Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:37, 9 September 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 the community consensus and the Arbitration Commitee rulings by protecting or deleting pages and applying sanctions to users.

About RfA

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

Nomination standards

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

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

Nominations

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

Notice of RfA

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

Expressing opinions

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion, decision, and closing procedures

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

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

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

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

Monitors

• WP:MONITOR

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

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 tallies in the headers when contributing.

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

Robth

Final (52/2/5) Ended Thu, 14 Sep 2006 20:03:28 UTC

Robth (talk · contribs) – Robth is a great user here. He's very involved in cleanup work, and he's done some great writing. In particular, his work at WP:CP would be enhanced if he had the ability to delete copyright violations. In tricky situations, he's shown himself to be balanced, restrained, and tactful. He's a great asset to the project, and I don't believe he would abuse his admin abilities.– Quadell 13:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you, Quadell. I accept. Thanks in advance to everyone for your consideration. --Robth 19:22, 7 September 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: Working the back end (tagged for a year or more) of the cleanup queue has been, as Quadell noted above, the source of most of my experience with maintenance type work; it's taught me how to spot speedy deletion and prod candidates (since the deletion of something that's been cleanup tagged for a year is rarely controversial, I tend to use AFD only for weird cases), and given me a nose for copyright violations; I've also been lending a hand at WP:CP recently, dealing with entries there that don't require administrative tools to resolve. This being the case, I would anticipate working on deletion, helping with clearing out prod categories when their time comes and with keeping the backlogs at C:CSD and WP:CP under control. The delete button would also be occasionally convenient while working on the cleanup queue, since speedy deletion candidates do pop up there from time to time.

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

A: I'm fond of a number of ancient Greece articles I've worked on, but Epaminondas in particular stands out. It took a good amount of help from more experienced writers to get it into its current condition, as I was quite new and inexperienced when I wrote it, but perhaps because of that newness it's--I don't quite know what to call it--zippier, livelier, than most of what I've written since. If it had pages, it would be a page turner; as is, I guess it's a "scrollbar-clicker" or something.

On a very different note, I'm also pleased with articles like Badan Intelijen Nasional, a respectable little stub that I was able to carve out of a massive, unusable essay that I found on the cleanup queue, in spite of knowing little to nothing about the subject.

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

A: I've been around a few conflicts, but haven't really been in conflict with anyone myself. One of the (few) advantages of communicating through an online medium like wikipedia is that you always have plenty of time to think before you type, and I take care to use that time well. As a result, I think I've been a positive influence in a few heated discussions; recently, I helped defuse a tense situation at Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Pericles. I'll continue to take the same approach in the future.

Comments

• See Robth's edit count on the talk page
• See Robth's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.

Robth's editcount statistics from Interiot's tool. (aeropagitica) 20:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• I see that my low participation in *FDs is, quite reasonably, a concern for some people. (By the count on my watchlist, I have commented on less than an a dozen AfDs and TfDs combined.) To make it clear, I assure you that, if promoted, I won't do anything so darned foolish as running off and starting to close *fDs; Misplaced Pages is large, and that's an area I haven't spent time in; I'll make sure to stick to what I'm confident I can do a good job at. --Robth 06:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Support per nom - good vandal fighter. Michael 19:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
2. Support positive experinces with him Jaranda 20:15,7 September 2006 (UTC)
3. Support Answers to questions, edit summaries in contributions and statistics show that this user would use the admin tools sensibly. (aeropagitica) 20:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
4. Support An excellent editor who is already active in important admin-chore areas. --Jay(Reply) 20:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
5. Support, diligent and considerate, an excellent editor in every respect. Kirill Lokshin 20:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
6. Support. Excellent editor, who I believe would not abuse his admin tools. --Nishkid64 20:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
7. Support Great candidate; has been around for quite a while, is obviously a trusted member of the community, and is willing to help out on a large backlog in WP:CP hoopydink 21:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
8. Support I've seen him around - enthusiastic and very helpful editor. And he's willing to help out at a backlog that needs attention.--Konstable 22:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
9. Support, but I'd like to see more involvement in the Misplaced Pages space in the future. Daveydweeb (/_patch) 00:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

   I support Robth so much, I supported him twice. Or something. ;) Anyway, I just removed my second support, since he pointed out my mistake. Daveydweeb (/_patch) 09:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

10. Support - per nom and decent upload log --T-rex 00:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
11. Support per nom. —Khoikhoi 00:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
12. Support WP:CP !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! alphaChimp 01:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
13. Merovingian - Talk 01:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
14. Support AdamBiswanger1_{R.I.P. Steve Irwin} 02:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
15. Support Small number of AfD's is a concern, but I had a look at them and found them well-reasoned, with various instances where other editors seconded his opinion. No concerns there, and everything else I've seen is beyond reproach. ~ trialsanderrors 06:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
16. Support One of the best editors in Misplaced Pages. If he wants it, he deserves to be an administrator.--Yannismarou 06:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
17. Support. - Mailer Diablo 09:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
18. Support - My interactions have always been positive and I feel he/she would do a great job as an admin. InvictaHOG 10:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
19. Weak Support. Lack of AfD participation normally precludes a support. However, user is a respectable and reasonable person, and I believe s/he will neither intentionall abuse the tools nor get into situations where s/he may come to unintentionally misuse them. - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
20. Support - Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 17:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
21. Support. Having the know-how to deal with WP:CP = definite support. -- Steel 18:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
22. Support 3FA. WP:CP :) Dlohcierekim 18:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
23. Support Quality contributor, just be careful about XfDs.-- danntm _C 20:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
24. Support Can be trusted and will use tools in less looked at areas of the 'pedia. Yanksox 21:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
25. Support per Yanksox and others above. Has made valuable contributions and can use the tools effectively. No one area of activity should be a sine qua non for adminship. Newyorkbrad 22:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
26. Support per above. ⇒ SWATJester Aim _Fire! 23:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
27. Support Rama's arrow 00:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
28. Support. Let's see. Does great anti-vandalism work. AGF. Seems quite reasonable in all other cases. -- RM 01:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
29. Strong Support. Great editor, with whom it is a pleasure to work.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 02:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
30. Support per above. --Gray Porpoise 02:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
31. Support Must. Crush. Copyright. Backlog. BaseballBaby 03:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
32. Support meets the critera of Tawkerbot -- Tawker 04:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
33. Support. The attitude of the candidate is admirable, and having more people who don't just spend all their time on RC patrol is a good thing. Batmanand | Talk 13:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
34. Support We definitely need more people to deal with copyright stuff. XfD participation doesn't bother me; he said himself that he doesn't plan to close them. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 15:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
35. Support great editor; has done a lot of work on WP:CP--TBCTaLk?!? 20:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
36. Very Strong Support Like Robth, I take much interest in ancient Greek topics; and I still remember my satisfaction when he started writing his brilliant articles, especially on periods partly ignored by wikipedia like the 4th century BC. Robth would be, IMO, the perfect admin., with his great expertise and a guarantee of remaining well anchored to the namespace.--Aldux 21:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
37. Support. Given that he's not planning to close XfDs immediately and wants to work on the copyright backlog, I see no reason why not. BryanG 04:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
38. Support per WP:BULL -- Samir धर्म 10:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
39. Support. — FireFox  _{11:32, 10 September 2006}
40. Support. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
41. Support The minor lack in AfD isn't reflective of any lack of participation or knowledge about WP, Tewfik 02:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
42. Support Per above. Knows about WP, despite afd. Atlantic Gateways 03:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
43. Support, as above; there's plenty of things to do other than XfD's, and the copyright backlog is always really large. --heah 02:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
44. Support Candidate has indicated that he won't participate in XfDs, so I see no reason to call him out on that. WP:CP must have quite a backlog; it'd be nice to see an admin over there. — riana_dzasta _{wreak havoc|damage report} 04:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
45. Support Good editor. Garion96 (talk) 09:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
46. Support It looks this candidate has the focused eye for speedy deletes and copyvios. So the lack of AfD activity is not too critical. Everyone has their own specialties. So no probs here. JungleCat talk/contrib 18:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
47. Support Doctor BrunoTalk 18:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
48. Support You gotta support this editor Hello32020 19:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
49. Support 3 FA's under his belt - my kind of admin.--Mcginnly | Natter 15:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
50. Support. Good edit history, like the FAs. Jayjg 17:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
51. Support solid writing experience, cooperative attitude, and not afraid to help reducing backlog. This is the kind of admin we need more of. — mark ✎ 11:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
52. Support - In spite of the minor concerns below, I think this is a worthy candidate. --Guinnog 16:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. It seems like featured article is your niche and you've recently started working copyright problems where we could always do with more people, but your lack of experience in Articles for Deletion (about 10) participation per se is a bit of a concern. --  Netsnipe  ►  03:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose: Albatross2147 11:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral Lack of participation in AfD articles and the low edits on Misplaced Pages namespace is a major concern here. However, you are a fine editor and unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979 17:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
2. Neutral Fails my criteria of atleast 5000 edits --Ageo020 21:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

   Comment Why 5,000 edits? Nearly all of the administrators on Misplaced Pages now would not have passed their RFAs, using those criteria. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

3. Neutral per Siva. Tango Alpha Foxtrot 22:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
4. Neutral, fails two of my standards, which usually is an automatic oppose; but I will wave the standards and vote neutral due to the users contribs to FA. Themindset 18:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
5. Neutral. I'm appreciative of the editor's commitment to rewriting articles to improve flow; however, I'm worried about the lack of participation in AfDs, per Netsnipe. Espresso Addict 14:51, 13 September 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.

Steel359

Final (52/2/0) Ended Thu, 14 Sep 2006 12:18:26 (UTC)

Steel359 (talk · contribs) – I don't like to boast about myself in this way but I guess that's what I have to do here.
I've been a Wikipedian since April 2006. During that time I've been highly active and made some 5500+ edits, a healthy 500 being in the Misplaced Pages namespace. I've been involved in many areas of Misplaced Pages, including Wikiproject CVG, vandal patrolling (including AIV), tagging for speedy deletion, requesting protections, various image-related things, and the odd controversial AfD. I've contributed to the actual encyclopedia and pass *FA (though that criterion seems to have gone out of fashion recently). I like to think I provide sensible, unbiased opinions during content disputes and the like.

• Edit count - 5507
• Time around - Since April 06
• Email enabled? - Yes
• Controversial userpage? - No
• Any blocks? - None
• Stupid signature? - No
• Edit summaries - 100% for both major and minor
• Civil? Yes. Always.
• Personal attacks? - None
• Mistakes? - A couple of minor ones from a while ago
• Any edit warring? - None

-- Steel 11:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Self-nom, accept. -- Steel 11:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: It is, in my opinion, imperative that admins are on-hand when they're needed, and my primary focus would be on areas where swift admin action is required, namely WP:AIV, WP:RFPP and CAT:CSD - all three of which I already participate in and can take some time to be reviewed by an administrator. Having said that, I'd be more than willing to clear out backlogs, like CAT:NT, and just generally lend a hand to whatever task needs doing at the time, whether it be WP:RM, CAT:RFU or WP:OMG. I currently participate in discussions on WP:ANI when I feel I can give an informed and/or intelligent opinion on something. I imagine my activity and usefulness there would only increase as an admin.

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

A: Featured article Shadow of the Colossus is currently at the top of my list, which was improved from B-class to it's current standard by me and a few other Wikipedians. What I've always found interesting is that the idea to improve it to FA standard arose out of a cleanup the article underwent after a content dispute. Metal Gear Solid 3 is my current project. Originally rated as start-class, it's improved leaps and bounds after serious time and effort was invested in it. Currently in peer review, it's due to hit FAC in the not too distant future.

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

A: I have been in a share of content disputes, and I feel I handled them extremely well. The most recent one was a dispute over the various uses of the word "Bowser". In particular, whether Nintendo's King Bowser deserved and should be moved to the primary/root page Bowser, or whether it should be a disambiguation. Just on the off-chance anyone is interested, the discussion is located partly at Talk:King Bowser and partly at User talk:JzG. I remained completely calm and civil even when another user started throwing round insults (indeed, admin Jus zis Guy thanked me for my calm presence). Staying calm is, without a shadow of a doubt, the way to solve disputes.

Question from Centrx

4. What is the purpose and function of policy? How should consensus for new proposed policies and for alterations of existing policies be determined?

A: In small communities, it's relatively easy to co-ordinate things. Misplaced Pages is not a small community. In short, there have to be rules and guidelines which stipulate the way things should be done else things will fall apart in a huge mess of conflicting opinions. That's a very general answer, obviously different policies exist for wildly different reasons (WP:V is to ensure accuracy, WP:FUC because it's the law, etc).

As for determining consensus for proposed policies, there is no model of consensus that can be applied successfully to every situation. Consensus has to be decided on a case-by-case basis, which makes a theoretical “How should consensus be determined?” very difficult to answer. Essentially, the solution would have to address everyone’s concerns as best it can. Sam Korn hits the nail on the head when he points out that consensus is not something that everyone supports, rather it's something everyone can live with.

Comments

• See Steel359's edit count on the talk page
• See Steel359's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.

Support

1. First Support. I've encountered Steel359 a few times on AIV, edit summary usage meets my criteria, has a FA, and didn't freak out in conflicts that I can see. In short, I see no reason to assume that Steel359 would abuse administrator privledges. Syrthiss 13:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
2. Support per . Gwernol 14:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. Rama's arrow 14:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
4. Support Has a FA and unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979 18:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
5. Support per above. Michael 19:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
6. Support This editor appears to be a sensible candidate for adminship, based upon answers to questions above and contributions. (aeropagitica) 20:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
7. Support per above. --Nishkid64 20:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
8. Support Will make an excellent administrator. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 20:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
9. Support. This user has been around for a while and will do a great job as an administrator. Plus, one of the more well written RFAs I've seen. -- RM 21:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
10. Support Seems to be a terrific all-around editor and I'm rather surprised that he/she's accomplished so much since April. The candidate's RC patrolling will certainly become more efficient with the admin buttons and it seems very unlikely that he/she will abuse the tools hoopydink 21:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
11. Support - Reasonable, evenheaded, well-spoken, and calm. It's almost a shame to inflict an admin bit on him. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
12. Support - I have seen nothing but positive contributions from this user. --After Midnight 00:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
13. Support seems good to me. —Khoikhoi 00:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
14. Merovingian - Talk 01:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
15. Support Okay. BaseballBaby 08:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
16. Support. - Mailer Diablo 09:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
17. Support - From my experience with the user he works hard and is conscientious. I'd like to see him get the bit.--Toffile 11:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
18. Support. Seems fine.Voice-of-All 17:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
19. Support - Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 17:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
20. Support  :) Dlohcierekim 18:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
21. Support A hard-working and civil person, I have seen his help everywhere, including helping me with an article I've been working on. He is a great guy, and will do well as an administrator.--Clyde Miller 20:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
22. Support Saw you on AfDs before I became an admin, and I saw nothing wrong. Good luck. Yanksox 21:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
23. Support Good user. Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Ageo020 21:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
24. Support Obviously good editor, I decided to be flexible in my six month standard.-- danntm _C 22:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
25. Support More CVG admins is a good thing ! ⇒ SWATJester Aim _Fire! 23:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
26. Support Although you'll probably turn out to not be my kind of Admin, you've done some really good work with the MGS3 page and we need another Admin at the Metal Gear pages. Also I found out about the lamest edit wars from your page and I'm a bit fan of those (The Bread 00:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC))
27. Support -- Tawker 04:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
28. Support - good vandal fighter. --Ixfd64 04:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
29. Support — Steel's a great editor. I've worked with him in the past, and have been pleasantly surprised that he maintains his cool even when I know I wouldn't. I've also been pleased to see that he maintains a good fight against vandalism, and is an all around benefit to the community in numerous ways. He certainly would make for a great admin. The only reluctance I have is that it might mean he has less time to build pages, but hopefully he'll be able to balance both admin duties and his quality work. Good luck to you, Steel. Ryu Kaze 13:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
30. Support, impressed me with his willingess to support me against the prevailing wind at talk:King Bowser, with a result which was (IMO) correct for the encyclopaedia. Other comments above and looking at other contribs persuades me that this is characteristic. Guy 19:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
31. Support, very civil editor, great work on CVG related articles.--TBCTaLk?!? 20:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
32. Support. Strong user and countervandal, has definite need for the mop. Heimstern Läufer 22:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
33. Support, no major issues and doesn't seem likely to abuse the tools. BryanG 03:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
34. Strong support - and very impressed that you used inline citations in your self-nom, :D Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 05:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
35. Support. — FireFox  _{11:32, 10 September 2006}
36. Support. User seems trustable. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
37. Support per nom. Good contributor Anger22 19:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
38. Support Solid editor that will improve Misplaced Pages, Tewfik 03:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
39. Support, excellent nomination. Good contributor, and I have no reason to believe that Steel359 will make anything but a similarly good administrator. Daveydweeb (/_patch) 03:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
40. Support. Thunderbrand 04:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
41. Support RN 19:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
42. Support, without reservations. Sango123 21:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
43. Support--Awesome Username 10:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
44. Support per good answers and great track record. Themindset 18:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
45. Support Doctor BrunoTalk 18:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
46. Support Hello32020 19:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
47. Support I've known Steel for some time now and can thus give him my support; he's a genuine user and isn't just out to get power. CNash 22:01, 12 September 2006
48. Support, per nom -- Lego@lost EVIL, EVIL! | 04:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
49. Support - best self nom I can recall, terrific answers, great stats = super sysop! (God that was cheesy...) - Glen 12:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
50. Support - Fully qualified for this, good endorsements. Trnj2000 19:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
51. Support per nom. John254 20:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
52. Support I'd like to see more article contributions but he's over the bar. --Mcginnly | Natter 22:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose -- lack of experience with images, also fails short of my current standard of 9 months with the project --T-rex 00:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

   Although I myself haven't uploaded many images, I've written fair use rationales and provided source information for other people's images in addition to upholding policy by removing fair use images from userspace . I've tagged plenty of images as orphaned fair use or lacking source and/or license information, though the only hard evidence I can provide for that is this, as all the others have been deleted.
   Just in case there's any confusion, the deleted image in my upload log was actually tagged for deletion by myself. -- Steel 01:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

   Ok, this was good to see, but I'm still opposing due to time --T-rex 15:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

2. Weak Oppose: I like your answers and willingness to clear backlogs, but too many of your AFDs back in June/July were one line votes based upon the research established by others. I need to be convinced you have the patience to go through things with a fine tooth comb, because long term abusers know a lot of tricks to cover up their tracks. I'm willing to reconsider if you can show me an incident where your persistence or investigative skills paid off though. --  Netsnipe  ►  07:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

   In addition to my comment on your talk page , when providing sources for articles like MGS3, I'm often required to spend considerable lengths of time looking through websites and such for appropriate references, with, as you say, a fine toothed comb. I'm aware this is unrelated to AfD but it definitely shows I have the patience and ability to undertake painstaking research which at times may be required as an administrator. -- Steel 12:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutral
#:Neutral Considering that the candidate is such a talented contributor, and gave such intelligent answers, I would love to be able to support. However, it pains me to say that because the candidate falls one month short of my standard for time, I must stay neutral.-- danntm _C 20:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Switching to support (see above).-- danntm _C 22:43, 8 September 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.

Messedrocker

Final (95/1/0) ended 08:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• The Original RFA

Messedrocker (talk · contribs) — MessedRocker has been with us for two years (since November 2004), and has made roughly 3700 edits in that timeframe, most of these edits occurring since May of last year. He's had a low activity ratio, but has given us a consistent effort. He has had major involvement with the articles Acamprosate, Endless Online, Sprite (soft drink), YTMND, and Solar panel. Additionally, a roughly one-month old list of pages and categories he has created is available here. Non-article contributions include the creation of Misplaced Pages:Last Resort Solution, creating WP:TEA based on the Wikinews version, as well as proposing Approved Article Revisions and its companion process. In addition, Messedrocker occasionally performs maintenance through his AutoWikiBrowser-powered bot MessedRobot, handles countervandalism duties, and writes fair use rationales for images. Messedrocker has proven himself capable of using the mop without any issues, and is not going to abuse the tools. — Werdna talk criticism 07:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Werdna beat me to the nomination, which I was going to do on Friday! Anyway, he is level-headed, likeable, and a good editor. He can be trusted with the tools, partly proven by his activity on Wikinews. 1ne 00:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept Werdna's nomination with pride. —this is messedrocker (talk) 08:16, 7 September 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: Simply put, I'd like to do the simple maintenance tasks, such as dealing with deletion requests (whether they be speedy, PROD, or xFDs). Another thing I'd like to deal with are image issues; as it's been demonstrated, I have a history of dealing with fair use images, particularly writing fair use rationales for them. I haven't done it perfectly (as Meegs can tell you), but I've learned from my mistakes. To that end, I'd make sure the copyvios are deleted as quickly as possible (I've seen quite the backlogs). In addition, I'll always be sure to help out people whenever I can, and will make sure that I stay polite and civil when faced with the most aggravating matters.

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

A: Werdna basically outlined everything above (it's actually based on my user page), however I'd really like to point out the things that I am very pleased with. The YTMND article, prior my major revisions, was mostly unsourced, not written in the best way, and generally could use improvement. Since I started making major contributions, the article is now well-written (in my opinion anyways) and is completely sourced. I also like how I dealt with the Endless Online; used to be one of the worst articles on Misplaced Pages, but since I essentially wiped everything out of the article, it's now a good-enough article.

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

A: I can't recall ever being in conflict with others, though I have gotten my fair share of things pointed out (particularly earlier in my wikicareer). Luckily, I have decided to assume that they mean the best, and I use the things they point out to improve myself. In the future, should I encounter stressful situations, I should remember to be civil no matter what, and if necessary, I'll take a break to cool down. If anyone ever feels that I'm too stressed, I'll do my best to make sure I get some wikirest (the last thing we want is an admin to turn into a vandal). Luckily, as I said, I haven't had a record of such things so it shouldn't be extremely hard.

Questions from Andeh

4. How do you feel about the 'prodding' of articles, do you agree with it? Why should 'prod' be used in some cases instead of CSD/AfD'ing an article?

A: What I like about PROD is that it helps cut out needless process, while it allows for people to bring it up just in case it is needed. In other words, it's the middle ground. See, we shouldn't be caught up in processes where everyone votes delete, because that'd be a waste of time (I've heard of cases where even the original author endorses deletion). However, PROD-worthy articles shouldn't be speedy deleted because speedy deletion should be reserved for junk. PROD is the settlement between immediate deletion and jumping through hoops and waiting for comments for deletion.

5. Please list several AfD nominations that you created. (they should still be in your watchlist). Thank you.

A: These are almost all of the AFD nominations that I have created: Not cool club, GBTW, Silver-stars.net, You're the man now, dog, "Naked party" (must've ended up getting deleted in a later nomination), and finally, Military history by country. Yes, I know, not such a stellar performance, but I've learned from these and have aimed to use other methods instead.

6. I see that you are a good editor and a rc patroller, but every time I heariabout a roblem with an admin, it involves the way they handled themselves in negotiation, and ability to explain why they performed their admin action. Quite Simply, show me why I can trust you to take care of tricky disputes. Have you mediated before? How about been caught up in a dispute that you had to had to handle calmly, or were forced to negotiate to solve a major problem? Any examples of any step of dispute resolution that I can look at? Thanks, Misplaced Pages's False Prophet holla at me Improve Me 02:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

A: Thank you for asking. Somehow, I manage to evade getting into stressful situations on Misplaced Pages, although I've had them on Wikinews. Most recently, I banned a certain user there, and while it was supported by most admins, a couple in particular were quite interested in protesting the ban. (Don't worry though; this was the first (and hopefully last) time I've ever banned someone on Wikinews, and if I were to become a Misplaced Pages admin, I don't intend on doing it often or even at all. This ban which only lasted a few days was on a user who was blocked numerous times and it was basically the final straw that broke the camel's back. Again, very rare situation that I hope won't happen on Misplaced Pages.) This caused considerable stress, but instead of letting it accumulate, I took a semi-break from Wikinews and stated that I'd be willing to unban him under certain terms. The terms of parole I negotiated were accepted by both sides of the debate and now he is trying to become a better user. I'm not one to judge how I handled the situation, but apparently I did it well enough to be a winning candidate in the ongoing Wikinews ArbCom elections. The discussion in relation to the banning is available here.

Question from --Mcginnly | Natter 15:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

7. Could you point me towards either, 1. a Featured article you have written or collaborated on, 2. A featured list you have compiled. 3. A featured portal you have have helped gain featured status? Thanks.

A: - I filed the peer review for the Che Guevara article, and from there I split off Che Guevara's involvement in the Cuban Revolution into its own article.

Comment

• See Messedrocker's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
• See Messedrocker's edit count on the talk page

Support

1. As nominator — Werdna talk criticism 07:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
2. Wait, he isn't already one? – Chacor 08:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
3. Support. User has always come across well on IRC. Majority of prior opposes were due to lack of experience, if I read them correctly; I don't think that's an issue any longer. We need admins with image experience. Luna Santin 08:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
4. Support per Chacor :P Ryūlóng 08:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
5. You're kidding, right? He wasn't one? --Golbez 08:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
6. Support, great user and would make a great admin. --Rory096 08:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
7. ZOMG Support - as this page has finally finished loading... now I bet as soon as I hit save I will get edit conflicted. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 08:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
8. Ditto everyone above support - Daniel.Bryant 08:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
9. Support looks good. VegaDark 08:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
10. Support. Conscious 10:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
11. Wholhearted support after flooding up my watchlist with album edits from his bot (your words rocker) ;-) and having come across him on WN where he uses his admin tools well IMO. MR is obviously 'devoted' to the entire WM project. Im suprised he aint an admin already! --Errant Tmorton166(Review me) 10:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
12. Support Does a good job as admin over at Wikinews.--Birdmessenger 11:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
13. Support. - Mailer Diablo 13:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
14. Support. Of course! -- That Guy, From That Show! 14:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
15. Support, good user. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 14:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
16. Support a definitive improvement since last time. Rama's arrow 14:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
17. Support Looks like a good admin candidate. (aeropagitica) 15:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
18. Support great admin on WN, would be good here :) Computerjoe's talk 18:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
19. Support I have no doubts that this user would be a great admin. --Siva1979 18:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
20. Support - good user. Michael 19:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
21. Moo Jaranda 20:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
22. Support. While I don't recall seeing this editor before, his answers and my review of his talk page and contributions leads me to think that this nominee has vastly improved since his last self-nom and has learned much from that experience. Good job. Agent 86 20:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
23. Support. I've seen this user around before. Seems like a very diligent and respected editor. Has improved quite a bit since his first unsuccessful RfA. --Nishkid64 20:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
24. Support. A refreshingly easy support. -- RM 21:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
25. Support While I don't envision MessedRocker to be the sort of admin with thousands of entries in his log per month, he's certainly shown quite a dedication to the project. He's been an editor for nearly two years (with pretty consistent editing throughout) and has never been blocked. This, coupled with an overview of his contributions and talk page lead me to believe that he's a trusted member of the community, and as such, would do well to have the extra buttons to help mop up hoopydink 22:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
26. Support. He might not be an editing-machine, like some, but Messedrocker has more than demonstrated that he is a level-headed editor who can be trusted with the tools. Rje 23:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
27. --SB | T 00:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
28. Support as co-nominator. 1ne 00:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
29. Support per above. —Khoikhoi 00:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
30. Support NO NO NO ARE YOU NUTS.....wait I mean YES YES YES. Mike _{(T C)} 01:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
31. Merovingian - Talk 01:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
32. Support I like the change of pace to a long tenured contributor who is not edit count obsessed.-- danntm _C 02:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
33. Solid Support for a solid user. --CableModem 06:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
34. Support Absolutely. BaseballBaby 07:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
35. Support, meets the expected standard.--Andeh 12:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
36. Support per nom and all supports above. Whatever I want to say has already been stated by those above me. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 12:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
37. Support per nom and per answers to questions. Looks like you'd make a good administrator. --Coredesat talk. o_O 13:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
38. --Nearly Headless Nick 14:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
39. Support --Mike 15:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
40. Support per all above, quality user with no issues, already an admin on another Wiki project. Newyorkbrad 16:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
41. Support  :) Dlohcierekim 18:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
42. Support. G.He 19:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
43. Support It's always quality edits, not quantity that gets my approval. Good candidate. JungleCat talk/contrib 20:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
44. Support per nomination. Yanksox 21:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
45. Support and I'd have supported last time too had I been around. ⇒ SWATJester Aim _Fire! 23:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

    Support. Sensible, experienced user, no issues. Newyorkbrad 23:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

    User voted twice, see vote #40. --Rory096 06:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

    Completely inadvertent of course, I apologize. Newyorkbrad 20:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

46. Support I've seen only the best from this user. Canadian-Bacon 23:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
47. Support He cares. Danny 00:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC).
48. Support. An asset to the project. Zaxem 01:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
49. Support --Srikeit 04:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
50. Support The user is very experienced and is sane. Therefore, the user can be trusted to not make insane decisions. This is like an easy SAT question. Teke 04:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

    Sanity is a criteria for being an admin? Well, I guess that reduces my chance at ever becoming an admin... :'( --TBCTaLk?!? 20:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

51. Support Brian | (Talk) 06:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
52. Jumping on the bandwagon support --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 19:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
53. Support, one of the easier calls, I think. Guy 19:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
54. Support, great editor, meets my criteria.--TBCTaLk?!? 20:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
55. I already thought he was an admin support. Great user, and really did a good job cleaning up the YTMND article. —Whomp t/c 21:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
56. Support - Hahnchen 01:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
57. Support. I have seen him spearhead new Misplaced Pages policies and ideas. We need a thinker like him with us.--Danaman5 04:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
58. Seriously, seriously thought he already was one — riana_dzasta _{wreak havoc|damage report} 08:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
59. Cliché omitted support of course. haz (talk) e
60. Yes please. --james 10:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
61. Support. — FireFox  _{11:31, 10 September 2006}
62. Support. Quality is much better then quantity, good use of edit summaries (99%/100%m) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
63. Support per nom. Good contributor Anger22 19:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
64. Support good all-round contributions. Oldelpaso 20:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
65. Support Seems to be a constructive part of WP which would benefit from the sysop tools. Tewfik 03:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
66. Support per the little voices in my head. Daveydweeb (/_patch) 03:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
67. Support; I've seen Messedrocker around here and there, always making thoughtful edits. --Allen 03:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
68. Support; Very outgoing and involved user. He was a Wikipedian for a long time and deserves to be an admin. --Ineffable3000 05:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
69. - CrazyRussian talk/email 13:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
70. Support A quick trip to the archives revealed that I voted against you on your last nomination, but said that I'd probably support you on your next run. This vote is not based on that "promise," but on the fact you you are clearly a hard-working member, and everything else said above. Steveo2 19:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
71. Support, without reservations. Sango123 21:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
72. Um Support...--Kungfu Adam 22:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
73. Support. Cool username. —freak(talk) 22:22, Sep. 11, 2006 (UTC)
74. Full Support. You have my full support. You'd make a great Admin. Implificator 22:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
75. Strong Support for a good editor --Ageo020 23:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
76. Support as I see a good user, and no valid reason to oppose. Themindset 23:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
77. Support - of course. Grutness...wha? 00:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
78. Support JoshuaZ 00:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
79. Pepsidrinka supports. 00:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
80. support --W.marsh 00:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
81. Support. As an admin on Wikinews, Messedrocker has been very active and helpful there. I see no reason why it wouldn't be the same here. Ral315 (talk) 03:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
82. Support. No reson not to!--Irishpunktom\ 13:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
83. Support per Tmorton166. Misplaced Pages's False Prophet holla at me Improve Me 16:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
84. Support. All the reasons have been already told Doctor BrunoTalk 18:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
85. Support All reasons, including this reason, have been told (:P) Hello32020 19:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
86. I thought you were an admin already. ~crazytales56297.chasing cars//e 00:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
87. Support. He's great on Wikinews, too.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 01:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
88. Support, d'oh. Weasel 14:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
89. Support, A very good user, wikipedia would benifit from giving him the tools. Thε Halo 16:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
90. Support. See no issues here. Jayjg 17:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
91. Support no brainer. should move forward. Trnj2000 17:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
92. Adminship is no big deal Support ++Lar: t/c 21:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
93. Support Messedrocker will be a good admin. Bastique▼ _voir 21:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
94. Support Messedrocker has experience as admin on other projects, knows his way around after contributing to en-WP for 2 years and is knowledgeable and active in policy discussions on IRC. He will make a fine admin.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 03:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
95. Support Walkerma 03:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose You seem like a very likeable person, but when asked about FA's you point me to a nomination for a peer review of an article someone else substantially wrote - and the split article Che Guevara's involvement in the Cuban Revolution? Well you only seem to have done the splitting. I'm uncomfortable with this. --Mcginnly | Natter 22:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

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

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

Konstable

Final (47/0/0) Ended Wed, 13 Sep 2006 13:15:39 UTC

Konstable (talk · contribs) – I have been editing Misplaced Pages for over a year (earliest edit I can find is July). Signed up for an account in November 2005, started contributing to Wikibooks and Wikisource in January, then major contributions with my account on Misplaced Pages started in May. (Altogether I have 6 accounts on other Wikimedia projects, see my user page for links to them). I have been really active on Misplaced Pages, to the point of addiction at times, except for a recent one month break due to being extremely busy in real life. (Not that it should matter in whether you trust me with the tools, but I don't think this departure will happen to me again any time soon, though I cannot guarantee it.) Since then, I have been an active RC patroller, and this is the main reason why I am requesting adminship. It often occures with RC patrol that non-admin users have to end up playing cat and mouse with vandals while the report waits on WP:AIV, this takes up a lot of time which could be much better spent and can cause frustration to users wanting to see those admins. I would like the ability to deal with vandals directly and more efficiently, as well as help to others do the same. So I am here requesting to be entrusted with the tools to help out. Konstable 09:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Self-Nom. Konstable 09:49, 6 September 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 mentioned in my statement above, my prime motivation is to deal with vandals more efficiently, as well as helping out at WP:AIV, where I have seen backlogs of over 40 minutes. Also I frequently deal with image tagging problems, so I would like to help out with deleting unsourced images (which tend to get a backlog every now and again) and, as I have done some New Page patrol before (though not so much recently), I would probably do some speedy deletions of violating articles and help out at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. These are the areas that I am thinking about currently and where I would like to help the most, but I am confident to help out at any other adminship chore.

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

A: I am most pleased about my contributions to Pericles (most of them just over a month ago just before I took my break). I first came to the article when I reviewed it for WP:GA and failed it due to major balancing and POV language issues. As Ancient History has always been one of my interests, and as I happened to know something about Pericles already, a couple of weeks later I came back to the article to fix it up. I did some part time digging up reliable resources at my university library to help balance the article out with more points of views, and made some big changes to the general language style. I have made quite major changes to it. Because I am not really a big expert on the area I doubt that I could have gotten it through WP:FAC my self, but what I am most pleased about is that these changes that I made inspired the original editor (who had previously given up in despair) to revive hope! He got back to the article, and with some copyediting help, get it through to Featured status!

Another thing that I would like to mention is actually my contributions on another Wikimedia project - Wikibooks. I have used my knowledge from my childhood, refreshed by some books I got from a library, to write a great deal of modules in wikibooks:Wikijunior Dinosaurs. This included trying to dig up quality free images, which proved problematic. But I managed to upload some old public domain images and two images for which I managed to get permission from two artists who specialise in Palaeontology! I really enjoyed working on that project, and I would say it's been my top favourite out of anything I've done here. And though it is still not ready for any sort of publishing and a lot of sections could use some major copyedits, I am very pleased to have been able to contribute so much.

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

A: I haven't had too many problems really. The biggest one I remember was when I was still a rather inexperienced editor and a disgruntled real life friend of mine decided to write articles about me. Featuring my full name and completely ridiculous attack information about me designed to provoke me; to make it worse this came at a time when I was staying up all night working on a very important time critical real life project. I did not know about the deletion process then, and I had only dealt with one case of vandalism before. This caused me a lot of stress as I feared Google's web crawler would get to it and keep it cached for months for everyone googling about me to see. Real life stress mixed with Wikistress is a scary thing. However a friendly admin (FireFox) had deleted the page for me, blocked my abusive friend and reassured me that he will keep watch for any similar pages! Actually this event is what inspired me to contribute to Misplaced Pages more, even if I can't make major content additions to my favourite areas of expertise (the Misplaced Pages articles there are generally much more knowledgeable than me already). So in fact this was a beneficial experience! Apart from that, I have had a couple pretty minor encounters that were borderline stressful, but nothing to really bring me down. Most recently I started to over-react over something I shouldn't have, mainly due to thinking too much into a simple matter, but I took a wikibreak and prevented myself from losing my temper and being drowned out in stress. At other times whenever I get a hint of stress I would sometimes take a quick break from Misplaced Pages, or the computer altogether, even if it's for only a couple of minutes to compose my thoughts.

4. (optional) Check out our huge admin backlog. Some pages, such as WP:CP, desperately need help. Intend to help with anything other than AIV and CSD? alphaChimp 13:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course. I have already mentioned my willingness to help with image deletions; abuse reports and requests for investigations sound like where I would like to help out as well. Just in general, I will watch the backlogs and help out where and when I can. I would probably say that, together with WP:AIV, abuse reports and requests for investigation would be my higher priorities due to some sense of urgency in dealing with unhelpful and abusive editors.--Konstable 23:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to address Ian13's concern more directly. I am mentioning these specific tasks that I would like to work on in the immediate short term future, i.e. if I were to be granted adminship that is where I would start. However I understand that backlogs don't stay fixed for eternity, and I am more than willing to help anywhere where I am needed.--Konstable 23:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• See Konstable's edit count on the talk page
• user's edits stats
• See Konstable's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.

Support

1. First weak support changed to First support (see below) changed to First strong support (see below) - I personally don't have a problem with Konstable being a sysop, as his history appears to be in order. However, third party nominations show that at least one member has a lot of trust in the user, which isn't blatantly obvious here. --Draicone 10:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

   While running through my contribs, I actually found that I ran into this user way back at the beginning of July when User talk:Thetinyhole made some suspicious yet accurate edits to Jean-Jacques Tizié that I incorrectly marked as vandalism. Konstable's reaction to the situation was excellent and I appreciate his doing so, in addition to the fact that it shows he is good at assessing a situation. Vote changed to Strong Support. Good luck, not that you'll need it. Maybe you'll have unanimous support for your RfA? --Draicone 09:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

2. Support. – can't see any problems here. Re: the above comment, I see nothing wrong with self-nominations, they show a certain amount of 'bravery' for want of a better word, and it certainly does not mean nobody has trust in them. Konstable is a solid contributor, always acts in good faith. He (?) does a lot of good work reverting vandalism, I've noticed he helps out at Articles for Creation quite a bit too, amongst many other things. — FireFox  _{11:26, 06 September 2006}

   Comment: Thanks for your comment, I've taken it into account and changed my vote. --Draicone 08:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

3. Support Me too. I find no problems in self-nominations myself. It shows that the user has initiative to wanting to contribute more to this project. Besides, he is here for one year already and this is his first RfA. Unlikely to abuse admin tools as well. --Siva1979 12:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
4. Support. This is an easy support. You have the necessary experience and you stomp vandals. The request is also well written and clear. — Ram-Man 12:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
5. Support - I too don't see anything wrong with self noms. I've seen him on the vandal fighting scenario many a times. He could definitely use the extra tools.-- thunderboltz 14:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
6. Support. Femto 14:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
7. Support per above. Michael 19:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
8. Support. - Mailer Diablo 19:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
9. Merovingian - Talk 21:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
10. Support - been around the block, fights vandals, and wants to fight them more. --Mnemeson 00:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
11. Support Seen him on RC patrol and we had a backlog at WP:AIV just last night. I like people who know their strengths and want to capitalize on them. BaseballBaby 00:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
12. Support. Seems fine. Will help backlogs, and stats show that he is active in AN and the related pages (abuse reports/OPs...).Voice-of-All 02:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
13. Support per above. No problem in self nomination _Doctor Bruno_/_{E Mail} 02:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
14. Support --Mike 02:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
15. Support - I have seen this user around, everything looks good me (including the Q4 answer). --WinHunter 05:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
16. Support. Good and responsible contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
17. Support - good work! :) NCurse _work 07:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
18. Support. Great user! --Nishkid64 20:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
19. Support His contributions reflect experience in what he wants to use the admin capabilities for, and he seems to be rather civil and trustworthy, so sure, good luck! I also like that he's from New Zealand, for his time on Misplaced Pages will probably be when most admins are asleep hoopydink 22:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
20. Support. —Khoikhoi 00:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
21. Support Looks like a good contributor, meets my standards.-- danntm _C 02:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
22. Support per VOA and hoopydink. Have seen him on RC patrol, seems pretty sensible. :) Luna Santin 17:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
23. Support. Backlog of 40 minutes at AIV? Bah, you should have been around when no reports had been touched for 2 hours ;) -- Steel 18:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
24. Support images. :) Dlohcierekim 18:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
25. Support per all above, quality user, no issues. Newyorkbrad 21:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
26. Support Unlikely to abuse tools. ⇒ SWATJester Aim _Fire! 22:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
27. Support -- Tawker 04:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
28. Support Brian | (Talk) 06:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
29. Support, great editor, has done a lot of work on RC patrol.--TBCTaLk?!? 20:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
30. Support Dina 22:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
31. Support Konstable’s answer to optional Q4 shows willingness to help with backlogs, but more of a focus on abuse reports dealing with abusive editors. I say: Yea! JungleCat talk/contrib 05:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
32. Support Helped me with things in past, valid contributer uses edit summaries well. - Mike Beckham 08:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
33. Support Talked with on IRC... seems worthy of sysop permissions DemosDemon 09:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
34. Support meets my criteria. -- zzuuzz 09:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
35. Support Ian¹³/t 11:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
36. Support. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
37. Support. Very helpful user, and certainly appears qualified for admin rights. Markovich292 19:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
38. Support Looks like the tools will better help him police Misplaced Pages, and keep its quality up to par, Tewfik 03:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
39. Support, naturally. Daveydweeb (/_patch) 03:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
40. Support; I remember seeing Konstable around when I used to do more RC patrol. Good editor, can use tools. --Allen 04:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
41. Support. I really don't see any substantial issues. The answer to my question was fine. We really do need more admins. alphaChimp 04:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
42. Support. A friendly, helpful user who has done a lot of work to improve New Zealand articles. I am particularly grateful for his help with Māori articles on the en:Misplaced Pages and for help he has given me to make major improvements on the Māori language Misplaced Pages. Kahuroa 04:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
43. Support --Ageo020 23:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
44. Support KOS | talk 00:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
45. Support Williamborg (Bill) 03:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
46. Support, This person is freindly, talked to him before. Would make great admin -- Lego@lost EVIL, EVIL! | 06:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
47. zOMG Support! I thought Id done this already! Not too sure about these Kiwis though... ;) - Glen 11:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Neutral until Q4 is answered, alphaChimp raises a valid point. Btw, other that WP:CP, also consider that there is a very huge image related backlog (e.g. Category:Images with no fair use rationale) --WinHunter 14:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC) switching to support. --WinHunter 05:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

1. Neutral leaning towards Oppose. I feel there are more reasons why a user should want to be an admin. I think most of all they need to ba adaptable to different problems and to help clearing backlogs, and I think at present the user does not show this. Will reconsider if Q4 is answered. Ian¹³/t 20:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC) Changed to support. Ian¹³/t 11:02, 10 September 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.

David Kernow

Final Ended Wed, 13 Sep 2006 04:17:01 (UTC) (42/0/1)

David Kernow (talk · contribs) – My first contact with David Kernow occurred during discussions regarding the standardization of articles about country subdivisions. I quickly found him an exceptionally helpful and corteous editor, who always pays meticulous attention to others' input, and who always replies with constructive ideas and sound arguments. David is an outstanding contributor to Misplaced Pages, having provided more than 15000 edits since September 2005. Some of his current work can be witnessed here. I believe that adminship would not only provide him with greater autonomy, as would also represent a deserved recognition for his tireless dedication to Misplaced Pages. Húsönd 04:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

After such generous testimony, I am glad to accept – thank you, Húsönd!  David 03:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The candidate may make an optional statement here:

I'd like to acknowledge KI, who created the original RfA back in April and Anonymous editor for his support (see #Interested). I let the previous RfA drift onto the shelf as I felt unsure (1) how far adminship might cut into time spent on the encyclopedia itself; and (2) whether I might become "over-addicted" to Misplaced Pages; but, as Húsönd reminded me in the run-up to this RfA, "you can always request de-adminship". Naturally, I hope that if I am made an admin, this won't prove necessary.
Addendum: I'd also like to acknowledge Ya ya ya ya ya ya for his/her recent encouragement, which I meant but forgot to include in my haste to complete Húsönd's RfA prepared before time passed by. Please accept my apologies, Ya ya ya ya ya ya!

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 order of likely occurrence, closing and acting on Categories for discussion; making admin-required Requested moves; Speedy deletions. Those, at least, are my anticipations...

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

A: Most recently, the bold entries on the To do list linked by Húsönd above. More generally, material in the encyclopedia whose older versions are archived 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: I'm happy to report that since the isolated incident mentioned at this point in the previous RfA draft – which was more a matter of unfortunate timing than conflict – I don't recall any subsequent conflicts or stress. When they occur, I guess my approach is to step back for a moment, try to understand how/why there is conflict or stress, try to empathize and, if needs be, invite other folk (informally) to contribute. I hope I shall not feel the need to use any of the more formal mechanisms for dealing with conflicts, but am reassured that they exist.

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

1 Could you expand on your response to question 2 above?

As regards identifying specific articles in the main area of the encyclopedia that are linked from /Archive, I think I'm pretty happy with them all – not, in case this is not clear, that I think any of them are "finished" or "mine". On another tack, the "List of X countries" articles may be relatively simple, but I guess I was a little surprised to find them missing, so am more glad rather than pleased or proud to've initiated them. Although /Contemporary national administrative divisions by country and /List of terms for contemporary national administrative divisions are still (just) in userspace (i.e. they're due to be moved into the encyclopedia very soon), these are articles with which I'm pleased as I hope they may be used as reference points. They also are not "finished". (I'm also pleased as constructing them has led to my meeting more friendly and helpful folk online, not only here at Misplaced Pages.)

I realise I didn't mention /No longer on watchlist in my original response, a page of links to articles which (with a few exceptions, mostly those in italics) I haven't originated but to which I have made more than one or two passing edits. Of those, I recall spending a fair amount of time on Marilyn Monroe, Wernher von Braun and – the very first article, I think, that I spent some time on – Chris Amon. I hope the maps sourced for the articles listed in the #Canadian Arctic section and the photographs for those in #Megalithic have made a positive difference.

I hope all this addresses what you have in mind!

2 I noticed that among other templates (such as the extremely useful {{smaller}} template) you also made the templates {{DPN}} and {{RPN}}. How would you respond to concerns that these templates indicate a bad attitude towards deletion and related discussions?

I use these templates in the context of WP:CfD. In the first instance, I'd try to make sure I hadn't misunderstood why they might appear so; then, if the subtext were the question "So why doesn't he use a "keep", "merge" template etc...?", perhaps it's because my keep/merge/etc responses tend not to reference the original nomination as regularly. Additionally/alternatively, I could suggest a review of my contributions to CfD debates to see whether they upheld such an interpretation. I suspect the majority of categories nominated there are categories that most folk – not just I – would rename or delete. (I'll happily create "keep" and "merge" templates along the same lines if you and/or anyone else feels there is an imbalance to be addressed.)

3 Given how long you have been here and how prolific a user you have been, why have you not asked for adminship much earlier?

Because, I suppose, not being an admin hasn't prevented my happily contributing to the encyclopedia. I recognise, however, that another way to contribute is to have the means to (for example) close and action debates, move pages and act as a pointer for the less initiated. The apparently increasing frequency with which backlogs arise, for instance, suggests this kind of contribution would be welcome.

4 How would you respond to users who are concerned that if they pile on support for you you will likely get well into the WP:100 and likely push down their "ranking" in the admin set, especially if that user happens to be ranked 12 there now?

I think I'd ask them to support me for the sake of the encyclopedia, not WP:100. Does this list have significance beyond indicating people/actions that were well-endorsed...?

Comments

• See David Kernow's edit count on the talk page
• user's edit stats
• See David Kernow's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.

Support

1. Strong Support as nominator. --Húsönd 04:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
2. Support - I have come across David a few times and found him to be very civil and helpful. I would be glad to support. GeorgeMoney (talk) 04:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
3. Weak support - weak answers. - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
4. Weak support Although his answers are quite weak, his contributions on Misplaced Pages must be commended. Also, unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979 04:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
5. Support - I too have come across David a few times, mostly at Category discussions, and have found him civil and productive. I also note that he has moved over 500 pages, though quite what that implies I'm not sure! (A brief glance at the moves suggests most are OK.) His editing spread across the namespaces is good, though not much in the Image namespace. Would the candidate be confident enough to be involved in Image issues? Carcharoth 10:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
   

   ---

   I believe so, as I have been involved with image issues (mostly maps) at the Commons. As ever, though, if I feel unsure about anything, I try to seek assistance or say so (and look to try to undo any mistakes I make!). Thanks for your support, David 14:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

   ---

6. Weak Support, answers to questions are rather weak, but looks good. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 10:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
   

   ---

   For those folk who'd prefer "stronger" responses, I'm happy to address any concerns you might have. In the meantime, thanks for your support!  David 14:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

   ---

7. Strong support. David is a joy to work with, and his level of responsibility and meticulousness towards everything he does in Misplaced Pages is commendable.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 12:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
8. Strong support I offered to nominate him.... :( Ya ya ya ya ya ya 12:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
9. Support. I see none of the normal red flags and a lot of positives. — Ram-Man 12:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
10. Strong support, don't need amazing answers when it's this obvious he'll be a great admin. --Rory096 17:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
11. Support. I've always found David to be a knowledgeable editor when I've encountered him at CFD or on my talk page. I see no reason to believe he'll do a less than admirable job as an admin. Syrthiss 18:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
12. Support A great editor who does good work. Will use the admin tools responsibly.--§hanel 18:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
13. Weak Support An experienced editor and trustworthy editor, but I would also prefer better answers to the questions.-- danntm _C 19:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
14. Support per above. Michael 19:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
15. Support -- takes pride in work as well as having a clean upload log, and a large move log that would be easier with admin tools --T-rex 19:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
16. Support. - Mailer Diablo 19:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
17. Weakish Support. The answers are brief but, in my opinion, adequate and - most importantly - honest. According to the candidate's edit resumé, he's never participated in a discussion on an AN/x and has only warned users about 200 times. I will hope, therefore, that he does not use his admin powers to combat anything but the most blatant of vandalism. While he's trustworthy, it doesn't seem that he has a lot of experience in the vandalism arena. He's participated in lots and lots of XfDs, which makes me confident in his knowledge of the deletion policy. Overall, David seems to be a great user and, in my opinion, very trustworthy. Srose (talk) 20:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
    

    ---

    Yes, I'm pleased to report that my experience of vandalism has been very slight indeed – which, to me, says all systems are working well and folk are to be commended!  So, yes again, at present I don't anticipate dealing with anything but the most blatant/straightforward vandalism. If, however, this semblance of control is barely being maintained, I'll happily consider what I might (learn to) do to assist further. Yours, David 05:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

    ---

18. Merovingian - Talk 21:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
19. Support per above. —Khoikhoi 23:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
20. Support per Srose _Doctor Bruno_/_{E Mail} 02:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
21. Support. Conscious 10:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
22. Support With slight reservations. Needs to tell when a question is meant as a joke(that is, my question 4). Other than that a very good candidate. JoshuaZ 12:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
23. Support. the wub "?!" 13:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
24. Kbdank71 18:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
25. Support, despite failing JoshuaZ's sense-of-humour question #4 by answering seriously. Themindset 19:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
26. Support I think his answers are very much to the point. ~ trialsanderrors 20:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
27. Support. Good, detailed responses expanded response to optional questions. 2500 user space edits??? How...? --Nishkid64 20:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
28. Support I really liked his answer to JoshuaZ's optional third question and he's obviously shown quite a dedication to helping make Misplaced Pages a better place (most of his contribs are rather unheralded activities, which shows that he derives happiness from simply helping out any way he can, which is quite a character trait). To help shine some light on the query directly above, David seems to be involved in a massive project here: User:David Kernow/Contemporary national administrative divisions by country. hoopydink 22:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
29. Just the fact that the guy has 15,000+ edits merits support. - Mike 23:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
30. Cautious support. Well, I felt able to say hello ;) --Ghirla 07:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
31. Support  :) Dlohcierekim 18:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
32. Support per all above. Excellent user, valuable contributions, no issues. Newyorkbrad 21:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
33. Support. Zaxem 02:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
34. Support -- have seen this user about and witnessed only good things. - Longhair 04:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
35. Support - serious editor, no chance of abuse, can only be constructive having him as an admin. Rockpocket 07:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
36. Support have come across a few times. Great editor. TeckWiz is 12 yrs oldContribs_{# of Edits} 13:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
37. Strong Support (I started writing a small book about all the positives - and zero negatives - about my observations of him on CfD, but I think the fact that I "could" write such a lengthy treatise is enough : ) - jc37 19:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC) Short version:Open-minded, and willing to discuss, and look at something from more than one point of view. I think the same reasons go for why I think he's easily trustworthy of the mop. - jc37 19:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
38. Support. Trustable. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
39. Support per nom. Good contributor Anger22 19:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
40. Support, though I share the concern about insufficient encyclopedia writing. Tewfik 03:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
41. Support. I too share some concerns as above, but DK has shown skills in the major admin-related types of work. Grutness...wha? 00:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
42. Super Strong Support—With 15572 Total edits, 6611 in Main, 2970 in Misplaced Pages namespace, 467 in Template & 14 in Portal, I was puzzled why folks didn’t strongly support. So I went to look. Reviewed Portals & find that it is all good stuff—but mostly copy edit & category work. On to Main: not one single new article, nice copy edit on Sir Alan Sugar; nice adjustments to Académie française, & lots of good (some exceptionally good) clean-up. No great new articles perhaps, but I see absolutely nothing that suggests you don’t understand what it takes to be a sound administrator. If you’re going to delete articles, you need to understand how to generate articles—folks who’ve actually edited quite a bit are best—serious (encyclopedic) articles are good—the more serious contributions completed the better; you are light on new material, but certainly certainly long on new article creation, & editing—clearly better than 95% of all editors. If you’re going to field the emotional responses of blocked individuals or authors of deleted articles, you need to be rational—not easily annoyed—avoid overreactions & emotional tantrums; you’ll do fine indeed. If you’re going to enforce policy, you need to familiarize yourself with policy/procedure (know about moving articles, treating new users, marking for deletion, reasons for deletion, intervention against vandalism, articles for deletion closing/re-listing, mergers and reasonable rationale for blocking); you are certainly as sound as most others who’ve made admin when they made it. BOTTOM LINE: Congrats on making it David (unlikely to jinx you by congratulating you this far down the list). Make us proud! Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 03:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm ashamed to admit that my review was superficial. Changes in italics or strikeout above. Changed based upon:

• material here,
• and here
• and yet again here

My lame excuse is simply that you have so much material it is hard to sort through it all. How can anyone provide less than strong support? Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 12:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

1. An overview of the areas this user focuses on seems to be lacking. Deletion pages seems to be the only place of project involvement. Mainly minor articles edits too. I'd rather the user have more experience.Voice-of-All 20:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
   

   ---

   ...I've deliberately limited myself to certain areas – for the sake of time management – namely some article initiation, some article revision, much article/topic area development (I hope the userspace pages linked from /To do would suffice to indicate), one particular area of structural debate and decision-making (WP:CfD) and, from time to time, WP:RM. (Might minor edits be acceptable as part of article development and/or "wikignoming"/"wikifairying"...?)

   ---

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.

Borisblue

Final (48/2/1) Ended 13:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Borisblue (talk · contribs) – Borisblue has been with the project since January 2005. He is an intelligent, respectable Wikipedian, who has been respectful towards others. He has contributed across the board–in both maintenance areas and article contribution (including FA)–and has a firm grasp of policy, indicated by both his edit summaries and participation in discussions.

To date, Borisblue has 2430 edits, which is traditionally viewed as "too few" in RfA land. However, going against tradition, I believe that the quality, not quantity, of his edits should take precedence.

Borisblue has both the experience and will needed to serve the community as an administrator; as the old adage goes, he's ready for a mop. Jay(Reply) 21:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Borisblue 06:37, 5 September 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:If this nom succeeds, I plan to try helping out in some of the backlogs, to see if I can contribute in some way that I didn't before. IFD interests me, in particular. The "admin chore" I've been most involved with so far is RC patrol. I believe I could contribute more efficiently if I had the admin buttons- while I've always been able to find an admin on RC patrol when I needed one- it would be nice to be able to take action against blatant vandals myself. And yes, I do have a low count of WP:AIAV edits; this is simply because I find it more efficient to look up active admins on RecentChanges, and then drop a note in their talk page.

I believe, at this stage of the English WP's growth vandal patrol is as important as ever- not just to protect the credibility of the articles, but also to maintain Misplaced Pages's openess and access to new editors. I am troubled by the increasing clamor to strip anon IPs of editing powers on account of vandalism. Anons have lost their power to create articles already, and they have been calls to ban them from editing entirely. While I understand the reasonings behind these moves, I feel that WP still needs new contributors to fill in the gaps in our content- allowing IPs to edit wikipedia introduces new editors to the project- editors who might come with expertise on some small African country, a body of literature etc.- there are plenty of fields that WP is currently deficient in. Effectively dealing with vandalism will reduce the need to restrict IP powers, thereby ensuring that more people will experiment, and eventually get involved with the project as contributors- something which I believe and hope will continue to broaden Misplaced Pages's scope.

To be honest, though I see myself primarily as a content contributor. Given the choice between doing maintenance work and writing an article entry I will pick the latter. Thus, I won't do admin chores/gnoming regularly, but I will pitch in and do my part when I don't have an article project in mind. I don't think that this should have bearing on my trustworthiness with the tools, but I still want to make that clear.

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

A: I have successfully nominated two articles to featured status (Gauss, Newton) and have one currently on FAC(Euler). I date my work on Carl Friedrich Gauss as the start of my involvement in Misplaced Pages. This is when I first realized that the Misplaced Pages: namespace existed, got my first taste of WP-style consensus decisionmaking, and even had to deal with a LaRouche-POV pusher. For "sentimental value", that was my favorite contribution. Leonhard Euler is probably my best work however. I had to bring it up to FA status from a worse starting point than the other two, I had to meet the current FA standards where referencing etc are tougher, and there were less editors involved in the article that could help.

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 had an ugly argument with Fenice in Misplaced Pages:Featured article removal candidates/Anschluss and Talk:Anschluss. It's a very silly issue- it was whether or not the anschluss could be described as an annexation. She was a bit stubborn about it, and it irked me. The argument got out of control, and I feel I was very clearly in the wrong- consensus was clearly going against Fenice already, and I provoked her for no reason by continuing to argue- thus escalating the bad blood. I eventually saw sense and apologized, and she accepted my apology here (trivia: this conflict eventually led to the adoption of the WP:Kindness Campaign mascot.

That was more than a year ago, and I've since made more of an effort to avoid unecessary conflict, and to be nicer to other editors. I haven't met anyone who is hopelessly belligerent yet, but so far I find that just being civil, listening to the concerns of the other editor, and quoting appropriate policy will eliminate most conflicts. There was a tension point more recently when Karmafist put me on a "Users to watch" list on his user page, but thankfully I did not react as rashly as before, and the issue defused here.

Optional question from  Netsnipe  ►  12:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

4. I've noticed that in your vandal fighting you haven't really come across any substantial abusers in the form of persistent sock-puppeteers or long term abuse cases and you haven't shown any participation on the Administrators' noticeboards either. Can you provide any examples where you've been challenged or have thoroughly investigated an abuse case? Do you think you are ready or experienced enough to deal with the darker side of Misplaced Pages should you be pushed to the breaking point one day?

A: You're right, I've almost entirely been working on anon test "vandalism"- and my article specialty- math, tends not to attract a lot of abuse. I did encounter a persistent vandal (or rather a group of them) before, and I deferred to an admin how to handle it . If this nom succeeds, and I were to encounter serious abuse a week later, I would probably defer to a more experienced admin again. At the moment I don't primarily see myself as the kind of admin that always goes after persistent abuse though, since thus far I have neither the experience nor the desire to do so. I'd much prefer "gnoming" admin chores, like dealing with image backlog, test vandalism etc. I do believe that this is an issue that no admin can ignore when it comes up however, so I will act to counter persistent abuse when I find it- but conservatively and in deference to more senior admins, at least until I gain some experience.

That said, in all my time in WP I don't think I've ever been in a situation where quoting policy and being courteous and respectful did not solve a dispute. This might be because I've been lucky so far, but I believe that this is a more potent way to prevent conflict than a lot of people realize. It helps to be a bit civil to even the most unreasonable of POV pushers. Thus, though I have been in disputes, I've never really had a reason to report anyone or anything to WP:AN.

Comments

• See Borisblue's edit count on the talk page
• User's edit stats
• See Borisblue's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
• Michael has brought up my low recent edit count- I was in a research program all summer, and thus didn't have an opportunity to contribute to wikipedia much. My editing pattern in general tends to be in bursts of fervent activity, and I tend to take wikibreaks for real-world projects (heck, I invented the wikibreak template)- and I anticipate that I will continue to edit in this manner for the next few years, given that WP's intense appeal and addictiveness will ruin my real-world productivity otherwise. If this is a concern for you, please take that into account. Borisblue 07:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. Impressive FA work, good answers to questions. Haukur 09:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
2. Support per nom and Haukur. This is a good editor who has been around for quite some time and knows what he's doing. I'm happy to support. Singopo 12:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
3. Strong Support. In the past it used to be much easier to be an admin because "it isn't a big deal" and we'd give it to those who could use it to benefit Misplaced Pages, as you clearly can. It's terribly frustrating to have to ask someone to take care of a vandal you should be able to do yourself. Not only are you inconvienanced, but so is at least one admin. And this focus on edit counts really kills me. Have you done anything *wrong*? You clearly showed remorse for the one incident that has been brought to light. Some of the objections to you (except for # of edit counts) could be said about me. There are areas where even I'd not be considered for admin such as "Not enough recent experience" or even "I don't spend most of my time fighting vandals, but writing articles". For those with editcountitis, the edit count list back in March put current administrator and bureaucrat Redux at 2,431 (main namespace) edits. That number is now 2,628. Now I'm comparing apples and oranges, but looking at edit counts alone is about as ludicrious as saying Redux shouldn't even be an administrator because he doesn't write enough articles, has "only" 6,197 total, and is not even a top 500 user. -- RM 12:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

   One needs only to read Redux's initial (main namespace) edits, which included photo uploads and serious edits, look to the absolute breadth of his contributions, and you'd conclude he stands a chance of making early admin even today. But edit counts are a quick and dirty way to diagnose where to look for weaknesses. That said, although I grumble a little about the argument, I agree with your conclusion. Looking at edit counts alone is nonsense; one must look to the contributions. Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 05:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

4. Support, no reason to believe he'd abuse or misuse the tools. - Bobet 12:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
5. Support. Has a Featured Article. :) Dlohcierekim 13:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
6. Support. Absolutely. When I was promoted, five weeks ago, I had fewer edits over a longer time, no FA, and nominated myself, so I see no problems here. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 13:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
7. Support. — FireFox  _{15:22, 05 September 2006}
8. Support –Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 15:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
9. Support, 1FA. - Mailer Diablo 15:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
10. Support --Jay(Reply) 16:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
11. Support Blackjack48 16:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
12. Support He has a featured article and unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979 17:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
13. Support Some P. Erson 19:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
14. Support. Like the man said, quality not quantity, and also invoking the "no big deal" clause. Guy 19:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
15. Support per above. —Khoikhoi 23:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
16. Merovingian - Talk 00:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
17. Support The way I see it, it is really easy to rack up an edit count by hitting delete. It takes time and thought to enter a completed quality article, citing references, avoiding copyvio’s etc. That’s why I believe edit count quantity is nowhere nearly as important as quality of edit. The opposition has nothing to sway my input on this. JungleCat talk/contrib 04:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
18. Support— Serious contributions like Gauss and Euler — dedication to the articles success is evident. AfD actions solidly supported — I may not agree with your determinations, but you told me the basis for your position & didn’t just give me more “per nom”. Overall you have the breadth of experience that makes me comfortable supporting you toward knighthood with the power of blocking & unblocking editors, deleting & undeleting pages, performing complex moves, page protection and enforcing arbitration rulings. Use these powers for good, not evil! Williamborg (Bill) 05:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
19. Enthusiastic support I love his answer to the first question. BaseballBaby 07:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
20. Support Everything looks fine to me.--MONGO 09:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
21. Support. Definitely agree quality over quantity, and this editor appears to be committed to building an encyclopedia. Espresso Addict 12:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
22. Support, based almost entirely on the following quote: "I plan to try helping out in some of the backlogs" alphaChimp 15:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
23. Support Good editor who is dedicated to quality articles.-- danntm _C 19:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

    Support. - Mailer Diablo 19:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

    One per customer - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

    • Opps! My apologies. Thanks for spotting that. - Mailer Diablo 09:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

24. Support _Doctor Bruno_/_{E Mail} 02:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
25. Support, excellent contributions. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
26. - CrazyRussian talk/email supports on 04:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
27. Support - Good contributions. Also like his remark about giving priority to writing articles over admin tools. I feel he will not misuse his tools. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 13:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
28. Support Excellent, trustworthy, thoughtful editor. Xoloz 16:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
29. Support. Looks solid to me. Themindset 16:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
30. Support. A very valued and trusted editor on Misplaced Pages. --Nishkid64 20:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
31. Support Normally, I probably wouldn't support given the relatively small edit count compared to time being a Wikipedian. However, when looking at his contributions, all of them seem to have been manual edits and quite good, at that. I really like how he carries himself when interacting with other users on their talk pages (even from his first user talk edit) and I'm assuming he's very trustworthy (in the limited interaction I've had with TCU students, all have been great :) ). hoopydink 22:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
32. Support Quality over quantity. I liked the very common sense answers to the questions. Trustworty and could use the tools - pretty much what an admin should be. Agent 86 23:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
33. Support --Mike 15:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
34. Support -- per nom and answers to question 2 --T-rex 15:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
35. Support -- Tawker 04:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
36. Support, quality not quantity! -- Lego@lost EVIL, EVIL! | 21:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
37. Support, liked the answers to the questions, agree with quality over quantity, and meets my standards anyway. BryanG 04:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
38. Support. Trustable user and good answers, while the edit count aint magnificent i believe quality is better then quantity. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
39. Support There are obviously enough quality edits - which is what edit-count criteria are supposed to establish, Tewfik 03:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
40. Support. Good editor, good edits, good answers. -- DS1953 05:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
41. Support good edits--Jiang 12:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
42. Support' =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
43. Support - Good editor. -- Szvest 14:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
44. Support RN 19:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
45. Support, gladly. Sango123 21:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
46. Support quality. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 02:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
47. Edit conflict support. quality over quantity, as said above. --heah 02:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
48. Support per well known cliché. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 12:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose per low recent edit count (less than 500 edits since April) - edit count also a bit low overall. Michael 06:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

   Since when does it matter how recent the edit count is? Administrator tools are the same for fighting vandalism as they were years ago, and it isn't much of a learning curve to figure out deletion policy. I learned speed-deletion policy in one day. This user has done a lot of good, has he done anything *bad*? -- RM 12:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

   No, I don't see a tremendous overall devotion to the project due to the edit count as I mentioned above. Michael 18:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

2. Oppose Low edit count overall suggests user doesn't have the required experience to be an admin just yet. - Mgm| 11:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral, low edit count seeing as they've been here since Jan 2006, and I disagree with users method of reporting vandals on admins talk pages instead of WP:AIV. Tempted to support, also tempted to oppose, so inbetween it'll have to be.--Andeh 14:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

   Actually, Borisblue has been here since January 2005, not 2006. VegaDark 08:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

   Wow, even more of a reason to oppose then, thank you for pointing that out.--Andeh 14:15, 7 September 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.

Zapptastic

Final (24/13/3) Ended 13:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Zapptastic (talk · contribs) – It is my pleasure to nominate Zapptastic (previously Zappa.jake) for adminship. He has been with us since January of 2006, and has been an active contributor since February 2006. During that time he has fulfilled many roles on Misplaced Pages, including active new page patroling (something that makes his edit count much lower than it should be), writing many articles, and spending time in many other miscellaneous areas such as Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion. He has also been active in the community side of Misplaced Pages, being involved in Esperanza, Concordia, and a very active member of the Welcoming committee.

By namespace, Zapptastic has made significant contributions to::

• Main: , ,
• Talk: , ,
• User talk: , ,
• Misplaced Pages: , , ,
• He has also had enough edits to be very familiar with images, categories, and templates.

Full disclosures: Zapptastic had one previous RfA as Zappa.jake, which can be found here; it mostly failed because people felt he didn't have enough experience yet, something that I feel he has rectified since then. Also, many of his user talk edits involve games of chess or welcoming commitee tasks. However, I feel he has plenty of other edits which show that he can communicate effectively with other editors.

Needless to say, I feel Zapptastic more than meets my RFA criteria. I have never seen him be incivil, even in potentially stressful situations , . Though some may consider his Misplaced Pages and Misplaced Pages talk edits to be slightly low, he has more than convinced me that he is well-versed in policy, including through a speedy deletion exercise we went through together. If you have any doubts about his policy knowledge, I urge you to ask him optional questions- I assure you he won't let you down. Finally, he has shown that he is willing to do repetitive, janitorial-type tasks, something that any administrator knows is necessary quite a bit. I feel that giving him the admin tools will help the project in many ways. Thanks in advance to everyone who adds their productive comments to this RfA. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 03:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I very greatefully accept Eric's nomination. Thanks for all the hard work, you rock. -Zapptastic (talk) 05:10, 5 September 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: Speedying requested articles and also articles I see on newpage patrol that are obvious vandalism. Working with stuff at the admin noticeboard, just helping people out with whatever they needed done. I'd be willing to close AfDs and such, even though I don't have a ton of experience around there. Basically, my main couple of reasons are that on newpage patrol I see a lot of stuff that is obvious CSD, and it would be nice to be able to just delete that myself without wasting someone else's time. Also, I use VandalProof occasionally, and, although not often, I'll see a persistent vandal who needs blocking. I've done a lot of work, just slow, tedious, tasks, so I'd also be willing to clean whatever backlog needs cleaning. I feel that I myself, and the rest of the community, could benefit from me having the toolbox. Feel free to ask me any questions about this.

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

A: I said this at my last RfA - Trinity School at River Ridge is one of my greatest prides. It's where I go to school. I have contributed a great load of that article, and I think it's really well done. It's sorta hard to get an article about a high school with ~400 student to FA status, but I would say it's pretty nice for it's potential. Anyways, my main reason for liking this so much, is that it has served as sort of an ambassador to members of my school on behalf of Misplaced Pages. I've had multiple people come up to me at school saying they had checked out the article, there's been discussions about Misplaced Pages in class based on that article, and there have been more than a couple of contributors who came to know Misplaced Pages through that article. Basically, I think it's really well done, and it has introduced a lot of people to Misplaced Pages. That's half of it - my other particularly pleasing contributions have been those of my work at the welcoming committee. My user talk edit count is 2000+, more than my mainspace edit count, and the reason for that is all the new user's I've welcomed. When a new user comes to Misplaced Pages, it can be a scary place, not knowing what to do, how it works, etc. However, I've placed welcome templates on many user talk pages, and occasionally, they've came to me with questions or thanks. That's really a nice feeling, to know that you've helped someone out. So yeah, those are my big two.

Due to understandable concerns about mainspace editing, here are a list of ten diffs of pages I've created or significantly cleaned up or rewritten. If this isn't enough, I can post more...

Pusa Polytechnic

Village East Drugs

Joseph Carlino

Doug White (news anchor)

Basilica of St. Lawrence

David Thomas Dawson

Cissy van Bennekom

Metro Transit Routes

National Socialist Vanguard

and my favorite, Trinity School at River Ridge

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 course I've been in conflicts before, but nothing too major. Misplaced Pages really hasn't been too stressful for me. (Maybe I'm not doing enough!) I believe in the minor conflicts I've had, I've handled them well, and I obviously plan to do so in the future. If anyone has any advice for me regarding this, please don't hesitate to tell me.

Question from Yanksox

4. Can you elaborate on your beliefs on CSD as opposed to the use of the PROD template. When should each be used? Also, can you expand on how you would believe consensus to be in AfD, MfD, RfD, CfD, or TfD discussions? Specifically, use of argument and new users. Thanks, Yanksox 11:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes I can. Speedy deletion should only be used when the article in questions meets CDS, and when there would be a huge WP:SNOWBALL of consensus if the article went to AfD. That's my thinking when I nominate an article for speedy deletion (or when I wish I could use it myself). When there is question as to whether it meets CSD, or if I believe that there may be a disagreement with the decision, I throw a {{prod}} tag on it. Regarding consensus at XfDs, at first when using my admin powers, I will only close discussions with large, obvious consensus (=0 oppose votes). As I become more experienced with deletion, I would begin to recognize consensus like any other admin - whether it seems the community generally agrees on something. Regarding new users, I'd look around and see how long they've been here, how many edits they've made, what kind of contributions they're making. If I feel they're experienced enough to be taken seriously, if they're informed enough about both the article and the policy about deletion, then I feel that they're qualified to be part of the discussion. Regarding use of argument, I would let people argue it over then decide based on the arguments presented. People have heads, they can read arguments and decide whether they're worthy or not. I'm a small part of the consensus-making process, and I'm not going to delete it or not based on which arguments I like. Now, if I see an argument come up late in the discussion, and not many users have had time to react to that and possibly change their minds, that is something that needs to be considered. I really don't think it's that hard to see whether it's consensus or not. If you want, you could throw me at some type of consensus-judging excercise, just like Eric threw me on a CSD excercise. Hope this helps, Zapptastic (talk) 21:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, to be annoying but just a follow-up question: Is that suggesting that you believe an article can be speedied if the admin believes that the article (Which isn't a clearcut CSD) has no chance in hell of surviving AfD? Keep in mind there is no wrong answer. Yanksox 23:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem, it's not annoying, it's nice to see a user who takes RfA so seriously. When I first started out as an admin, I would make sure articles I was deleting both met CSD and would survive an AfD. However, as time goes on, with more experience, I can see myself using SNOWBALL to delete articles. But not at first, after a couple months of experience, probably. -Zapptastic (talk) 00:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Optional question from bibliomaniac15 23:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

5. Why'd you happen to change your name? Thanks, bibliomaniac15 23:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't like my real name being my username anymore, as that had alreay lead to someone attempting to post my personal details on my talk page, and I didn't want it to happen again. Also some users, particularly the ones I was welcoming, were confused by the "." in my username. -Zapptastic (talk) 00:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Optional backlog-related question from Alphachimp

6. You mentioned that you are willing to help with backlogs that need cleaning. Check out the admin backlog. Five of those six pages are always there, and always need work. Interested in any of them? alphaChimp 15:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I am willing to help with whatever's needed. However, abuse reports and requests for investigation sound particularly fun, just because I enjoy playing detective, and speedy deleting stuff would be easy for me, as I have a lot of experience with it. I am also willing to help with images and copyright stuff, although it doesn't sound as fun as the other stuff. -Zapptastic (talk) 00:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Optional question from Konstable

7. Just related to your views on *fDs, I would like to ask a more general open-ended question. What are your views on consensus in general, and on using voting to reach agreement?--Konstable 06:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Consensus is really whether the majority of Misplaced Pages users thnk it would be good to delete the article. This isn't necessarily 50%, not necessarily 70%, not necessarily 99%, but whether there is a general feeling one way or another. If, as an admin, I can determine that most of the users, that, in general, the community as a whole, thinks it would be good for the wiki to delete an article or whatever else, then that's consensus, and I delete. If it's foggy, or if people generally want to keep it around, then there's no consensus, and I let it stay. As far as voting goes, it's not the perfect consensus-or-not-indicator, but it works pretty well. I know that generally the consensus-determining-level is ~70%, and that it probably where I would generally draw the line also. Of coure, admins must use common sense, yet not particularly favor their POV when deciding. I would probably attempt to stay out of XfDs that I had a personal opinion on one way or another, but I'm sure I could make a fair judgement regardless. Hope this helps, Zapptastic (talk) 19:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• User's edit stats
• See Zapptastic's edit count on the talk page
• See Zapptastic's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.

Support

1. Merovingian - Talk 02:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
2. Nominator support. Goes without saying, of course. More than meets my criteria, and I truly believe he would be productive with the tools. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 05:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
3. third here suuport, ha! -- Lego@lost EVIL, EVIL! | 05:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
4. Support per nom. Michael 06:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
5. Support A very civil user who is well versed in Misplaced Pages policies. --Siva1979 09:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
6. Support, great editor, very civil and experienced--TBCTaLk?!? 09:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
7. Support Looks good to me. Tango Alpha Foxtrot 11:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
8. Support. 2 months since the last time, and there were no major concerns then other than "not enough experience"? Now you have 2 months more experience. -- RM 12:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

   Just for clarification for others, it's actually been three months since the previous RfA, which ended June 1st. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 16:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

   One day I'll learn to count. — Ram-Man 16:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

9. Support :) Dlohcierekim 12:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
10. Support. Meets my criteria as well. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 13:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
11. Support A strong application and a good demonstration of a range of admin skills, especially the judgement shown in the mentoring exercise. (aeropagitica) 14:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
12. Support – I haven't actually seen you around before (not that I remember, anyway) but you seem like a good user to me. — FireFox  _{15:21, 05 September 2006}
13. Support -Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 15:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
14. Support. - Mailer Diablo 15:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
15. Strong support. Based on the chess game we played, and a quick review of his contributions, I find Zapptastic to be a fine Wikipedian, and a good sysop candidate, even if he is a bit young (but we have plenty of sysops around his age, I think). His csd exercise with EWS23 shows knowledge of Misplaced Pages policies, and I think he has improved (mainly in terms of experience) since his previous (first) rfa as Zappa.jake. I hope he is approved by the community, as he will make good use of administrative tools. Picaroon9288•talk 16:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
16. Support per above. —Khoikhoi 23:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
17. Support per nom. _Doctor Bruno_/_{E Mail} 02:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
18. Support meets my standards, just remember that WP:SNOW is to be used sparingly.-- danntm _C 00:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
19. Support Agree with the "Support" consensus. ---Ncrown23334
20. Support, on the borderline of experience but answer to #4 suggests he has a decent head on his shoulders and would be capable of employing some common sense. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
21. Weak support. Not a big fan of using WP:SNOW to speedy delete articles, but otherwise looks fine. A bit more experience in XfD would get rid of the "weak" next time around if this RfA fails. BryanG 03:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

    Support. He'll do fine. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 00:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

    Sorry, I forgot I voted twice... :( . RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 16:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

22. Weak support. As others have mentioned, WP:SNOW for speedy delete seems a bit shaky, but I think we can trust this candidate with the tools.--Konstable 19:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
23. Weak support. Trustable and good answers, + per BryanG. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
24. Support. He seems to have a very good grasp on policy, though I agree with others that WP:SNOW should be used sparingly, if at all, in the speedy deletion process. -- DS1953 06:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weak Oppose: Sorry Zapp, but ~15 AFDs isn't really enough experience for me in that department. It's also great that you've started to post on WP:ANI, but you should also show a willingness to investigate incidents initiated by other editors instead of just reporting your own encounters. Apart from those issues, I'm willing to support a future RFA. --  Netsnipe  ►  05:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

   I will agree with you that I don't have a bunch of quantitative edits there, but I do think that I have a good understanding of the process, what happens, and what criteria for deletion are. And I really do have a lot of experience with deletion, just not at AfD - with speedys while on newpage patrol. You may want to check out my db excercise that Eric gave me during admin coaching, if you doubt at all my ability to judge speedy deletions. Regarding editing at ANI, I really haven't experienced a whole lot of need to report stuff there. It's happened before, and when I've needed to post there, I did. However, that just hasn't happened a lot. Sorry, I just can't see why you want me to post on a page when there is really no need. If you would like me to post some diffs of the few times I have needed help there, I can find those for you. As an admin, I guarantee you I will be spending a lot more time there. -Zapptastic (talk) 06:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

   Okay, sorry, now I get what you were trying to say. I guess I'm willing to help out there when needed, as an admin or not, but I guess most stuff there really only needs the help of an admin - that's why it's the administrator's noteboard, not the regular user's noteboard. As far as helping out other users, I think I've done a lot of that, mainly helping out new users. Hope I've changed your opinion of me, Zapptastic (talk) 06:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

   Your db coaching link is dead so I can't see it right now. As for WP:ANI, I know there's a hesitancy for non-admins to contribute, but I myself started reading the reports there before being an admin so I could keep track of long-term abusers, and note that there's always cases being reported there that need investigation or mediation rather than blocks (which can always be recommended and acted upon by others). --  Netsnipe  ►  06:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

   Sorry, here it is. Looks like I typo'ed when making the page. D'oh! Thanks, Zapptastic (talk) 06:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

   OK, I'm convinced that you can handle obvious deletions, but I just don't have any real idea on how you handle researching borderline cases. So it's only a weak oppose. --  Netsnipe  ►  06:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

   Same way I've handled them in the past - AfD. (Let me explain.) In the few cases where I have encountered borderline cases, I have used AfD. However, because the vast majority of my being involved with deletions is regarding obvious speedys, I haven't used AfD a lot. As an admin, I will, if I encounter a borderline case I'm unsure about, send it to AfD to see what other people think. Hope this helps, Zapptastic (talk) 06:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

   I was referring to how I just don't know how well you research and conduct yourself in AFDs. --  Netsnipe  ►  03:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

2. OPPOSE; according to edit statistics, user has only given 69 user warnings indicating lack of vandal-fighting experience, mainly only participating in CSD and not AfD shows they aren't that experienced in the entire deletion scene. Also spamming users talk pages in last RfA(13 of these). Edit count seems rather inflated from welcoming new users at very high speeds (8+ welcomes a minute) and playing games. Not providing image sources. I won't go on any longer, but I feel the user is best as an editor for now.--Andeh 15:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

   I did not spam user talk pages during my last RfA - that was ShortJason, a new user at the time, attempting to help me out. He went around to different users I had worked with in the past, (people that had left messages at my talk pages), and let them know that I had an RfA going on. I did not ask him to do this, nor did I approve it. I did not know about his going-ons until he had posted those 13. I then went around to those user's talk pages, apoligizing for his behavior, and letting those users know that I did not approve of it. I appreciated him trying to help, but I realize it was an unacceptable action. I asked him to stop, and he did. He also ended up doing this for a couple other users. He eventually wrote an essay on the matter which grew into a large discussion - his proposal was ultimately rejected. While, yes, may of my edits are from welcoming new users and playing chess games, I don't see a problem with that - it strengthens sense of community with users I'm playing with, and it helps new Wikipedians figure things out - something that I don't see as inflation, but just as important as other edits. I do accept your criticism regarding my lack of AfD experience and lack of vandal warnings. I've just become a large vandal fighter in the last month or so, but I do do that regularly now when I see a vandal. I also promise to become more active at AfD. Thanks, 24.118.255.136 20:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC) Zapptastic (talk) 20:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC) Sorry, public computer.

   Sorry, but I get the impression the main difference since your last RfA is you've got a huge edit count from welcoming new users on a mass scale, instead of gaining the experience in the deletion scene and vandalism workings. And you did spam users talk pages, was such a long message really necessary? -

   I apologize for ShortJason's advertising. Normally most people consider it unacceptable to advertise RfAs (Requests for Adminship) on people's talk pages. I have asked him to stop. Regardless, now that it's here, if you do wish to vote, do so here. Sorry, zappa.jake (talk) 19:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

   Surely you could've just posted a note on the RfA itself instead of re-spamming the users? Sorry, but edit count/time doesn't automatically equal experience.--Andeh 12:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

   I wanted to make a personal apology to those users - I didn't want them thinking it was me who was going that. Is two lines really too long? (I'm using a low resolution screen, also.) -Zapptastic (talk) 00:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

   I haven't decided which way to vote, yet, but for my part, I appreciated a personal apology from Zappa about the unrequested solicitation.--Josh Rocchio 23:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

3. Oppose. Despite the high edit count there appear to be too few substantive edits on articles for the editor to have got a sense of what Misplaced Pages is about, which I believe is key for the deletion side of adminship. Espresso Addict 11:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

   If you'd like, I can provide some more diffs of substantive mainspace edits other than the ones Eric's provided in the nomination. How many would you like? -Zapptastic (talk) 00:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

   I ask you to please take a look at my updated answer to question two - I think it will quell your concerns. -Zapptastic (talk) 07:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

   Thanks for providing this information for review. I'm afraid I stick with my opinion; most of these revisions, whilst positive, are on the minor side. Espresso Addict 12:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

4. Oppose Few AfDs, relatively-low wikispace edits, and tricky answer to Question 4 all suggest candidate is a bit inexperienced in wiki-process. Speedy deleting per WP:SNOW maybe isn't totally evil, but it isn't something an RfA candidate should be thinking about before getting the mop. Xoloz 17:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

   I don't understand how my answer to Q4 was "tricky" - please elaborate so I can clear things up for you. Also, I'm not thinking about deleting via SNOWBALL until at least a couple months into my adminship, possibly more. -Zapptastic (talk) 00:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

5. Oppose somewhat per Xoloz and somewhat per my general impression of the user. Sorry. - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose per Xoloz and Andeh. I'm concerned about the low *fD experience and snowball comments in Q4. As mentioned above, he was notified yesterday that Image:Northstar Commuter Coach.jpg did not list a source; the edit he responded with is imprecise, does not name the copyright holder, and does not convince me that that we can consider the image licensed under the GFDL. He's good editor, but right now there are still too many signs of inexperience for my comfort. ×Meegs 06:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose per Xoloz. Too few Misplaced Pages space edits. Participate more in AfD's and I'd change my mind. --Nishkid64 20:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
8. Weak Oppose per Netsnipe and Espresso Addict. At first blush this candidate looks ready for the mop, but on further investigation, including the examples given by the nominee, I was quite underwhelmed and did not see what I expected to see. While I believe this person may be trusted with the mop, I'm not quite convinced of the need or the ability to use it. Agent 86 22:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
9. Weak Oppose Zapptastic has limited experience in what the areas in which he wants to apply the administrative tools. That, plus the fact that I'm also a bit leery of those wanting using WP:SNOW to circumvent an AfD if CSD doesn't apply, leads me to believe that I'm not ready to support at this time. hoopydink 22:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

   Just as a comment, Zapptastic actually has extensive experience in the primary area in which he wants to apply the administrative tools. He is a new page patroller, and has used CSD criteria extensively in what he does. The funny thing about new page patrollers is that if you're good at tagging CSDs, your contributions will show very little of it because you correctly tagged the article and it was deleted. In addition, anyone who has a lot of experience with new pages and CSD knows that there are times when WP:SNOW applies because there are pages that don't explicitly meet CSD, but clearly fall under WP:NOT or other sub-guidelines. I hope people won't use his honest argument against him that sometimes using common sense is the best call. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 04:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

   Sure thing EWS23, a good comment. To clarify, I am speaking not towards his abilities to clear the CSD backlog, but to his vandalism reversion and *fD experience. I understand what you're saying about the snowball clause, but it's just an essay and I've opinions on how it should and shouldn't be used/enforced. I hope that I am not giving off the impression for attempting to use something against the candidate, for I appreciate and respect all the work he's done. Per alphaChimp, I'm changing my opposition to a weak one, for his good work on Misplaced Pages should not go unnoticed or unfactored in my opinion hoopydink 19:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

   Thanks for the response/clarification, Hoopydink. The above comment was as much a general comment to everyone as it was to you, and I hope other people who choose to participate in this RfA will read it. We certainly appreciate your opinions and conscientious statements. Cheers, EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 21:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

10. Weak Oppose As much as I hate doing this, I'm a bit fearful that you don't have enough experience. It's good to let the deletion process run its course. It's possible that a lot of work was invested in the article proposed for deletion. Please don't take this RfA as a blow against you personally. You are a great wikipedian and have a lot to offer this project, just not as an admin right now. alphaChimp 01:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
11. Weak Oppose per Hoopydink and Andeh.--Guinnog 11:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
12. Oppose per Xoloz - I'd like to seem more experience in the areas directly related to maintaining/writing an encyclopedia, which at the end of the day is what the mop is for. Tewfik 03:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
13. Weak oppose I supported the first RfA but was disconcerted by a few issues that arose there, mostly apropos of the user's judgment relative to speedy deletions but also with respect to deficiencies in articles he adduced as representing his best work (for which deficiencies, of course, no one editor is solely—or even jointly—responsible); because I've not found anything here to assuage my abiding concerns, I must oppose per Xoloz and consistent with my RfA guidelines. Joe 20:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

My sense from a survey of contributions is that the candidate spends a lot of time engaging in social activities (playing games, welcoming users). It's difficult to plow through this to find contributions that would indicate a grasp of Misplaced Pages policy. I would be happy to consider supporting if the candidate (or anyone) could point me to some more articles to which the candidate has made substantial, high quality contributions. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Gotcha. I'll start a list of diffs showing substantial work in the mainspace. I should have that within 18 hours. -Zapptastic (talk) 04:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. I ask you to please take a look at my updated answer to question two - I think it will quell your concerns. -Zapptastic (talk) 07:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Moved to support. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

1. Neutral. Falls well below my standard of at least 200 article-talk edits. Themindset 16:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
2. Neutral Sorry, Zappa. I felt like I was a massive jerk to you on your previous RfA. However, the comments about speedily deleting per WP:SNOW is not a good idea for anyone to use, even for experienced admins. The rationale for speedy deletion is for blantantly obvious cases where an admin can act without needing a consensus of any kind. However, on anything that appears to be boderline, anything could happen if an editor saw the article. We can't always be sure, trust me, I've been listed on DRV four times, I need to be careful, myself. I think you would be a good admin, but in good time. Yanksox 21:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
3. Neutral I don't have enough of an impression of this user to rate him. Scobell302 00:38, 10 September 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.

Hoopydink

Final Ended 20:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Hoopydink (talk · contribs) – Hi all! First off, thank you for deciding to participate in my request for adminship! I appreciate all of you spending some of your valuable time to discuss my request. I'm looking forward to taking some of the comments and suggestions that I hope you’ll list and use them to become a better Wikipedian and potentially a more self-aware administrator. I’d like the ability to use the extra buttons, as I think that they will help me become a more productive editor and I hope they will also allow me to help make Misplaced Pages a better place. The following is an overview of my edits and contributions. Please see Q1 for a detailed reason for why I’d like to become an administrator and how I would specifically use the tools (sneak peek: backlogs, requests, blocking, rollback, real-time assistance).

• Edit count -Around 4,600
• Time around – I started contributing in January of 2006 haven't looked back!
• Civil? – I sure hope so!
• No personal attacks – I hold myself to a rather strict set of standards when it comes to interacting with other users and would be rather disappointed in myself if I acted out of sorts. This is easily the worst I’ve ever acted towards another user and was an isolated incident. Please see Q3 for a detailed explanation.
• Edit summaries – Pretty good
• Mistakes – Sure, everyone makes them. I made some early mistakes when I first started using VandalProof some months ago, and my current mistakes usually stem from minor spelling or diction errors that I don’t spot immediately.
• Email enabled? – Yep.
• Userpage? – Very simple.

• I supported your RfA, but why should your userpage matter? - Mike 23:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • It's not a big deal, but as it was part of the format I borrowed and is the first thing a user often sees when clicking on another user's name, I figured I mention it (some Wikipedians appreciate user-friendly pages that have easily accessible links to e-mail, the talk, page, user contrubutions, various logs, etc.). hoopydink 03:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Any edit warring/blocks? – Nope. I’ve been in two or three minor content disputes and all have been solved on the talk page with friendly and productive discussions (please see this discussion from April, this discussion in regards to Zinedine Zidane, and this archived group of discussions in regards to controversies in the 2006 World Cup).

Contributions review

As my edit count alone says very little about my contributions to Misplaced Pages, I’ll give a brief overview of what I’ve actually been doing with my edits (Note: Gwernol recently employed this method as Guinnog’s RfA nominator, so this format, which I think is great, is credited to him and Petros471)

• Article: (~1900 edits) A large portion of my article edits come from vandalism-reversion while doing recent changes patrolling (I also have a considerable amount of non-edits resulting from tagging articles under the criteria for speedy deletion). I’ve written quite a few articles, mostly rugby union related (I contribute heavily towards WikiProject Rugby union). My main focus has been creating and editing articles that deal with rugby union in North America (See Rugby union in the United States, Rugby Super League, Boston RFC (a Good Article), USA Hawks, USA Falcons, Boston Irish Wolfhounds, Chicago Lions, Canada East, Canada West, San Francisco Golden Gate RFC, among quite a few others). I also edit some of the more popular rugby union articles. In addition to the rugby union topic, I’ve created some random stubs and small articles that

I meant to expand, but never got around to doing so.

• Article talk: (~160 edits) I always try to explain the rationale of my edits if I make a large or potentially controversial edit to an article. I was also involved in a great collaboration at Talk:2006_FIFA_World_Cup_controversies. We were able to ensure that the article had a neutral point of view during the World Cup when things get a bit crazy. We compared sources from many different publications on many different incidents and were able to reach consensus in a friendly and amicable way throughout the discussions.
• User: (~ 100 edits) Most of these edits stem from my sandbox and reverting vandalism on userpages of other Wikipedians. My own User:Hoopydink is very simple and up until recently I used the Esperanza information box as my de facto user page.
• User talk: (~1700 edits) The large amount of user talk edits results from my leaving the appropriate warnings on a vandal’s user talk page almost every single time I revert vandalism. I also almost always respond to a user on both mine and his/her talk pages. This is so we can both have a point of reference, as I have no idea who watches my user talk page. My user talk count is inflated quite a bit as a result of my duplicate messages.
• Misplaced Pages: (~700 edits) I’ve made about 100 reports to AIV, I have gained some experience in discussing *fD’s, and I’m a regular contributor to the discussions at RfA. I’ve also recently begun to post at the administrators noticeboard.
• Misplaced Pages talk: (~40 edits) I haven’t really contributed much here, but I’ve been part of some interesting and productive discussions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Rugby union, Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship (here, here, and I think I made a good edit here), and Misplaced Pages talk: Stable versions now (here).
• Image: (~50 edits) I’ve uploaded a good amount of images to include in articles (mostly rugby related images). All the images have been appropriately tagged and I’m fairly certain that none of the images I’ve uploaded have been deleted Meegs pointed out some image issues, and I'm now working to ensure that they are appropriate for Misplaced Pages

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Self-nomination hoopydink 23:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Unsolicited post-factum co-nomination: This user has left a perceptible imprint on WP in the last few months. He has engaged other users time and again with well thought out and forcefully argumented comments, and has behaved quite administrator-like. He is quite friendly, is unafraid to do the difficult thing, and has my unconditional wiki-trust. Bemop this user! - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:21, 5 September 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: Should I become an administrator, I will tread very carefully at first and use the tools to simply enhance how I usually edit. That is, to say, I will be able to do for myself what I often ask of administrators. I do RC patrolling often, and with the administrative tools, I'll be able to use administrative rollback, as well as help alleviate some of the backlogs I often add to (specifically WP:AIV and the CSD backlogs). The following is a (hopefully) more concise overview of how I would use the administrator rights:

• Real-time vandalism prevention: I've made over 100 edits to AIV and am often in the various Misplaced Pages IRC channels asking administrators to take a look at some of the more pressing reports. I envision myself as someone people can approach when they need administrative assistance in dealing with vandalism, be it a block or a level of page protection. To this end, I will be consistently monitoring WP:AIV, WP:RPP, the administrators' noticeboards, and the various IRC channels, which are increasingly becoming a preferred method to grab an administrator's attention.
• Real-time user assistance: I've been watching and editing the administrators' noticeboard lately and I'd be more than willing to help out any users requiring administrative assistance or intervention. I am also planning to monitor users' requests for unblocking. I feel that it's necessary for unblock requests to be reviewed rather swiftly, and while I would never undo another administrator's block without first consulting the blocking administrator or acheiving consensus on one of the administrators' noticeboards, I would make an effort to let the user know that an administrator is looking into the situation. As I mentioned above, I'm often in many Misplaced Pages-related IRC channels and will be available for assistance.

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

A: Lots of areas on Misplaced Pages give me pleasure, from productive discussions and free-flowing opinions on *fD's and talk pages to collaborating on articles with other users. In terms of my own article writing and creations, I'm very happy with the work we've done at WikiProject Rugby union. I've collaborated with lots of people that are both great rugby fans and dedicated editors. My primary foci has been creating articles (most are stubs) for second and third tiered nations that play rugby union (See Rugby union in Japan, Rugby union in Russia, Rugby union in the United States, and Rugby union in Bulgaria, for example), and creating articles for North American rugby clubs and competitions (I've created or heavily contributed to over twenty of these sorts of articles). Boston RFC has very recently become a good article, one of thirteen sport team Good Articles on Misplaced Pages. I have created a rather specific rubric and have collected a lot of information, so I hope

that every team that competes in the Super League will soon become a good article.

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

A: Honestly, not really. I've been here for a while and have been lucky to have a positive experience throughout. I edit Misplaced Pages because it's fun, and I can't imagine being anything less than collegial with other users, for then Misplaced Pages would cease to be fun. I've certainly not accrued any undue stress as a result of my editing. With the interest of giving a complete an overview as I can about my Misplaced Pages experience, I'll provide some diffs of my more controversial (for lack of a better word) encounters. I had two discussions with Srose that involved a potentially inappropriate usage of userspace and a large removal of content (discussions can be found here and here). These issues were resolved rather quickly and Srose and I are on very friendly terms. I also initiated a

heavily debated CfD. I initiated the discussion after asking a particpant to the category what he thought (here). I became a bit irked when a user used "You suxx0r" as rationale (at the time, I was unaware that the term is often used as internet slang and was intended in jest) and made some repetitive comments that probably weren't very helpful to the discussion. Kim Bruning and I also had a brief misunderstanding during that CfD, but after talking to him on IRC soon after, we are now on rather collegial terms. The last thing I can think of is that I left a rather stern warning to a user here. I was a bit heated after the user had reported that Peter Gammons (who had then recently suffered a brain aneurysm) had died and had been caught with child pornography. The user was soon indefinitely blocked after using sockpuppets to further vandalise the article. This was easily the most affected I had ever been by a vandal and I am usually quite a bit more level-headed

4. (optional) Your user page indicates that you are also active on the Irish Misplaced Pages. How active are you over there? thanks, --T-rex 23:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

A: Hi! Thanks for the question! I'm basically inactive at the Irish Misplaced Pages at the moment. I read the articles there quite often, but am a very weak contributor. I registered the day I found out that we had an Irish Misplaced Pages with the aim of splitting my time between there and the English Misplaced Pages. I've been meaning to start really contributing, but my time has gone to projects on the English Misplaced Pages I'm currently involved in. I love conversing with others in Gaeilge, so I formed #wikipedia-ga, an IRC channel for Irish speaking Wikipedians. However, like the Irish Misplaced Pages, the IRC channel is largely inactive, unfortunately. hoopydink 00:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

5. (optional) Check out our huge admin backlog. Some pages, such as WP:CP, desperately need help. Intend to help with anything other than AIV and CSD? alphaChimp 03:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

A: That's a great question, Alphachimp! Thanks for giving me the opportunity to elaborate a bit. Should I become an administrator, I'll be focusing primarily on the CSD and AIV backlogs as that is just a natural extension of how I often regularly edit doing RC patrolling. That said, I'd definitely be willing to help out wherever I could be of use. I was unaware of the pressing need for administrator presence at WP:CP and will definitely help out there once I get my bearings. That is, I'll be asking administrators who already help out there (and any other areas where I've little experience) to give me a bit of coaching before I dive right in. I'll also be consistently monitoring the administrators' noticeboard and it's sub-boards (AN/I, for example) with the aims of helping out there wherever I can. These reports seem to be all-encompassing and are great to work on, as there's often mulitple perspectives, ideas, and suggestions on how to best address these situations.

hoopydink 03:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Very good answer. Admittedly, the backlog on this type of page is due to some of the complexity surrounding the issues. It's not necessarily the most simple or rewarding admin activity, but it does need to get done, and I appreciate your answer. Of course, AIV and CSD contributions are always appreciated. alphaChimp 04:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

6. (optional) You have very few edits in the Category namespace. Can you indicate whether you have been active in Misplaced Pages namespace areas concerning categories? Would you feel confident enough to use your admin tools in this area? Carcharoth 11:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

A: Another great question! The only edits to the category namespace I can recall is adding a notice that a category had been proposed for discussion. I will often add the appropriate categories to articles I work on, so I'm aware of how to use them. In terms of using admin tools with regards to categories, I don't plan on closing any CfD's unless an admin asks me for help with a large backlog (*fD closing is not an area I've much, if any, experience in).

Comments

Current tally: (95/2/0)

Support

1. 1st Support Hoopydink makes a valuable contribution to Misplaced Pages, I believe will do a good job as an admin. Good luck! --Alex 19:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
2. Super-Duper 2 support - User certainly presents themself well, and have good faith within the user. Iolakana•T 19:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
3. I had some concerns about some of this editor's actions and in particular some nominations, wondering if he gets the wiki way... but I've had a chance to talk to him and I think he does get it. Moreover, the record of contributions is solid, and shows a prelediction for the sorts of things that good admins do before they become good admins. I think Hoopydink is a fine candidate and I look forward to working with him. Support ++Lar: t/c 20:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
4. Support. He's not already? --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
5. Support. Contributions look good! The Land 20:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
6. Support; seen him around, been impressed so far; good answers and examples. Antandrus (talk) 20:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
7. Support. Honestly, I was pretty sure you were already an admin. Past experiences give me no reason to worry he'll abuse the tools, and he seems more levelheaded than many. Always responsive and helpful on IRC. Luna Santin 20:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
8. Support despite the slightly malformed nom. User meets my civility and 2k edit requirements. He's also a clear asset to the WP:AIV board. Best of luck on your RFA, Hoopy. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 20:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
9. Support. The candidate's abject crueltyhelpful criticism on my own RfA well and truly demonstrated that hoopy knows what he's doing. :) Daveydweeb (/_patch) 21:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
10. Support. I don't see why not. FireSpike 21:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
11. Support I'll support on the basis of the above answers to questions and the quick and constructive response to observations on the copyright status of some of the images that you have uploaded. (aeropagitica) 21:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
12. Strong Support. (edit conflict) I like to think I am on top of things. When I see "I already thought (s)he was an admin..." votes, I think to myself, "Wow, they need to pay more attention!" However, I was caught off guard for this one. I am positively shocked that you are not already an admin. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 21:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
13. Support --Jay(Reply) 21:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
14. I really hate to drop this cliche, but after reading his posts at ANI and elsewhere, I had to double-check that he wasn't already an admin. Several times. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 22:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
15. Support Strong candidate AdamBiswanger1_{R.I.P. Steve Irwin} 22:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
16. Support per above. —Khoikhoi 23:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
17. Support. Excellent user, trustworthy, and could use the tools. Every time I look this user up I'm surprised there this user isn't an admin or that there hasn't been a previous RfA. Agent 86 23:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
18. Support. based solely on the highly organized and detailed summary of user's contributions. :) Dlohcierekim 00:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
19. Support Highly qualified candidate with ample article and project space experience.-- danntm _C 00:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
20. Support great editor! - Mike 00:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
21. Support. This is a very well executed request from a clearly capable candidate, I have no doubt he will use the tools to continue his good work. Rje 00:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
22. Support per Agent 86 and Luna S., consistent with my RfA guidelines, and insofar as, like Daveydweeb, I often find myself admiring Hoopydink's RfA comments, such that I think he/she has an excellent conception of that which an admin should be and is possessed of the measured judgment that portends propitious tool use. Joe 00:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
23.  Jorcoga  Supports and recommends that you do too on 00:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC).
24. Unsolicited co-nominator Support - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
25. Support A great asset. Set him to work asap... Tyrenius 01:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
26. Support. A good editor, vandal fighter, and communicator. Looking through his contributions and talk page, it's clear that he learns from his own mistakes, is helpful to others, and takes WP:BITE seriously. ×Meegs 02:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
27. Merovingian - Talk 02:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
28. Support, good user. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 03:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
29. Strong Support. I see your name all over, and I've never had trouble with the users you report to AIV. You're a great user, and will make a great admin :). alphaChimp 03:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
30. Strong Support - I hate to invoke RfA cliche #1 but I for the longest time honestly believed he was already an administrator. In fact it wasn't until my own RfA that I realised this wasnt the case. Long overdue, strong support. - Glen 03:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
31. Pile on Support - there, I did it -- Tawker 03:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
32. More Support Yet! - me too. Kukini 04:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
33. Support no question. An asset -- Samir धर्म 04:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
34. Jump up and down on top of Samir's head support I wonder what a hoopymop looks like.... Baseball,Baby! 04:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
35. /me supports --Srikeit 05:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
36. Support: my, my, it seems like my RFA has encouraged all the regular vandalfighters at #wikipedia to run. --  Netsnipe  ►  05:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
37. Support and happy to Nigel 07:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
38. Support - good vandal fighter. --Ixfd64 08:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
39. Support Unlikely to abuse admin tools. A great user. --Siva1979 09:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
40. Support Great user, will be a great admin. - The Bethling 09:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
41. Support, great editor, has done a lot of work fighting vandalism.--TBCTaLk?!? 09:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
42. Support Yes! Yes! JungleCat talk/contrib 12:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
43. Support. — FireFox  _{15:19, 05 September 2006}
44. That's hot. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 15:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
45. Support, I do believe I was tempted to nominate them in the past. No need now.--Andeh 15:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
46. Support. - Mailer Diablo 15:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
47. Support - per RfA cliche #1 and CrazyRussian --T-rex 16:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
48. Support. RFerreira 18:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
49. Support. digital_me 18:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
50. Support - I thought he was an admin already. He'd make an excellent addtion! Mhking 20:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
51. Support reasonable, attentive user with a good work ethic. Yeah, that sounds good. feydey 22:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
52. Suport don't see why not, alot of good edits for a short time. Coasttocoast 22:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
53. Support. I'm more than happy to support Hoopy. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
54. Support. Hoopy has a good sense of humor and was very civil and helpful in the two rather lengthy discussions we had. Srose (talk) 23:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
55. Support. íslenskur fellibylur #12 _(samtal) 01:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
56. Support I too thought the user was an admin; I confess that I checked the User Rights log to make sure I wasn't going crazy. Hoopydink does well in RC patrolling and Misplaced Pages discussion, I trust 'em with the tools. Please, though, do more than AIV and CSD. There is much much more out there... Teke 03:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

    Yes! Great observation. alphaChimp 04:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

57. Support -- worthy admin candidate. - Longhair 03:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
58. Support: not even close in my book. theProject 04:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
59. Very Strong Support Hoopydink is an excellent user, and I'm so glad that he's going for the tools. He's an excellent presence on RC patroll, and a great, knowledgeable editor. I have no problems supporting him. Thε Halo 10:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
60. Support. Due to the high esteem in which this user is held, I will wave my standard of at least 200 user-talk edits. Themindset 16:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
61. Support Excellent, trustworthy editor. Besides, his username continues to be an endless source of amusement for my child-like mind! :) Hoopydink... giggle... Xoloz 18:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
62. Support. G.He 19:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
63. Support. User is well experienced and is willing to do work for the community. Tarret 01:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
64. Support per his Contributions _Doctor Bruno_/_{E Mail} 02:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
65. Absolute, yet unnecessary Support, despite our recent disagreement. :-). Cheers, and good luck, — Werdna talk criticism 07:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
66. Of course Jaranda 20:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
67. Support. Great user, great vandal-fighter. --Nishkid64 21:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
68. Support per above and answers to questions. Great user, excellent vandal-stomper. :D --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 21:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
69. Wish I had found this earlier pile on support --james 23:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
70. Support - User appears to be sane. Sane people tend to be good administrators. Therefore, Hoopy will make a good administrator. —this is messedrocker (talk) 23:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
71. I'm always late to the party Support - I see this guy all over, "What, he's not an admin yet"? etc etc. --AbsolutDan 01:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
72. Support, I think Hoopydink will use the tools well. --- Deville (Talk) 03:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
73. Support Yet another "he's not an admin yet???" vote. NawlinWiki 05:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
74. I-thought-I-already-supported-this-RfA-but-on-second-check-I-hadn't support - Daniel.Bryant 06:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
75. Support Good Editor with a a lot of great work behind him Æon _EA! 06:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
76. Support. Can be trusted with the tools. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 13:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
77. --Nearly Headless Nick 14:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
78. Support per nom, answers, and comments above. Quality user, no issues. Newyorkbrad 16:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
79. Support. Worthy contributor and countervandal. Heimstern Läufer 01:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
80. Support - a strong editor, no concerns whatsoever. Rockpocket 07:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
81. Support —Xyrael / 08:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
82. Support --Robdurbar 09:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
83. Cleared for Adminship Great vandal fighting work. // Pilotguy (Have your say) 14:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
84. Support °≈§→ Robomæyhem: T/←§≈° 14:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
85. 'Support. -- Steel 16:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
86. Support another fine candidate. Long history of exactly the right kind of stuff. Guy 19:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
87. Support would make a really good admin. -- Lego@lost EVIL, EVIL! | 21:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
88. Support— I think I'm safe in congratulating you on making it! Use your Wikipowers thoughtfully and well! Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 00:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

    And if you didn't already realize it, a post facto conomination by Crzrussian is noteworthy. Williamborg (Bill) 00:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

89. Pile-on Support. I have nothing but good experience of this editor who I am sure will be a great admin. --Guinnog 11:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
90. Support haz (talk) e
91. Support An excellent editor who is calm, civil and well suited to becoming an admin. Welcome aboard. Gwernol 13:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
92. Support. Excellent answers, excellent summary usage, civil user, could do great things. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
93. Support per nom. Good contributor Anger22 19:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
94. Support. Seriously...I thought he already was one. 1ne 19:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
95. Support. Does good work. AnnH ♫ 20:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose due to interactions on IRC, and from what I've seen there, Hoopydink is not civil. Thats not exactly what we want for admins. ILovePlankton 23:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

   Thanks for participating in my RfA, ILovePlankton! Your comments are both welcomed and appreciated. I'm fairly certain you're referring to my limited interaction with a recently banned user, which I believed to be appropriate. If this is the case, then I appreciate you bringing this up, and if not, I apologise for assuming otherwise (I'd also like to mention that I've been entrusted as an operator on #wikipedia, the primary Misplaced Pages IRC channel). Cheers! hoopydink 03:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

2. Oppose per ILP. I will reiterate my oppose even if it gets deleted. Whether or not the user is blocked, it is irrelevant. The point here is that Hoopydink completely personally attacked another user without reason (on IRC) and even sent a negatively worded threatening e-mail (I can paste this on my userpage with addresses deleted to prove my point if I need to). There is no excuse to personally attack someone, regardless of what the issue is - whether you don't like someone (again without knowing them, this cannot be fair), heard bad things about them (again without asking them for verification, this cannot be fair), or whatever, you just don't personally attack someone OR send them harassing e-mails. Harassment doesn't make a good admin. Being calm, level-headed, approachable, trying to remain neutral in the midst of issues that don't directly involve you, that makes a good admin. Enkil 19:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

   This is User:Enkil's only edit. Gwernol 20:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

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

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

Oscarthecat

Ended 15:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Oscarthecat (talk · contribs) – Oscarthecat has been contributing to Misplaced Pages since October of 2005. Since then, he has amassed over 5,500 edits, about 4,500 of them in the article namespace. Oscar is known for being very civil and relaxed, as you can see at Talk:Calvin and Hobbes both at the present and in archives. I nominated Oscar in March, unfortunately without success, but now I think he would make a truly extremely well qualified admin. Most that opposed said that they would support with time...I guess we'll see. - Mike 14:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Accepted, many thanks for the nomination. --Oscarthecat 13:46, 3 September 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 do a fair amount of recent changes patrol at the moment, for which the rollback admin feature would undoubtedly be useful, as would being able to act against vandals. I'd also continue to participate in afd discussions and eventually close off ones where reasonable concensus has been reached.

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

A: I haven't created many articles, but I've done quite a lot of restructuring and tidying up of articles, in an effort to get them into a state suitable for consideration as a Featured article. Such restructures/tidyups include Calvin and Hobbes, Playstation 3, Xbox 360, Nintendo Revolution. Recently, have been pleased with the progress made discussing the way forward with the Calvin and Hobbes article, in order to satisfy other contributers and at the same time follow WP:EL policy. I've done rather a lot of work on various "retro" gaming articles for games such as Manic Miner and some associated magazines like CRASH, Zzap!64, Retro Gamer and Your Sinclair.

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

A: I've been involved in discussions over edit conflicts in the past, where I've found that starting a line of discussion with everyone concerned has definitely helped reach a consensus. Over at the Calvin and Hobbes article (I've done a lot of edits on this one), we'd reached a standstill with external links. I wanted to reduce the ever-growing list of fan site external links, others wanted to add to it. After much discussion we made use of references within the article, which referenced content of note within the fan sites (see Talk:Calvin_and_Hobbes#External links redux). By doing this, it became clear which fan sites had content of note. More discussion on there since has now started, where we're aiming for a concensus on how to reduce the content of the article by moving character profiles to other articles. Other than that, haven't been involved in any conflicts, either during my time as User:Oscarthecat or my anonymous edits (varying IP addresses) prior to that. Done some edits on Nuclear power which is sometimes tricky, given the POV balance needed on the page. Happy to say that my edits there get accepted, and not immediately reverted (article seems to be watched/edited by many people with very strong opinions for/against Nuclear).

Optional question from  Netsnipe  ►  16:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

4. I've noticed that this year you haven't really come across any substantial abusers in the form of persistent sock-puppeteers or long term abuse cases and you haven't shown any participation on the Administrators' noticeboards so far. Can you provide any examples where you've been challenged or have thoroughly investigated an abuse case? Do you think you are ready or experienced enough to deal with the darker side of Misplaced Pages should you be pushed to the breaking point one day?

A: I've been involved in the long-term abuse of the Juggernaut article (repeated edits by appears to be someone having an axe to grind against Tesco, see the Juggernaut talk page). Managed to open a dialog with all concerned, got contributions from others, eventually got an administrator involved to protect the page. Incidentally, I have used the Administrator noticeboards now and then, when absolutely necessary, mainly to make them aware of ongoing vandalism. On whether I'm ready for the darker side of wikipedia, difficult to speculate on that, although I believe it wouldn't be a problem for me. --Oscarthecat 16:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• See Oscarthecat's edit count on the talk page
• See Oscarthecat's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
• Edit count at talk page. --WinHunter 15:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Have updated my signature - at the time I created it, the WP page said "There are several objections to having images in signatures. In particular, they are said to cause server slowdown, and to serve no purpose in an encyclopedia project other than vanity in addition to making pages more difficult to read. There have been some calls for banning them entirely; some people have objected to such a ban, arguing it would stifle creativity.". Needless to say, I took the "stifled creativity" approach. Looking at the page now, such images are actively discouraged, so my old friend the Union Flag has now been removed from my signature. --Oscarthecat 15:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I know this is less relevent, but thanks for bringing this to my attention too. I've removed the image from my sig as well. - Mike 16:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Final tally: (46/5/4)

Support

1. Strong Support as nominator. - Mike 14:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
2. Merovingian - Talk 18:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
3. Seems to be in order. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 18:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
4. Support np here Computerjoe's talk 19:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
5. Support. — FireFox  _{19:16, 03 September 2006}
6. Support I'll support but I would like to see more use of edit summaries as there are quite a few gaps in the Wikispace edits. On that subject, there are no Wikispace edits at all in July of this year and almost all of April, although your edit history shows that you were active in these times. Are there any particular reasons why this is the case? (aeropagitica) 19:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
7. Support. Candidate meets my 2K and civility requirements. We need more level heads around here; the removal of the flag from his signature shows a willingness to be flexible. User's answers to the questions seem fine; user's WP:talk space edits are very low, but that was never one of my requirements. No dings, no big deal. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
8. Support— Main space edits:4778— Wikispace edits: 341— Blocked: never— Images: 76— Moves: 13— First recorded edit: 18 October 2005. Edited and commented on a longstanding NPOV conflict— Nuclear power — edits seem mildly partisan but completely sane and reasonable. Edited and commented on a potential NPOV conflict— List of civilian nuclear accidents — edits completely sane and reasonable (and well referenced). Ample evidence of recent change & newpage patrols. Edit summary usage for Oscarthecat: 99% for major edits and 99% for minor edits (based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits)— fixed that earlier problem. No evidence of imprudent or inappropriate behavior jumps out (other than the signature issue, which is fairly small change in light of the rest). Understands enough Wikipolicy that you can give him the delete/undelete/ban/unban powers—he can be trusted not to abuse them. Williamborg (Bill) 21:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
9. Support per nom. Rama's arrow 22:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
10. Support per Williamborg (Bill) --Ageo020 22:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
11. Support per nom. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 22:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
12. Support per nomination. Some P. Erson 23:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
13. Support good editors make good admins abakharev 01:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
14. Support. I would prefer to see more WP-space edits, but looks perfectly okay to me otherwise. I don't care about signatures — in fact, it's cool to see U.S.-flag guy nominate U.K.-flag guy (twice!) Grandmasterka 01:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
15. Support per Grandmasterka. —Khoikhoi 02:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
16. Support per nom. Michael 02:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
17. Supported then, support now Jaranda 02:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
18. Bicolor cat solidarity support per nom and consistent with my RfA standards. Joe 03:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
19. Support - Williamborg summed it all up very nicely! - Glen 03:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
20. Support I see nothing wrong, I believe tools will be used and not abused. Yanksox 04:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

    Lol, I see I had an edit conflict with you! -- Legolost EVIL, EVIL! 04:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

21. Support It is time to give him the mop. --Siva1979 08:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
22. Support 4,500 edits! This guy deserves this! (Don'tblockme 09:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC))
23. Support - no reservations here. Metamagician3000 11:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
24. Support, the user in question has undoubtedly met my qualifications, which don't really exhist.  Daniel_123  ►  14:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
25. Support, couldn't find any particularly troubling edits, has satisfactory experience. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
26. Support.We can trust this guy to do well as admin. --Nishkid64 16:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
27. Support. - Mailer Diablo 18:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
28. Support Looks like a strong user, plus he's a cat. Staxringold _talk 19:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
29. Support --Jay(Reply) 19:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
30. Support - Iolakana•T 19:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
31. Support, because I see no compelling reason not to. I suggest you increase your involvement in the Misplaced Pages and Misplaced Pages talk spaces, but that's not going to make oppose. Daveydweeb (/_patch) 21:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
32. Support. Would ideally like more evidence of how you'd behave in a difficult situation, but you are clearly already acting as an administrator and are contributing in a positive manner. The Land 21:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
33. Support. Committed, dedicated editor. Zaxem 00:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
34. Support Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 03:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
35. Support -- Tawker 04:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
36. Support not many user talk/talk edits, especially for an RC patroller, but he seems level-headed. I would also like to see an answer to Netsnipe's AfD question below, but I'll support pending that answer. Baseball,Baby! 05:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
37. Support - good contributor. --Ixfd64 08:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
38. Support. RFerreira 18:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
39. Support. Solid user with a solid record, no significant incidents. Best of luck. Themindset 18:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
40. Support per above. Solid user. —Jared Hunt September 5, 2006, 21:07 (UTC)
41. Support per nom _Doctor Bruno_/_{E Mail} 02:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
42. SupportAppears to be a quality user, would make good admin. Canadian-Bacon 19:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
43. Support A good user with a good track record.-- danntm _C 01:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
44. Support per comments above. Good user, no issues. Newyorkbrad 16:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
45. Support I give you the support, your track record shows you have what it takes. FireSpike 16:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
46. Support. Slightly weak answers, leaning towards weak support however your generous main space edit count gives you a full support from me. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose WP:SIG - remove the image please. – Chacor 15:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this into account. – Chacor 15:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

1. Oppose - project and project talk space edits are VERY low, and the image in the signature —Mets501 (talk) 15:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
2. Weak oppose - Oscarthecat has enough edits in (main) to show dedication. But along Mets501's concerns, I'm concerned with the lack of edits he's had in the project/-talk space in his time here. Anyone wanting to be administrator really needs to get some experience keeping track of what's going on around the place on the noticeboards. Most of his AFDs also appear to have been single line votes. Oscar: are there any AFD nominations you could point out that show considerable research on your part? --  Netsnipe  ►  14:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
3. Weak oppose. Few major edits apparent in the past month and relatively low percentage at article talk pages suggests not only a lack of significant edits but also a lack of engagement with the community over content building. Espresso Addict 01:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose per Netsnipe - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose shows lack of dedication to the community behind the project and the process of gathering consensus with low WP/Talk edits — Preceding unsigned comment added by AKMask (talk • contribs)

Neutral

1. Sig problem solved. Based on my old criteria for an admin, would likely gain support but I think I'll go neutral. – Chacor 15:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
2. Neutral - worried about an overuse of fair use images in edit history, but besides that no other worries. (and for the record, I see nothing wrong with the flag in the sig...) --T-rex 21:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
3. Nuetral - leaning t'wards support-- Legolost EVIL, EVIL! 04:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
4. Neutral - (leaning toward oppose). I'm torn. On one hand the quality of normal edits is great and I want to AGF. On the other hand though, I agree with some of the opposers, specifically dealing with the amount and quality of Misplaced Pages namespace edits. Having looked over some of them myself, especially the AfD votes, I'm concerned with single line voting. If the user can provide evidence satisfactory to Netsnipe's concerns, then my vote can be assumed to be a support (if I don't update it). In that case I may still have additional concerns, but not enough to prevent supporting. -- RM 03:45, 9 September 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.

Luna Santin

Ended 15:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Luna Santin (talk · contribs) – Luna Santin is a fellow Wikipedian from San Francisco, California. A civil, respectful and intelligent editor who has amassed in excess of 7500 edits in a period of three months. Areas which he has been involved in include:

• Article editing and creation, including California High School Exit Exam
• RC Patrol, CSD tagging, Vandalism reverts and issuing appropriate warnings.
• Mediating disputes as an excellent mediator
• Wikifying articles

I've also seen him spend time on various article talk pages resolving disputes in a civil and rational way. An extensive survey of his edits has made me feel sure that he has done well as a user and will do well as an admin. Luna is a self-confessed WikiGnome and has wikified many articles to date. In my opinion, Misplaced Pages will be a better place with him having the tools. --Nearly Headless Nick 10:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you for your kind words; I accept and look forward to feedback from the community. Luna Santin 12:17, 3 September 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 plan to answer {{unblock}} requests, both good and bad, to patrol {{prod}} and close AfDs. I'm a regular contributor at CfD, and I have no reason to expect that will change. CSD will likewise be on the list. Non-admin backlogs I already contribute to include {{helpme}} requests and the wikify backlog. If the community grants me the opportunity, I also plan to help out at AIV and similar tasks -- before you groan and say we have enough of that, let me point out that you probably haven't been on around 9:00 to 14:00 UTC, when the admins are fewer and further between, and the AIV backlog sometimes extends for hours. Every user deserves a second chance, even a third, but there generally should be at least one admin watching over AIV in the event that the vandals picked tonight for some fun. I always try to take more out of a backlog than I put into it, and I'd like the opportunity to help out with some more.

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

A: I am, I think, most known for two things: cleaning up vandalism and helping new users. For at least a month, now, I've been trying to hunt down something to turn into an FA; until I find something suitable, my finest article is probably California High School Exit Exam. I've welcomed something in the vicinity of 700 users to Misplaced Pages, frequently helping them out with later requests, and also helped to ease our steep learning curve at the help desk, new contributors' help page, or by responding to {{helpme}}s. I've wikified more articles than I've tagged for wikification, and plan to keep it that way. I'm a founding member of WikiProject Stub Removal, which aims to trim down stub categories to the point of being more useful, and I'm a regular contributor at 3O, helping to calm down disputes and trim down the backlogs at MedCab or even ArbCom. I've helped good users to formulate unblock requests and get other needed admin attention, on IRC. As I mentioned above, I also participate in CfD and AfD, with somewhere around 700 Misplaced Pages namespace edits, I think, between those and other policy-related discussions.

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: Ah, conflict. Oddly enough, my very first edit as an anon user was at AfD. As I mentioned 3O, it led me into what's probably been my largest content dispute to date, at Libertarianism. See Talk:Libertarianism/Archive9 for details -- in a nutshell, there was a POV dispute over versions of a particular paragraph in the "controversies among libertarians" section of the article. I did my best to propose a compromise version, and (if I recall correctly) all but one editor ended up agreeing to that version. I did my part to keep the dispute on talk pages, and never reverted that I can remember, but unfortunately one user resorted to disruptions and personal attacks even over a week into the dispute, constantly turning down attempts to request outside opinions or mediation, and was eventually blocked to 24 hours, per a report at PAIN; shortly after that, socks began joining the dispute, and eventually User:Irgendwer was indefinitely blocked. I regret that the situation went that far, but I also believe the user was being disruptive. I tried my best to assume good faith and work things out.

More recently, the userbox I'd created for WikiProject Stub Removal was deleted by User:Cyde; after a note to his talk page was left unanswered (he continued editing), I posted to DRV and left another note. The discussion at DRV nearly unanimously supported overturning the speedy deletion, and it was overturned by User:AmiDaniel, and then redeleted by Cyde (still without comment at the time). I unfortunately left a bit of a fiery note at Cyde's talk page, at which point I discovered that he'd (also unfortunately) managed to miss all of my prior messages. We apologized to each other, and continued going about our business. See his talk page here, and the DRV discussion here. My biggest regret is that I wasn't more civil towards Cyde, and I've learned from that.

Beyond that, I occasionally get into "disputes" helping new users -- often "vandals" are simply new users experimenting or trying to figure things out. When reasonable people are willing to talk things over, a solution can usually be reached, and I'm glad to say I've experienced that on more than a few occassions, while patrolling recent changes.

Question from  Netsnipe  ►  13:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

4. I've noticed that in the three months of vandal fighting since you've been here that you haven't really come across any substantial abusers in the form of persistent sock-puppeteers or long term abuse cases and your involvement on the Administrators' noticeboards so far has been small. Can you provide any examples where you think you've been challenged? Do you think you are ready or experienced enough to deal with the darker side of Misplaced Pages should you be pushed to the breaking point one day?

Hmm, a fair question. I have dealt with some sockpuppets, mainly at the Libertarianism dispute, in a few AfDs, and with some vandals. I'm a healthy enough person that I can take a step back and breathe, when the situation calls for it. In one example, a clever vandal was reporting the currently active RC patrollers to AIV; as a matter of principle, I refused to remove myself from the listing, instead trusting that the responding admin would check contribs and act appropriately. A minute or two later, I was {{indefblocked-vandal}} (see block log). I got up and away from my computer for a minute or two, composed myself, and came back to compose an unblock request, including diffs, contribs links, and evidence -- I had already formed a plan I knew would work. Before I could compose the full request, however, the blocking admin realized their mistake and unblocked me. I left them what I hope was a nice note, and a reply later that was pretty much the end of it. Likewise, I have familiarity dealing with some of the persistent vandals we face here; no need to name names, I think, especially since I've become a believer in WP:DENY.

Now, I think I can display my approach to solving tough problems with my efforts at Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-16 alumni link (or some of my user talk messages involved in the same case, between new users, experienced users, and sysops). Some problems, ideally most problems, can be solved through discussion. Some can't, and I'm prepared to accept that, as well. I'm a patient person; I need not "have my way" right away, as I'd say is demonstrated by my refusal to propogate a revert war during the dispute at Libertarianism.

It's true that I don't have a lot of edits at AN or AN/I. In part this is to avoid cluttering up those already-busy boards. When I do contribute, I believe I do so with value -- take this as an example. A project I'm involved with was listed at AN, ANI, MFD, and WT:AFD, there were veiled threats of banning and mass reverts, and I was calm (at least, I think).

I've been opped at a few forums and chat channels, before, so the experience would hardly be entirely new. In general, with my life experience as a whole, I can tell you upfront that I have a strong tolerance for inconvenience, problems, and stress -- I'm very good at calming myself down. In particular, I was once in charge of nearly 60 teenage boys, aged from 11 to 18, for a week. I've been a lifeguard in charge of critical, split-second decisions, in charge of keeping people alive. I've worked as staff at a leadership training camp, again in charge of large numbers of people, in charge of resolving sometimes violent disputes, sometimes involving people with knives. I'm pretty sure I can handle the interweb. :)

Question from Andeh

5. Could you point me to some of your AfD nominations and any AfD discussions you've been involved in, created AfDs should still be on your watchlist. Thanks.

A: To be honest, most of my deletion nominations in the past month or so have been successful speedies and prods, which unfortunately makes them tricky to link to. Demonstrative AfD discussions would include Bricemanning, Erik Widman, Chris DeJoseph, Man-Faye (2nd nom), Chiricheppu, Islamophobia (3rd nom), OMHPC, January Malkus, List of songs in English labeled the worst ever (3rd nom), and nominations include Blend corp, Blades of Aason, and Branden Rooney. I also fix broken noms from time to time. While not technically on AfD, I sometimes leave new users notes like this. I can't find the diff(s), at the moment, but User:JoanneB and I once talked a pageblanking new user through the prod/AfD process, effectively reforming their behavior.

I've also participated quite a bit at CfD. My first nomination there, Omega models, eventually involved tagging somewhere around 100 categories (fun!). Other demonstrative discussions would, I think, include People killed by or on behalf of Muhammad, Vespa scooter riders, and especially Wikipedians by organization and similar discussions.

(Also, that seemed to be question five, rather than six, unless I missed one somewhere?)

Comments

• See Luna Santin's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
• Edit count on talk page Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 12:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Final tally: (97/4/4)

Support

1. Beat-the-nominator-support - Very good editor, great vandal fighting and such. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 12:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
2. Support - glad to be one of the first here. MER-C 12:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
3. Strong support keep up the level of contribution. We need more dedicated users (and admins for that matter) such as you. Good luck! --Alex 12:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
4. Support - _{J Di} 12:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
5. Support - civil, helpful, knowledgeable -- Lost 12:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
6. Support per answer to question 1. --james 12:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
7. Support per nom, good answers to questions, and user's record of contributions in a number of areas. Newyorkbrad 13:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
8. Support Helps new users; reports and reverts vandalism; lots of descriptive edit summaries; many additions to user Talk pages; nice user page. Let this editor help with the mop and bucket. (aeropagitica) 13:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
9. Strong support - Strongly recommend this user. Has been very helpful helping new users, knows the admin rules inside out and not at all trigger-happy, will make a fine admin. - Tangotango 13:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
10. Concerned about the short time on wiki, but his contribution record, answers to questions, review of the Talk Libertarianism archive, and general approach suggest nothing to be concerned about. A "no big deal" support. ++Lar: t/c 13:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
11. Strong support Look at the accolades he's earned, friends he's made "in 3 months." Rama's arrow 14:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
12. Support. Opposers too picky. User is solid and excellent thus far, and I see no evidence why this will change. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 14:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
13. Strong Support - trust me guys, fantastic editor with a fantastic attitude that will do us all proud with the tools - Glen 14:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
14. Support on wheels!! Solid user, very helpful.--digital_me 14:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
15. Support, great guy. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 15:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
16. Strong Support due to anwser to question #1 - AIV backlog can get long and unblock is an important part of the vandal-fighting process ST47 15:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
17. Support. Just met him last night, and was quite impressed after a readthrough of the answers and a lookthrough of the contribs. We need more like this. Antandrus (talk) 15:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
18. Yup. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 15:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
19. Support. -- Steel 16:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
20. Support: Trusted by others to moderate WikiDiscussion Manager and has enough experience on AFD/CSD to make up for his lack of experience on adminstrators' noticeboards apart other than WP:AIV. --  Netsnipe  ►  17:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
21. Merovingian - Talk 18:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
22. Support Looks like an excellent user, though 3 months is a little short compared to most prospective admins. Ya ya ya ya ya ya 18:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
23. Moderate Support - I've come across him and found him concerned and helpful. Possibly inexperienced tho. Nigel 18:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
24. Support. Experienced vandal fighter amongst other things, three months is long enough in my opinion. Very strong answers to questions. — FireFox  _{19:13, 03 September 2006}
25. Support per nom. —Khoikhoi 19:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
26. Hrm, thought he was already an admin Support I like the candidate's willingness to watch WP:AIV, as it can never have enough eyes. Helping out with some of the backlogs is great, also, as is his willingness to answer unblock requests; it's very important that these be answered in a timely fashion hoopydink 20:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
27. Support— The issue should not be how long one has contributed or what specifically has been contributed, but rather whether the editor shows the skills, intellectual scope and predisposition to thoughtfully and successfully handle the admin tools combined with enough Wiki-mileage to understand the pitfalls. The best indicator of future performance is past performance—I’m comfortable that Luna Santin can be trusted to delete, undelete, block, & unblock without abusing these powers—anyone who can survive the Libertarianism discussions without a lingering taint of partisanship and & still wants to be an administrator gets my support. Williamborg (Bill) 20:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
28. Support. A safe pair of hands. Mike Christie (talk) 21:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
29. Support 3 months is quite less, but I have seen that this user is phenomenally active in wiki from my experiences. We need this user to be an admin. --Ageo020 22:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
30. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 22:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
31. Support. G.He 22:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
32. Support --Jay(Reply) 23:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
33. Support per above and personal interaction. AuburnPilot 00:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
34. Support I have seen this user around, I'm certain that he can be trusted with admin tools.--Konstable 00:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
35. Support Vandal fighter needs tools abakharev 01:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
36. Support. I see a lot of long-time admins on WP:ANI that I have somehow never managed to run into before, and I wondered upon meeting this user if he was another one. ;-) 'Nuff said. Grandmasterka 02:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
37. Jaranda 02:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
38. Seen this user around, consistently impressed. Support. »ctails!« =hello?= 03:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
39. Support. I've seen nothing but good things from this guy. We always need more admins, so I'm pleased to support. alphaChimp 03:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
40. Support Can't be too harsh upon time, some of the best admins we have were adminned in about the same time. This user did have me convinced at moments that they were an admin. I see nothing here that will show a complete or any kind of abuse with the tools. Yanksox 04:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
41. Support. Michael 05:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
42. Strong support will make a fabulous administrator -- Samir धर्म 05:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
43. Support I have only the utmost respect for the candidate. Canadian-Bacon 05:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
44. Support - Seen this user around, everything looks good to me. --WinHunter 08:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
45. Support I see no major concerns here. A great user. --Siva1979 08:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
46. Support. Good and responsible contributor. Experienced in a number of areas. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
47. Support. Good vandal fighter and a level headed editor. We need more of those as admins. --Woohookitty 11:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
48. Support. DarthVader 12:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
49. Support per answer to Q1. --Nishkid64 16:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
50. Support - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 16:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
51. Support Nominator support added by Aksi great - Nearly Headless Nick
52. Support. - Mailer Diablo 18:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
53. Opposition is spurious.--SB | T 18:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
54. Support Luna Santin looks like a solid, dedicated editor. We need more good admins. I don't see any issues here. JungleCat talk/contrib 18:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
55. Support --Srikeit 18:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
56. Support~Luna was one of the first Wikipedians I interacted with when I became a "real" editor, and I was overwhelmed by his kindness in helping a newbie like myself. Throughout my short time here I've only seen more of the spirit of willing helpfulness. I think he'd make a great admin. —Keakealani •talk•contribs• 19:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
57. Support. Good vandal fighter Bugtrio 19:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
58. Support. Excellent countervandal and a fine all-around contributor. Heimstern Läufer 22:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
59. Support. Although short time on Misplaced Pages, looks dedicated to the project. - Darwinek 23:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
60. Support. Very impressed by answers. - Mike 01:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
61. Support Very dedicated to the project Hello32020 01:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
62. Support - a little AWB issue w/ subst has nothing to do w/ adminship -- Tawker 04:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
63. Support A terrific editor who will mop wisely. Baseball,Baby! 05:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
64. Support - great vandal fighter. --Ixfd64 07:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
65. Big support -- Szvest 10:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
66. Support: We certainly require more new administrators who are honest and unbiased to run the show without bringing into elements of subjectivity to their approach. --Bhadani 14:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
67. That's hot. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 15:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
68. There is No Mediation Cabal Support. CQJ 18:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
69. Support. RFerreira 18:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
70. Support I've seen this user's work and been impressed. Will make good use of the mop. Gwernol 19:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
71. Support Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 23:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC).
72. Support 7500+ edits in 3 months? That's twice as many as I've made in 5 months. Experience is not measured solely by calendar time. Also, considering the well-thought through answers, I'm ready to support. --Richard 23:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
73. Support, very active and alert at recent changes monitoring - I'm very disappointed that I didn't notice this RFA until it was 70+ votes in. Kuru 02:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
74. Support Great editor to be around, would make superb admin. --CableModem 06:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
75. Support, I see no problems. Since when is 3 months considered not enough time? What happened to everyone having a minimum of 3 months, with barely anyone having minimums over that and a few having minimums of less? --Rory096 06:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
76. Strong Support - I have known Luna San (-tin omitted on IRC, where I first met the candidate, and it stuck) for a while now and have seen some excellent work in CVU, but also an excellent ability to converse with other members. The candidate doesn't strike me as someone to abuse the mop, and we need more good RC patrollers with sysop to handle blocks more effectively. I've seen AIV backlogs caused by none other than the candidate :) Good luck, Luna, not that you'll need it. --Draicone 10:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
77. Support. I can see how the oppose voters might be worried about the time he's been around, but I was nominated after a similar time frame myself and I do think in some cases it can be quite enough, both for the community to assess a candidate and for the candidate to gain the necessary skills and knowledge. I hope but also expect that Luna realises that a lot of learning is done 'on the job' but I expect that he'll do well. --JoanneB 11:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
78. Strong support - I've seen only good from this user. Metamagician3000 14:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
79. Support Good vandal whacker, good answers to the questions. 3 months is enough for me, especially since this user has show he has a fair understanding of policy. All admins learn while on the job, and I trust that this user will be a quick learner. There are two questions I have asked myself: Do I trust this user with the mop, and do I believe this user will benefit the encyclopedia with the mop? I answered yes to both. KOS | talk 19:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
80. Support Luna already watches and responds to admin notices, such as RFU. Though he can't do anything about it, he rationally explains blocks or expresses opposition while making it clear he's not an admin and does a bang-up job of it. I also know him from #wikipedia-bootcamp, where he has shown sufficient policy knowledge to weild the mop well. Teke 01:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
81. Support per above _Doctor Bruno_/_{E Mail} 02:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
82. Strong support – but it's all been said already :) — riana_dzasta _{wreak havoc|damage report} 02:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
83. Support per above. Very helpful user, great deal of impact on the community despite not being here that long. Three months isn't a reason not to support if he's shown that he's qualified. Of course, it doesn't seem to matter at this point, but I might as well say that. :P --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 21:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
84. Support-- has done work with WDM. Luna is a careful person, I feel that there is 0% chance of any type of abuse. As "adminship is no big deal", and I can't find any reason that would cause me to oppose other then short time with the project. 3 months to me is plenty of time, especially since Luna-San has shown his use in backlogs and in general knowledge of policy. One fine canidate! —— Eagle (ask me for help) 22:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
85. Support: good vandal-fighter, and on the flipside great at helping people out. Moppify this guy! -AbsolutDan 01:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
86. Support, will make a good admin --- Deville (Talk) 03:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
87. Late support – Level-headed nice guy and great counter-vandal. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 04:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
88. Full Support Excelent User. Works on many many asspects of the Wiki. Hand her the mop Æon _EA! 06:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
89. Support, Per all Betacommand 13:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
90. Late "Was counting on camping for #100" Support — Werdna talk criticism 17:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
91. 9 more til' WP:100 Support, great user, very civil and helpful--TBCTaLk?!? 20:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
92. Support Fits almost all admin criteria like a glove. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 21:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
93. Support per all the reasons listed above :D DemosDemon 21:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
94. Support. I initially wanted to doublecheck on the mediation things the nominator mentioned, but I couldn't contact him, but now I saw Luna have some real nice interactions with newbies. Great user. - Mgm| 22:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
95. Support ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
96. Support. Very good mediator. enochlau (talk) 13:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
97. Support. Friendly user, helpful user. Good edit count, good sysop material. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose; misuse of AWB, only been here 3 months.--Andeh 13:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Would you mind elaborate a little bit about the misuse of AWB? --WinHunter 14:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes. See and

Moving to neutral as we need more admins to deal with unblocks and be at AIV. A considerable amount of WP edits are either reverts, substing templates or at cats for deletion, not a huge amount at AfD.--Andeh 14:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

1. Oppose - only three months with the project, and a lack of experience with images --T-rex 13:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose. Good editor, but limited time with the project. Espresso Addict 00:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Good contributor, but still very new. Should wait a bit longer and gain more experience before applying for adminship. Singopo 02:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
4. Weak oppose. 3 months look too short.--Jusjih 13:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. – Chacor 12:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

   Is there a reason for this? --Alex 13:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

   User has been quick to admit and learn from past mistakes, and I like that, but that's (the past mistakes) turned me off supporting. Take this as a neutral leaning weak support; I see no reason strong enough to oppose. – Chacor 13:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

2. Neutral Very good editor, but I would prefer a few more months of experience as a registered user.-- danntm _C 16:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
3. Neutral, per the reasons under my previous oppose vote above.--Andeh 14:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
4. Neutral, my minimum is 6 months. Looks like a great user, and will surely pass irregardless. Themindset 18:50, 5 September 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