Yanksox

4. Could you elaborate further on Vandalsniper, it's use in the 'pedia, and how it came to be? Yanksox 04:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

A: VandalSniper was started out of my desire to have a VandalProof-like tool for Linux, my desktop platform. I'm not a big fan of using things like Wine, so (as a programmer myself), I thought it would be neat to write something that would run on Linux natively. I chose Mono and Gtk# mainly because I hadn't used them before and wanted to learn, and because I don't particularly like using C for GUI things. Using Mono also means that it's theoretically cross-platform automatically.

In the process of development I came up with some ideas for features beyond what VandalProof provided -- which is a benefit of having used it and making a mental wishlist.

If you like, you can read the revision history. (Dates of releases are in the page history.) There are currently 15 registered users not counting me, though right now the only person who seems to have got it running is User:Omicronpersei8. This is probably due to the fact that it doesn't yet run on Windows (something beyond my control at the moment), and he uses Linux too. --Chris (talk) 05:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Java would work Macs, Windows and Linux. Stephen B Streater 07:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

C# does too. There are CLRs for most major platforms. The problem right now is that GTK+ 2.8 isn't available an Windows or OS X. --Chris (talk) 01:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Optional Question from Andeh

5. As you have little experience on AfDs and by the sounds of it you intend to learn before closing any as an admin. I created a fake Afd HERE. Of course this isn't a subsitute for a real AfD but should help me decide whether to support or not. The dates are real including article creation time, signature dates etc but the user whom created the article is a complete newbie under the name of "wikimananana" and is the users first and only edit :P. Should the article be speedy deleted? Should you wait longer? Please explain your action(s) and why. There isn't a 100% wrong answer here, as it's mainly based on judgement and common sense.

A: Speedy per nom. Several Google searches do not even remotely support the contents of the article as it is written. If notability and verifiability of this person exists somewhere, it would do better as a complete rewrite anyway; the article doesn't contain anything accurate from what I can tell. --Chris (talk) 09:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

6. which part(s) of WP:CSD makes the article a candidate for speedy deletion? --Andeh 09:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

A: Maybe this is showing my current state of ignorance regarding AfD. I was under the impression that a "speedy" in the context of AfD was somehow different; basically the administrator applying common sense to the issue at hand not necessarily one of the CSD.

Looking back on AfDs I have been involved in, the majority of speedies do specify a CSD criteria, though some do not (here, here, and here). This may be where I picked up that notion, but if it is incorrect then the obvious answer to #5 is wait out the five days -- and then delete when (not if) that consensus is formed. =) --Chris (talk) 09:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment I'll leave the dummy AfD and article in my userspace until your RfA is over encase any other editors want to see it before casting their voting.--Andeh 10:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems that WP:SNOW may apply to this as well.... just a thought. --Chris (talk) 04:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Optional question from Lar:

7. (one big long question about categories of admins and your thoughts about them) Are you aware of the notion of adminstrators saying they're willing to be voluntarily recalled or reviewed, by a less onerous process than a new RfA (or worse) arbComm action? What do you think of the idea? Would you consider placing yourself (placement should only be done by oneself) in such a category if you were made an admin? Why or why not? Are you aware of the notion of Rouge admins? What do you think of the notion? Do you see it as purely humorous or do you see what it's driving at? Would you consider allowing yourself to by placed in this category (placement is traditionally done by someone else) if you were made an admin? Why or why not? (note: both these categories have some controversy attached to them, for different reasons, and note also, although I am a policy and process wonk I am in both categories, and finally, note that there is no wrong answer here...) ++Lar: t/c 21:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

A: I was not aware of such a category, but I was pondering suggesting that if the vote is borderline based on mainly oppose-based-on-WP:-editcount votes that I would be put in such a position as you describe... a more or less informal checkup being done on me periodically. I have no objection to the idea at all, and if in my case adminship depended on such an idea then I welcome it. Being monitored does not at all impede my goal of RC patrol. --Chris (talk) 21:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• See Crazycomputers's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
• You don't have email enabled, and it's an important part of being an admin. Could you possibly do that? alphaChimp 17:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Whoops, I thought it was on. It's enabled, thanks for pointing that out. --Chris (talk) 17:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

All user's edits.Voice-of-All 18:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Viewing contribution data for user Crazycomputers (over the 3762 edit(s) shown on this page) (FAQ)
Time range: 443 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 18hr (UTC) -- 30, Jul, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 7hr (UTC) -- 13, April, 2005
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 92.2% Minor edits: 99.42%
Average edits per day: 49.86 (for last 500 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 398 edits): Major article edits: 87.5% Minor article edits: 99.74%
Analysis of edits (out of all 3762 edits shown on this page and last 5 image uploads):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/major rewrites/sourcing): 0.05% (2)
Significant article edits (copyedits/small rewrites/content/reference additions): 0.61% (23)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 9.36% (352)
Superficial article edits marked as minor: 31.71%
Unique image uploads (non-deleted/reverts/updates): 5 (checks last 5000)
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 2385 | Average edits per page: 1.58 | Edits on top: 19.4%
Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 44.71% (1682 edit(s))
Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 9.09% (342 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 40.62% (1528 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 5.34% (201 edit(s))
Edits by Misplaced Pages namespace:
Article: 43.99% (1655) | Article talk: 3.3% (124)
User: 10.55% (397) | User talk: 33.39% (1256)
Misplaced Pages: 6.94% (261) | Misplaced Pages talk: 0.16% (6)
Image: 0.51% (19)
Template: 0.56% (21)
Category: 0.19% (7)
Portal: 0.05% (2)
Help: 0.03% (1)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.35% (13)

Crazycomputers (talk · contribs)'s edit count using Interiot's Tool2:

Username Crazycomputers
Total edits 3775
Distinct pages edited 2388
Average edits/page 1.581
First edit 01:42, April 13, 2005
(main) 1655
Talk 124
User 402
User talk 1264
Image 19
Image talk 1
Template 21
Template talk 10
Help 1
Category 7
Category talk 2
Misplaced Pages 261
Misplaced Pages talk 6
Portal 2

--Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 19:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• I am beginning to wonder where I failed to communicate my intentions, as most of the oppose/neutral votes seem to completely discount everything I've said, or turn it against me. Please allow me to counter these points:
  • "Relatively low number of wikispace edits suggests a lack of familiarity with process." (Comment from Xoloz but used by others).
    • I mention one specific goal that I have for becoming an admin: defending Misplaced Pages against vandalism, as I frequently see vandals getting away with several final warnings because there is no admin on. If you look at my edits in this matter, I think you will find that they conform well to Misplaced Pages's vandalism policies.
    • I did certainly mention that I might "occasionally sort through C:CSD and WP:AfD." But I also said immediately afterwards: "I will try to stick to WP:CVU related matters, as I believe I will be most effective there." If I do get involved with anything not related to RC patrol, it will be after observing and participating on the level of a user.
    • So I fail to see the point made by this opposition. In fact I am unsure how to remedy it. Shall I scour the WP namespace looking for typos and ways to tidy up pages to increase my WP: edit count? What is it that you're looking for? Obviously not just edits in WP:, as they are apparently supposed to represent some kind of knowledge about Misplaced Pages processes. But what if I've read a ton of WP: pages (which I have)? Where does that get tallied up? I apologize if these questions seem out of line, but I'm really not sure what to do with these oppose votes.
  • "Reading up on a policy 5 minutes before enforcing it as the official face of Misplaced Pages is not good enough in my book." (Comment from Steel).
    • This I attribute to a lack of communication on my part. I didn't mean that I'll be stepping over to dispute resolution, glance at the policy, and apply it. As said in my last point, I intend to familiarize myself with the processes by being involved with them on a non-admin level before starting to decide cases. (Though dispute resolution isn't something I fancy I'll be doing much, but eventually it could happen.) As stated (frequently) I intend to RC patrol and monitor AIV 99% of the time I'm here. So again, I don't see the point of this objection.
  • "I don't really see much in the case of article writing which the answer for number 2 leads me to." (Comment from Jaranda).
    • My response to the first support vote: "The way I prefer to look at is that I deal with the ugly stuff so the people who can actually write well can do their job with minimal interruption. =) I do agree with you though; I would like to be more involved with editing, bit since it's not one of my strengths, I help out where I can." I am not good at editing. You probably don't want me making massive edits to articles. Again, as my stated goal is to better Misplaced Pages by dealing with unpleasant elements of it so the editors can do their job better, I am again left sitting here asking myself what to do about these concerns. Shall I attempt editing, using up more time and energy on one article than a trained writer will take on five articles, to prove that I am somehow a capable writer, so I can meet this criteria, finally pass a nomination, and then return to 99% RC patrol? Must I pass the 1FA test?
  • Forgive me if I am sounding uncivil or uncool. It's not my intention. But I need you to consider my points, and if you don't accept them, help me understand why. Because I don't have a whole lot to go on right now. --Chris (talk) 20:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • After reading my comments through, I notice that there is one common thread across the votes I am citing: I don't do enough different things. But I ask what the value is of requiring candidates to be competent at everything -- my time is better spent doing things that I am good at. I get the feeling that there is a lot of worry that I will misapply policies in other areas. But generally speaking I don't want to be involved in a lot of things. I want to get out my mop and polish one or two areas of Misplaced Pages until they shine. I want to focus my energy where it is best applied. We have other admins who are good at dispute resolution (for example) and the like, but not great at RC patrol. Generally, RC patrol doesn't require a whole lot of debate, discussion, and "process." The application of these requirements in this department will be very difficult to pass. --Chris (talk) 20:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

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

About RfB

• WP:RFB

Requests for bureaucratship (RfB) is the process by which the Misplaced Pages community decides who will become bureaucrats. Bureaucrats can make other users administrators or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here, and remove administrator rights in limited circumstances. They can also grant or remove bot status on an account.

The process for bureaucrats is similar to that for adminship above; however the expectation for promotion to bureaucratship is significantly higher than for admin, requiring a clearer consensus. In general, the threshold for consensus is somewhere around 85%. Bureaucrats are expected to determine consensus in difficult cases and be ready to explain their decisions.

Create a new RfB page as you would for an RfA, and insert

{{subst:RfB|User=Username|Description=Your description of the candidate. ~~~~}}

into it, then answer the questions. New bureaucrats are recorded at Misplaced Pages:Successful bureaucratship candidacies. Failed nominations are at Misplaced Pages:Unsuccessful bureaucratship candidacies.

At minimum, study what is expected of a bureaucrat by reading discussions at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship including the recent archives, before seeking this position.

While canvassing for support is often viewed negatively by the community, some users find it helpful to place the neutrally worded {{RfX-notice|b}} on their userpages – this is generally not seen as canvassing. Like requests for adminship, requests for bureaucratship are advertised on the watchlist and on Template:Centralized discussion.

Please add new requests at the top of the section immediately below this line.

Current nominations for bureaucratship

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 at Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approvals.
• Requests for comment on possible misuse of sysop privileges
• A summary of rejected proposals for de-adminship processes, as well as a list of past cases of de-adminship, may be found at Misplaced Pages:Requests for de-adminship

If this page doesn't update properly, either clear your cache or click here to purge the server's cache.

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

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