Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Useight (talk | contribs) at 04:25, 1 December 2007 (→Current nominations for bureaucratship: added link to my RFA). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

• WP:RFA
• WP:RFX

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

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

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

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

About administrators

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

About RfA

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

Nomination standards

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

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

Nominations

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

Notice of RfA

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

Expressing opinions

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion, decision, and closing procedures

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

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

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

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

Monitors

• WP:MONITOR

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

Current nominations for adminship

Currently none.

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

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

Useight

Final (70/1/0); Originally scheduled to end 04:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC). Nomination successful. --Deskana (talk) 04:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Useight (talk · contribs) - Since it's all quiet on the Western front, I think I'd like to take this moment to nominate Useight for adminship. I acted as his admin coach, the page of which can be found here. Useight has made two previous self-noms before, and both were failed on concerns on his application of the speedy deletion criteria and that he did not have enough experience. Since then, I believe Useight has grown to be someone who could really help us clear the CAT:CSD backlog and someone who is also willing to learn new ways to benefit the community. bibliomaniac15 01:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I humbly accept this nomination and thank Bibliomaniac15. Useight 04:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

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

A: My primary admin function would be helping clear CAT:CSD, which is very often backlogged, since I have the most experience there, and I would eventually spread my wings into other areas. I spend a fair amount of time monitoring and tagging new pages, so having access to the delete button would be a time saver. I'd eventually start doing some work at WP:AFD, closing obvious discussions, but I wouldn't want to jump into that one with both feet, so I'd start out slow. I'd also like to help out at WP:UAA and WP:AIV, but, particularly with AIV, I'd begin with obvious cases until I became more accustomed to using the mop.

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

A: I think my mainspace contribs have been among my best. I normally edit articles within WikiProject Video games, but have shifted focus to WikiProject National Football League during the season. After the season ends, I'll be back focusing on the former. Both of these WikiProjects are subject to vandalism and POV fairly often, so I pride myself in helping to keep everything neutral. Some of the articles I've created are: List of living supercentenarians, Nike Air Pasco, and I recently started 2005 San Francisco 49ers season (which still has tons of work to be done, but I'm going as fast as I can). I also do a lot of WikiGnoming, which may not be the most celebrated type of editing, but I don't want to see typos and spelling errors in an encyclopedia.

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

A: I have only become stressed over Misplaced Pages a few times, but my inadvertent block was by far the most stressful. The full transcript of what happened can be found here. Basically, when I was a new editor and had recently learned about tagging new pages, I tagged one {{db-attack}}. The article was deleted and all contributors to the attack page were blocked, including myself. I calmly explained the misunderstanding to the admin that blocked me, the error was discovered, and I was immediately unblocked. Since then I have made sure to use edit summaries so other editors can quickly determine what I'm doing with as much transparency as possible. In future conflicts, I will act in the same manner, with a calm demeanor and a level head.

Optional question from Keepscases

4. Do you think you will leave some portion of your estate to Misplaced Pages upon your death? Keepscases 04:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

A: Wow, I never saw that question coming. Actually, no, I don't expect to. Not that I have much stuff, anyway. I guess if Jimbo and I start hanging out, then I will. I'd prefer to leave my computer to my brother so he could have his own place from which to edit Misplaced Pages. Useight 04:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Don't mean to be rude, but what is the relevance of your question? bibliomaniac15 06:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment Keepscases appears to have a history of asking fairly off-the-wall questions of prospective admins. I'm not familiar with him/her, so I can't speak to the relevance of the question, but I thought that this might clear up some confusion (or maybe it just created more?). faithless () 11:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

5. (optional) Could you provide a few diffs showing past interactions with vandals that would demonstrate competency when monitoring WP:AIV? Something beyond standard warning templates is what I have in mind here; I'm looking for efforts at correction rather than the typical level1 - level2 - level3 - level4 - block progression. Tijuana Brass 04:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

A: Sure, here's the most recent. A few days ago I realized that two accounts were sockpuppets and mentioned it here. I reported the two socks to AIV here. I then mentioned here that I didn't think the puppeteer should have any administrative action taken against him. I then posted to his talk page here, giving the new user some pointers and letting him know that he can always come to me on my talk page. Useight 04:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from Balloonman

6. Besides the Admin Coaching, what did you do differently to prepare for this RfA?

A: There are a couple of things. I slowed down my tagging of new pages to make sure I do each one justice and hopefully prevent mistakes. I also review the criteria for speedy deletion every couple of weeks to keep it fresh. I also tried to improve my comments in the discussions at AFD to avoid "Google said..." or "per nom", which don't really add any value to the discussion at all. However, my AFD participation has taken a backseat somewhat as of late as I have focused more on newpage monitoring and mainspace contributing. I have also been wandering over to ANI to learn what kind of incidents come up there. Useight 06:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from Húsönd

7. In Q1 you say that you'd begin with "obvious cases" when clearing WP:AIV. Please define what kind of reported users you'd be certain should be blocked. Húsönd 18:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

A: The most blatant cases would be those users who had received the full set of warnings, vandalized in between those warnings, and had vandalized after the last warning. Violators of 3RR should be blocked as well, but only temporarily, unless they were a multiple repeat offender. I personally would hold off on blocking POV pushers or other more questionable cases, letting another admin take charge there, until I felt more comfortable. I want to ease into using the admin tools. Useight 18:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Silly question from Dragons flight

8. RFA was so much prettier without any noms . Why did you have to go and ruin that by running? Dragons flight 23:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

A: I love your question; I suppose you saw my comment here. A "silly question" requires a silly answer: to ruin the fun everyone was having on the RFA talk page. Useight 23:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Not his fault! Hahaha it's mine! I nommed him at the right time! bibliomaniac15 05:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from Marlith

9. What do you want Misplaced Pages to be three years from now? Marlith /C 04:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

A: I want it to be the resource. Right now, professors are telling students not to use Misplaced Pages as a source, that they should go to the library or check other websites. I want Misplaced Pages to be at least on par with those other sources, as reliable, as respectable, as trusted. I know that's ambitious, but I hope by the time three years of improvement go by, acceptance of Misplaced Pages as a resource will have escalated dramatically. Useight 06:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

General comments

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

• Requests for adminship/Useight
• Requests for adminship/Useight 2
• Requests for adminship/Useight 3

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

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Useight before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. Support as nom. bibliomaniac15 01:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
2. Support No problems. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 04:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
3. Support, candidate failed last time due to perceived lack of experience. Reviewing Useight's contributions, I do not believe this is currently the case. Cheers, Gracenotes § 04:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
4. Might as well, as we are pretty desperate. -Goodshoped 04:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

   Niiiiiice... ;) WODUP 05:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

   And he's also active in vandal fighting and username reporting. Good. Support. -Goodshoped 04:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

5. Support. Good answer to my question, and I see specific improvement made since his last RFA. Also, I like the six character quick bio on his userpage. Tijuana Brass 06:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
6. Weak Support I like the Admin Coaching and the answer to my question. I'd personally like to see a little more experience, but your guidance in your last RFA was to wait 3 months. You've done what you were asked to do, so you get the nod to support.Balloonman 06:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
7. Support - seems to have progressed nicely since other RFA's. — Rudget _{contributions} 10:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
8. Support - Yeah, sure, I think the user will make a great admin. Can be trusted, can keep a level head and is a competent editor. Scarian 11:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
9. Support First two RfAs showed much more support than opposition, even if no consensus was reached. The sole issue with Useeight seems to be the CSD stuff, and it looks like he's learned from his past mistakes. faithless () 11:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
10. Support - trustworthy editor. Addhoc 12:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
11. Support Per rationale at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_adminship/Useight_2 when I supported, and I have only seen your efforts increase. Best wishes. Pedro :  Chat  13:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
12. Support Keepscases 16:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
13. Support He has a very good edit summary. On top of that he had very good answers, he has my support. --businessman332211 17:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

    Support No red flags here. нмŵוτнτ 17:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
    (move to oppose, after more deliberation) нмŵוτнτ 17:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

14. Support, supported him last time, will do so again. Wizardman 17:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
15. Support - I supported the last 2 RfAs so certainly support this one. Has shown familiarity with the various deletion processes through XfD participation and speedy taggings. Vandal fighting experience leads me to think he'd know when its appropriate to issue a block. His interactions with other users appears positive and what criticism there were last time seem to have been addressed. WjBscribe 17:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
16. Support - Good improvement since last time, will be fine now. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
17. This is a Secret 18:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
18. Support. You've gained in experience since your last request, and I think it's time to give you the mop. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 18:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
19. Support No indications of anything negative in the candidate's interactions with others, and (as noted above) experience in vandal fighting is good experience for an admin to have. No reservations. Best, ZZ ~ Evidence 18:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
20. Support. Looks good. I see no concern with the multiple RfAs (particularly given the 3rd is not a self-nom). 3 months is not a hard and fast rule, and user seems to have improved CSD work in the meantime. IronGargoyle 19:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
21. Support Just about enough experience. Epbr123 21:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
22. Support--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 22:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
23. Support Seems ready now. Húsönd 23:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
24. Support has grown. As has been said above, the multi attempts may just indicate enthusiasm. All the good reasons have already been stated. Dlohcierekim 00:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC

    PS, I was darn close to supporting the last time. Admits mistakes and is willing to learn. Has learned. Dlohcierekim 00:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

25. Support, cannot see any reason not to support this. Lankiveil 00:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC).
26. Strong support. Honestly, I don't give a crap about that "wait 3 months" so-called rule, Useight is as ready as he will ever be for adminship. Spebi 00:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
27. Yes, of course. I dorftrottel I talk I 01:25, December 2, 2007
28. Support Sounds fine. Jmlk17 02:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
29. Strong Support: I've seen this user around and is a great editor. Will make an excellent admin. - Rjd0060 03:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
30. Again. Dihydrogen Monoxide 03:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
31. Support - I have seen this user around. -- Anonymous Dissident 03:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
32. Answers to questions deal with issues from last time. Daniel 03:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
33. Support No problems here. --Siva1979 03:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
34. Support - Looks good to me. --WinHunter 08:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
35. Have seen improvement from last time. --D_arkF_alls 20:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
36. Support I see no problems. Midorihana_{(talk)(contribs)} 20:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
37. support A good editor, can be trusted with the tools. The opposes belows are based on extraneous concerns. --Hdt83 23:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
38. Support, looks good. Redrocketboy 23:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
39. Support Seen this user around many times, but I don't understand why he still doesn't have the mop. NHRHS2010 talk 23:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
40. Support looks good. --Strothra 00:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
41. Support I can trust him as an admin, good clean record. Ten Pound Hammer • 00:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
42. Support As per TenPoundHammer.Pharaoh of the Wizards 01:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
43. Support User has consistently shown good judgment in my dealings with him. Good luck! GlassCobra 02:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
44. Support. Seems very trustworthy and responsible. SlimVirgin 06:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
45. No concerns, should be fine. Neil ☎ 14:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
46. Support. Good experiences with this editor. You'll make a great admin. J-ſtan_Contribs 17:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
47. Support Solid contributions, and his eagerness to become an admin is hardly rare, or bad. Master of Puppets 22:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
48. Support A great attitude to match good skills required of an admin. Monsieurdl 00:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
49. Support Doesn't raise any red flags. Bit eager to become an admin, if anything, but I'll take it as willingness to help around. ;-) Raystorm (¿Sí?) 11:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
50. Support. Majoreditor 15:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
51. I supported the last two RfAs of Useight, as I believed they were a good user. I still believe they are a good user, and am supporting again. Acalamari 19:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
52. Support as having made significant improvements over the past RFA's, great answers. Bearian 20:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
53. Support lots of good work at CSD. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
54. Absolutely. (Edit conflict) Maser 22:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
55. Support looks like he would be a good help at CSD and has benefited from the coaching. --Djsasso (talk) 23:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
56. Support Nobody voiced any concerns that this candidate might abuse the tools. — Sebastian 00:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC) (If anyone sees a reason to change my vote, please let me know on my talk page. I'm not voting to do the candidate a favor, but because I think it's the right decision for Misplaced Pages. Therefore, please refrain from thanking me on my talk page, unless you have a really original or funny idea.)
57. Support He is a very good editor. No reason to oppose. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
58. Support. Sarah 04:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
59. I'm Mailer Diablo (talk) and I approve this message! - 15:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
60. Support --A. B. 23:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
61. Support Qualified, to say the least. --Sharkface217 01:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
62. Support Per Kurt Webe, user seems very eager to help out! :) SQL 16:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
63. Support. Lawrence Cohen 21:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
64. Support Seems ready, and enthusiasm is surely a virtue.--Bedivere (talk) 22:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
65. SupportReviewing every speedy deletion page is painstaking. That's admirable. --WriterListener (talk) 06:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
66. In response to Kurt Weber, all I can say is Go Patriots (oh, I support Useight as well) ~Sasha Callahan _(Talk) 07:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
67. Support Experience is no longer an issue it seems. James086 12:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
68. Support Ready for adminship.--Sunderland06 00:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
69. Strong Support - Seems to be a very helpful member of Misplaced Pages and he'll be able to contribute even more as an Admin. TheInfinityZero (talk) 04:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
70. I would be pleased to support this candidate. Auroranorth (!) 04:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose — Three RFAs in just over four months, two of which were self-noms? This user just seems a little bit too eager to be an administrator. That worries me. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 17:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

   I have severe problems seeing just in what way being eager to help out is something negative. Could you please explain it to me, ’cause your vote makes no sense at all to me. Jon Harald Søby 00:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

   The simple answer is: don't try to make sense of it. I dorftrottel I talk I 01:26, December 2, 2007

   Thank you, Kurt, for at least providing a different "oppose" reason than usual. Neil ☎ 14:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

   Oppose You should wait 3 months between RfAs, to give you enough time to deal with concerns brought up in previous ones. нмŵוτнτ 17:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC) Remove oppose, see comment below. нмŵוτнτ 16:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

   Any reason for 3 months as an absolute limit? In this case, Useight is only a week short of 3 months (it's about 3 months since the start of his last RfA)... WjBscribe 17:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

   As WJBScribe stated, there is a scandalous span of 2 months and 21 days from the end of the previous RFA to the start of this one. I know, it's not three months (there are a couple of grains of sand left in the hourglass), and I expect that Useight will be a terrible, terrible admin because of the highly valuable one week and two days he didn't have to take care of the concerns of his previous RFA (dear me, that's almost 10% of three months). Nonetheless, I strongly encourage you to check his contributions in the unlikely case that this "three months theory" is wrong. =] Gracenotes § 18:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

   My 2nd RFA began September 3rd, this one began December 1st. That's 89 days. I did wait 3 months between applications, and I believe I have learned quite a bit in the last three months and properly corrected the past concerns. Useight 18:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

   True, I looked and saw September on the last one, and November on this one. I wasn't counting actual days. That was irresponsible of me, and I take back my oppose. I apologize, although you have gone through 3 RfAs in a very short amount of time. нмŵוτнτ 16:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral for the time being (changing to support). I'm a little concerned that you answered that having a delete key would "save time" at C:CSD - unless it's a blatantly obvious case of vandalism, I don't agree that admins should do the combined task of tagging and deleting in a single article. There should be at least a two person oversight. I'm a little unsure about Useight's capability regarding other interests (due to unfamiliarity with him/her), so I'm adding in a question to see how this candidate responds. Tijuana Brass 04:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I can definitely see what you mean there, the potential conflict of interest if one admin tags and deletes the article. Let me assure you that I will not delete any article in which in which I was directly involved. Useight 05:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Good answer to the above question, so I'm changing my vote to support. Regarding speedy deletions, I still strongly suggest that you not make that call even if you're not directly involved, as it provides a second opinion (which is especially helpful if deletions are questioned, since you won't have made a unilateral decision). Tijuana Brass 06:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, there is no requisite for an admin to CSD tag an article. We should know if it is speedyable or not. If it is, delete it. If it's not, prod or AfD. Pretty cut and dry stuff. The CSD tag is to alert admins since you cannot delete with an unflagged account. Therefore, Useight was on the right track with that answer. Again, for what it's worth. Keegan 06:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I know there's no requirement for what I suggested - that's why I didn't link to policy, but just gave some common sense reasons for why I choose to do it. It's advice from an admin who's spent plenty of time at C:CSD and has found it to be good practice. Tijuana Brass 16:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh you make a fair point, Tijuana Brass. I was just carifying for brevity's sake. The problem with deleting a page speedily without a speedy tag is that the bot/user hasn't notified the creator, so make sure that you do in that case, Useight. Keegan 05:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Related requests

• 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 approval.
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for de-adminship - Requests for comment on possible misuse of sysop privileges, as well as a summary of rejected proposals for de-adminship processes and a list of past cases of de-adminship.

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

• Successful requests for adminship
• Requests for adminship
• Misplaced Pages adminship