Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Trey (talk | contribs) at 02:41, 19 May 2007 (added me). 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

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

TREYWiki

(1/7/1); Ended 07:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

TREYWiki (talk · contribs) - Hello, All. My name is Trey, know here as TREYWiki. I have been on Misplaced Pages for a few months now, and I feel I should be and administrator. I have edits all around the board. I like to tag new pages for speedy deletion, and I cringe when I see a page like GEORGE IS STUPID (well, you all know what they really say and I'm not about to put that in my RfA) get put in a backlog at CAT:CSD. I am knowledgeable on policy, I study it sometimes. I would really like the tools of an administrator to deal with the ever-present vandalism on this project. --TREYWiki 02:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: I intend to remove the backlog from CAT:CSD, Close AfD's, and monitor AIV. I would keep a watch on WP:UAA. I would love to sit down at try to remove backlogs from administrative pages. I think anything that gets reported/nominated on an administrative page should be taken care of quickly. Vandals make me cringe, and I would like to block them for specifically what they did wrong. Many times I see a vandal requesting a unblock because they didn't know what they did. I would let them know, because I take that extra minute to explain things.--TREYWiki 02:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

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

A: By far, my best contributions are to Erie, PA and related articles. I am working extremely hard to get Erie up to GA Class, which I think it is almost ready to be re-nominated for. I have re-written almost the entire article. I work closely with WP:ERIE to give Misplaced Pages more complete coverage of Northwestern Pennsylvania. Also, I believe my many vandalism reverts are good contributions because Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a website for trashing your friends. I monitor RC and the new page feed on a daily basis.--TREYWiki 02:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

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

A: Now this is the tough question. I am positive you will all cringe and think to oppose me when you see my block log. It almost hurts me to look at it too. I think that the block was a little harsh, but I take responsibly for my actions. Another user came to me with a message accusing Kd lvr and Kdkatpir2 of sock puppetry. I have learned sock puppetry is a very touchy subject. Yes, we did unknowingly violate policy by confronting him and provoking him, but I don't think we were involved in edit wars with him, but this is not the time to contest that. I did not know much policy back then, and If I did, this would have never happened. I can not put into words how much I would have liked never to get involved in this. My words were very harsh, but now I have changed. I apologized on Kd lvr's talk page and I know always assume good faith. My edits are constructive, and I hope it will overcome this conflict. I hope you can trust me out there, I am very sorry for these actions. This was bad on mine and some others parts. We disrupted Misplaced Pages and I can never take that back. I have moved on. I have changed. I am a better person now. Thank your for understanding.--TREYWiki 02:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

General comments

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

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

Discussion

Support

1. Moral support: I think you have great intentions and that, with a little time, you could gain the necessary experience. Heed what the opposers have said and see if you can't make yourself a better candidate in a few months' time. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Too new. Prodego 02:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose Serious concerns about assuming good faith. An administrator is a funnel of complaints. If you can't assume good faith, people only get more angry and a bad situation goes to worse. Sean William 02:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

   When I made the bad faith comments, I didn't know about WP:AGF--TREYWiki 02:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

   The incident that earned you the block was less than a month ago. If you didn't know about WP:AGF less than a month ago, you need more experience. Sean William 02:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

   I have been editing a lot since that block, for many hours a day. I have picked up lots of experience. After I was blocked, I read about every policy out there. --TREYWiki 03:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

   When you're here at Misplaced Pages, you'll find that knowing policy backwards and forwards won't help you at all if you still don't get the basics. I don't think you do. Sean William 03:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

   I defiantly know my way around, I'm a quick learner. I know the basics, but obviously not as much as a seasoned administrator like you. --TREYWiki 03:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

3. Oppose I'm sorry, but two months is way too new; I prefer someone who has been around long enough to show sound knowledge of policies and guidelines. Between the relatively short age of the account and the recent blocking (which is also a concern; great that the editor has taken the lesson to heart, but still a concern), I just can't get behind this RfA. Don't take it personally, though! I've seen admins pass similar hurdles in the past. I'd suggest submitting an editor review in a month or so (to give the reviewing editor more to look at and comment on); take any of that advice to heart and you'll already be on much better ground for a successful RfA. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
4. Has not shown dedication to the project sufficiently for me to trust this user with the extra buttons, and that block was nowhere near long enough ago for me to reconsider. Daniel 03:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose Candidate does not have experience as an admin at this moment. — z (Talk) (Contribs) Sat 04:15:20 2007-05-19
6. Oppose strongly suggest withdrawal.--Jersey Devil 05:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
7. Oppose sorry but you are not as good to be an admin.--JasZZZ 05:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral the beginnings of a good editor, but not enough time here, yet. -- Phoenix2 04:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Booksworm

Final (25/18/6); Ended 11:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Booksworm (talk · contribs) - I have been here for a little over 1 year and a quarter (more exactly 472 days) and I understand how this encyclopaedia (encyclopedia, for those who speak American-English) works and I would like to use the tools given to me as an admin for good purposes... Booksworm Talk to me! 17:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept (is a self-nom, after all) Booksworm Talk to me! 17:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The candidate has withdrawn:

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: I wish to begin to work in places such as AIV (thereby meaning, taking action against Vandals, instead of just reporting them), to continue my fight against vandalism (using VandalProof, for example) and to help getting rid of pages that are of no consequence and/or benefit to Misplaced Pages

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

A: This question is quite tought to answer. I feel that my best contributions to this amazing on-line encyclopaedia are essentially my edits/reverts of vandalism using the trusted VandalProof. Why? I feel that Misplaced Pages has to be protected from stupidities that people deem as "fun" to add to Misplaced Pages - because Vandalising Misplaced Pages is "so cool" (Why it is "So Cool" is far beyond my understanding of reality!)

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

A: There was a conflict between the user Arcayne and I, against the user Viriditas, after I had place one line on the article Children of Men, this line being: "The screen fades and the text "Children of Men" appears on the screen and the sound of laughing children can be heard.". Following this incident, Viriditas and Arcayne chose to have a little so-called "Comment War" on my talk page (apparently Arcayne had banned Viriditas from adding messages to his talk page, or something like that, it wasn't clearly explained). They continued to fight and for some reason as yet unknown, Viriditas accused me of being Arcayne's Meat-Puppet (which I found surprising as Arcayne, after checking his edits, has been a user for far shorther a time than I have). I then left messages that I deemed to be as polite as possible on Viriditas's page - I never received a reply, and to this day, Viriditas continued to uphold his views that I am a Meat-Puppet of Arcayne. What did I do with the stress? Well, I stopped using Misplaced Pages for a few days to calm down and I avoided my computer for that time too. If ever such a problem happens again, I will try my best to resolve the issue in question as fast as possible through calm negotiation.

Optional question from falsedef

4. What changes, if any, would you make to the following statement about The Beatles to be consistent with Misplaced Pages core content policy:

The Beatles are considered one of the best bands of the 20th century.

A: I would remove the sentence as it does not uphold an NPOV. Also, the source does not specifically state that The Beatles are the best - on the contrary, it simply puts some of their albums near to the top - therefore the assumption that they "are the best" cannot be made based on how good their albums are. You could, however, count the number of albums on that chart and then say something of the sort: There are been x albums by The Beatles that are in the Rolling Stones Magazine Top 500 albums of All Time.

Question from Oleg Alexandrov

5. Your edit summary usage is kind of low. Would you consider improving it, and/or changing your preferences to be reminded to use edit summaries?

A: I find this question quite amusing, because I just recently - after going over the RfA page - noted that there was a way to remind me to add an edit summary. Now, I have done so and it is quite practical. Therefore I think my Edit Summary usage will go up.

General comments

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

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

Discussion

• It's interesting to note that in days gone by (i.e. mid-late 2005, 2006), people didn't oppose for canvassing. It just goes to show that the opposers here haven't looked at the user's abilities as an admin. I look a lot at RfA history, and I've seen links in signatures, banners on talk pages, even spamming users with {{PAGENAME}}. Really, what is the big deal? He just wants to help out - you're all stopping him because he's asking people to support him helping out. Sigh. Majorly (talk | meet) 21:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• I consider it to be unfair on those who do not canvass, personally I would not oppose or even go neutral because of a talk page/userpage banner, but when it gets to linking on other people's talkpages and using it in your signature I usually go neutral or oppose depending on severity. GDonato (talk) 21:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Unfair?! It's their own choice they choose not to... ah well, another perfectly good candidate here, ruined by cries of "OMG CANVASSING" and "ZOMG HIS EDIT SUMMARIES ARE BELOW 98%". Nothing to do with adminship whatsoever. This is why RfA is broken. Every one of you opposers should be ashamed. Majorly (talk | meet) 22:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps they don't want to risk it because of strong opposers of canvassing, that is why I find it unfair. Edit summaries are important- no edit summaries could mean forgetting block reasons which can cause obvious problems. GDonato (talk) 22:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Admins have to take risks. This RfA should be no big deal. Majorly (talk | meet) 22:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

And if people didn't oppose for such absurd reasons, it wouldn't be a risk. - auburnpilot talk 22:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not absurd reasoning becuase it can skew consensus- it doesn't matter how much you say it is not a vote- in general, the number of supporters v opposers is still the main factor. GDonato (talk) 22:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

If there are any substantial reasons to oppose a candidate then canvassing can artificially inflate support that overrules those opposes. In the interest of having clean elections, I'm not at all bothered that canvassing elicits quick opposition. Someone sunk by canvassing can always try again, but a case of a bad admin who succeeds by canvassing would be much more difficult to remedy. ··coelacan 23:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• I tend to agree with Majorly on the "canvassing" issue. I find it hard to believe that users do not contact editors they are close with off wiki to alert them of their RfA. I'd hate to tell this editor that his mistake was asking people to vote in his RfA on wiki in a transparent matter. I'd rather have it this way than the way we default encourage by disallowing canvassing. Opposing for canvassing sort of feels like a "got ya!" oppose criteria. My thoughts of canvassing aside, the issue to me is not the "canvassing". The fact that he did not anticipate the reaction this would cause is unsettling. Anticipating reactions people will have to certain actions is, I believe, part of adminship. daveh4h 23:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to respond to Majorly's comment above, none of the oppose votes currently mention anything having to do with edit summaries. Like I said below, the RFA would have succeed without canvassing of any sort, so why do it? -- Phoenix2 04:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I would have to strongly agree with Majorly on this issue. At the most it should warrent a neutral, not an oppose. If you oppose by canvassing, how are you going to make sure that another candidate will not canvas by mass emailing or contact his/her supporters on msn/ICQ, etc.? --Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 18:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

To me, canvassing shows the editor does not fully understand our policies and guidelines. If it was just a link to the RfA on his userpage/talk page, I wouldn't mind, but specifically going to user's pages and asking them to vote and putting a link in your signature is going too far. Vote stacking and canvassing skews consensus. By doing it in something as simple as an RfA, what's to say he won't do it an an XfD or something? --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 18:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I know what your saying. But what if other admins skewed consensus from off-wiki canvassing, don't you think it's unfair to this editor? From the past, there has been irregular number of users participating in RfA's (one of the evidence that few of the candidates might have been off-wiki advertising RfA), I think there has to be at least some admin's who canvassed and got away with it, how else could you explain if one RfA had 50 users participating while others have 200 users participating. --Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 19:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing shouldn't be ok just because some users get away with it. If I see an editor canvassing I'll oppose their RfA whether they're doing inside the wiki or outside. Just because some editors can get away with it doesn't make it right. Many people get away with murder, but does that mean you can walk down the street and kill a guy? --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 19:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of canvassing as I believe it does skew the process. The argument for allowing canvassing on RfA is that "people who know the editor best will be most aware of his qualities". While this is of course true, they are also the one most likely to be oblivious to a candidate's faults. I would also note that good RfA candidates should be aware of policies and guidelines and it's not like the canvassing is an obscure guideline that nobody ever heard of. Also, I would like to believe that future admins read carefully about processes that they don't know and in particular, a candidate should have read Misplaced Pages:Guide to requests for adminship which makes it pretty clear that advertising your RfA is not something you should do. Pascal.Tesson 03:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. Casually browsing your contributions reveals nothing concerning - just a long history of mopping up Misplaced Pages the best you can without admin tools. Candidate seems patient with newcomers and civil to peers. --Spike Wilbury 17:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
2. Support - Maybe a little more edits could have been made besides counter-vandalism, but knowing that the user will use his/her tools to cleanup more vandalism makes me feel comfortable. Support. Cool Blue 18:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
3. Support. Adminship is no big deal. No problems with this candidate. Walton 18:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
4. Support. Can not see any reason not to. --Mschel 19:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
5. Support --Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 19:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
6. Support. This user is very responsible and knows what he is doing. I see no reason not to let him admin rights. Black lupin 19:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)--
7. Support No big deal. YechielMan 19:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
8. Support Looks like another good candidate. (aeropagitica) 19:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

   Support, You have low talk/wikitalk edits and a pretty low edit summary usage. Other than that I see no problems. Might wanna work on somethings other than vandal-fighting. Otherwise you're on the right track :) --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 20:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

9. Support in agreement with Walton monarchist89. Acalamari 21:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
10. Support Same concern as Malevious. Otherwise no problems --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 21:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
11. Support I think he looks good. Majorly (talk | meet) 22:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
12. Support. Would like to see a little more consistent summary use but thats no real reason to oppose. Goodnightmush
13. Support Minor problems but no real reason to oppose. --St.daniel 00:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
14. Support in absence of any reason not to; seems fine. Trebor 00:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
15. Support seems like he would be a great administrator Lεmσηflαsh/_(c) 01:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
16. Support: Seems to have plenty of experience, however, I would like to see a better edit summary usage. May I suggest making them forced in your preferences if you have already not?  Orfen  | _Contribs 01:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

    Unrelated comment Sorry but I have to thank you for reminding me to do that. I've been meaning to do it an kept forgetting. Anywho thanx:) --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 02:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

17. Strong Support: I have personally commented on featured picture condidates and have seen this user comment on quite a few candidates. Looking at his contributions, I come to the conclusion that he has a wide range of interests in furthering Misplaced Pages, which is exactly what we're looking for in an admin. Ciao, --Gabycs 01:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
18. Support Looks Great. --TREYWiki 03:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
19. Support-—arf! 04:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

    I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 07:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

    Support can be a great help in AIV. Yeah. —An<font color=#808080>as 10:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

20. Support - Very experienced and well deserving..----Cometstyles 10:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
21. Support. I see no reason to oppose. Let's let him work. JodyB _talk 11:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
22. Support as a strong candidate for adminship. User shows understanding of policy and a need for the tools. As to opposing for canvassing, I don't see this having any relation to the ability to block, protect, and delete. In other words, this in no way makes me believe this user will abuse the tools. Support. - auburnpilot talk 16:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
23. Support as a good candidate for adminship. Should be of great help to Misplaced Pages. - P.K.Niyogi 16:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
24. Support Changed to support per Majorly's argument. Evilclown93 17:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
25. Support - I don't see any reason not to. The canvassing thing simply isn't that big of a deal to me, though I wish the candidate had paid enough attention to RFA in the past to see how negatively it's looked upon. Canvassing is not, in and of itself, big enough to change my !vote though. Philippe 20:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Booksworm has notes on his userpage and talkpage canvassing people to "vote" for him in this RfA . He has also solicited the "votes" of specific users and has a green link to this page in his signature encouraging people to "Vote! Vote!". WjBscribe 15:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

   Comment:You may note that I did not specifically ask Black lupin to vote for me. I said I would be grateful if he did - I didn't specifically say that it would be necessary for him to vote for me Booksworm 09:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

   OpposePer WP:CANVAS violation. Evilclown93 15:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC) Changed to support per Majorly's argument.

2. Oppose Switching my !vote to oppose. Having low edit summary usage (Even though you're working on it) low talk page edits and not much work outside of vandalfighting. As well as the recent WP:CANVAS violations. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 15:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose per User:WJBscribe. Boricuaeddie 18:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose This is otherwise a a great nomination, but the WP:CANVAS violation is not acceptable. Gutworth 20:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

   Comment: I have removed these canvassing messages and I am going to leave a message with Arcayne Booksworm 09:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

5. Oppose Per the canvas issues, I still see you have not removed the vote! vote! link from your userpage which also seems to dsplay a lack of understanding and ability to listen to others requests. — The Sunshine Man (a.k.a Tellyaddict) 20:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

   Comment: As you may note, your message was at 20:58 (UTC) which is 22:58 CET at which point I was already asleep - I did note these messages this morning and I removed the "Vote! Vote!" from my signature Booksworm 09:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

6. Oppose, switched from neutral; unhappy with the lack of attention to the issue. -- Phoenix2 21:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

   Comment: I have undertaken the steps and have stopped the Canvassing that I started Booksworm 09:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

   Oppose Sorry, but someone raised an immediate concern and there was no action. May revert to neutral if action is taken within a reasonable timescale but I have to oppose now. GDonato (talk) 21:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC) Now neutral

   Comment: I have resolved the "Vote! Vote!" issue and have removed it from my talk page as well Booksworm 09:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

   Thanks, but I stand by my opposition. I don't think it should have been done for the reason I have since twice stated on this page. -- Phoenix2 15:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

7. In March, you threatened to report Viriditas to ARBCOM for talking to Arcayne on your talk page, and then again for removing your comments from Viriditas's talk page. I'm not sure that you understand the steps of dispute resolution here. Or if you do, I'm concerned by this overreaction. Either way, I feel I must oppose. ··coelacan 22:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

   Comment: I did enlighten you upon that subject in my answers to questions above! May I also point out to you that I was losing my cool as he was frantically trying to name me as being a Meat-Puppet of Arcayne (which I am not!). Also they shouldn't have started having such a dispute on my talk page - at least Arcayne showed some civility towards this issue and he did say that he was sorry Booksworm 09:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

8. oppose I dont want to do this but I dont think this user is quite ready for adminship. (I think they are a great vandalism fighter) I am dealing with Fair Use images and as such Booksworm has seen some of my notice's. But the issue is they dont know the difference between Fair use and Free use. which is a big issue Betacommand 23:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
9. Sorry but I have to oppose due to a minimal understanding of fair use policy, and objections shown by Coelacan. I would forgive the canvassing issues, as it's not very important in regards to admin tools, but the fair use situation leaves a bad taste. --Kzrulzuall 02:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
10. Oppose per diffs provided by Coelacan which IMHO show some maturity issues and naiveté to a degree that this candidate should work on before I can approve. —AldeBaer 02:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
11. Oppose per User:WJBscribe's vote above and WP:CANVAS. Extranet is now E 03:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
12. Oppose. I don't so much mind the act of canvassing as the fact that you should have known that people wouldn't like it. The diffs provided by Coelacan are also rather troubling. -Amarkov moo! 04:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
13. The canvassing showed a distinct lack of judgement, and I don't trust you with the tools. Daniel 05:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
14. Oppose Per the canvassing issue. I realize some people disagree with that as the only reason to vote an oppose, but I think actions should enable a support vote, as well as edits. Jmlk17 07:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
15. Oppose unfortunately. Adminship is no big deal, but canvassing indicates an obvious lack of prudence. —Anas 10:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
16. Oppose, canvassing issue and the diffs shown by several users. Not too ready for adminship at the moment. Other than that, not much of a problem.` Terence 14:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
17. Oppose Canvassing is bad, no matter what Majorly says. Also, the Misplaced Pages-space edits are too few for my liking. Captain panda 19:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
18. Weak oppose - I find the relatively low edit summary usage troubling. The canvassing probably wasn't a good idea either, but that is secondary to me.--Danaman5 22:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. From oppose- Neutral per canvassing, I would encourage the candidate to try again later without the canvassing, possible they were unaware that this is a problem (based on type engaged in) GDonato (talk) 15:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC) Has partially resolved the issue and it appears little damage was done. Would have had my support if this hadn't happened though- please reapply later GDonato (talk) 10:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
2. Neutral The canvassing seems like a mistake and somewhat neutral, as it's just asking fo a blanket vote, not a support vote. Badtaste, but I don't think it warrants an oppose. falsedef 18:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
3. I know that I have opposed in a previous RFA b/c of this issue. However, for example in a previous case, some successful administrators have indeed canvassed for votes. However, IMHO, I don't think that the CANVASSING point should be the only reason to oppose this candidate. Neutral for now. Real96 05:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
4. Neutral. I apologize for calling you a meat-puppet, but Arcayne was the only editor who had insisted on that addition to the article, against the consensus of the active editors, and you arrived out of nowhere and reverted to his version, as if he had asked you to tag-team for him. And, just so you understand, Arcayne did not ban me from his talk page, I asked him not to use my talk page for discussing the article on February 8, he refused, and I banned him from my talk page on Februrary 9, 2007, and several times after because he didn't understand that the discussion was taking place on the article, not the user talk page. In fact, Arcayne asked me to use his talk page after I asked him not to use mine so your recollection of events is in error. You weren't even involved in this conflict until a month later on March 10. —Viriditas | Talk 13:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
5. Neutral per my comments above about canvassing. I suggest withdrawing and restarting the RfA fairly soon though. Pascal.Tesson 03:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
6. Neutral Canvassing and a few other issues. I'd encourage a another one in a while. Dfrg.msc 08:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

PeaceNT

Closed as successful by Cecropia 14:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC) at (71/1/0); Formal end time 15:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

PeaceNT (talk · contribs) - Nomination from Majorly: It's my pleasure to nominate PeaceNT. Wherever I notice an edit from her, I've always been pleased to see it. She's been around since December, so is definitely an established part of our community. Those who love to edit count should be satisfied I think :) Above all, she's kind, helpful and... peaceful ^_^ and would do good work as an admin. Majorly (talk | meet) 21:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Co-nomination from Riana: PeaceNT is a superb worker and would no doubt make a fantastic addition to the team. She is invariably kind, helpful, civil and well-spoken, a participant in many different areas of the encyclopedia, and has 5 months of good, solid work under her belt. She's a great vandalfighter - I've never had a problem with any of her AIV reports - and always takes the time to caution vandals appropriately. She also assists people at the help desk, participates in RfAs and RfBs, and does some great work at AfD - lots of non-admin closures, which shows that she would most likely exhibit good judgement at XfDs as an admin. She also has excellent contributions in the mainspace.

As for the technicalities, she has e-mail enabled, no blocks, a nice signature and a noncontroversial userpage. All in all, I think she'd do very well as an admin, and would use the tools wisely. Let's give them to her! – Riana ⁂ 09:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Co-nomination from Appleworm: Although I’ve just taken part in Misplaced Pages project for 3 months and this is the first time I ever nominate a person for adminship, I pride myself on having choosing the right one for this honorable position. PeaceNT possesses all manners of an exemplary Wikipedian. I respect her for her kindness, helpfulness, civility and dedication. I could remember the first days I joined Misplaced Pages: ignorant of policy, inept and disoriented. Luckily, she accepted me as her adoptee and gradually guided me to get my hand in other activities with all her devotion and zealousness. Her behavior towards other Wikipedians also remains decorous and polite. Moreover, she is an experienced user and has profound understanding in Misplaced Pages policy demonstrated by her frequent participation in closing over 100 AfDs, the work that requires wisdom and intellect, not mention other various fields. She is a familiar user at help desk and always ready to answer all queries. PeaceNT makes a well balance in Misplaced Pages namespace edits and writing articles. She has created some interesting articles like Brenda Jackson and substantially added a lot of information in some pages like Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows or List of minor characters in the Teen Titans animated series. I’m sure that PeaceNT will use the tool in the most judicious way. AW 15:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you very much for the kind words. I accept this nomination with gratitude. PeaceNT 15:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: I would like to assist in closing deletion debates. I have spent time participating in deletion discussions and have closed several AfDs under WP:DPR#NAC. I hope to have a chance to help out more and keep down the XfDs backlogs. I also anticipate being able to maintain CAT:CSD with my RC patrol experience. Besides I will keep an eye on WP:RFPP and may respond to unblock requests.

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

A: In my first three months, I contributed mostly to writing articles. I started Sally Caldwell Fisher and Thomas Demand and assisted in saving Swanand Kirkire from deletion (thanks to the input from other editors), anyway I don't feel any of them are particularly good articles. I've also put a lot of time into Harry Potter and Teens Titans related articles, my recent favourite article is List of Teen Titans episodes, which I have helped clean up, fix spelling errors and add substantial references, I am trying my hardest to improve it further. More recently I’ve been engaged in new pages and recent changes patrolling and I am quite pleased with my overall work in these areas.

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 been involved in a couple of conflicts over editing, it's a good thing that they are only minor disagreements and have not caused me any stress. As I recall, my first ever conflict on Misplaced Pages was with two other editors over the article Half-Blood Prince. The argument was settled quite quickly as we could find the middle ground. I was a fairly new editor at the time and the conflict had helped me gain valuable experience. I understand that editing while in a temper isn’t conducive to any discussions, therefore I believe it's necessary to stay out of heated arguments and only return to the discussion when I am in a positive frame of mind. I will continue to apply this principle to any debates in the future keeping in mind WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. I feel that so far I've been able to remain calm and handle myself well in response to every disagreement I've been involved in.

Optional question from falsedef

4. A contentious edit is against overwhelming talk page consensus, yet is backed up by reliable sources. The talk page consensus view is intuitively seen as correct, and therefore those editors replace the edit with their own, but they no reliable sources. What sort of actions and compromises should be taken to resolve the issue?

A: Let me get this straight. There is initially a talk page consensus when the new edit which goes against that consensus is made, yet the controversial edit is supported by reliable references while the consensus is not. As far as I can judge, the nature of your question is consensus versus verifiability. Good question. In this case, I would say, verifiability comes first.

From what I can gather, the original editors revert the article back to their version. Unfortunately this move would easily give rise to critical reversion wars, which is in no way desirable. IMO the key action to take in reaction to content disagreements in general is to hold serious discussions over the issues. If need be the page in question might get protected to force the parties into debating. Though a consensus was already built, the editor who brings up the new information has his fact proved by good sources, so the discussion must be continued. Consensus is determined not by a group with numerical advantage, but rather by a system of good reasons, that is to say, WP:CON doesn't justify the reversion of the group. (Note that it is laid down in WP:CON: "The original group should not block further change on grounds that they already have made a decision.") Consensus can change and the original party bear the responsibility to provide valid rationale for reversing their information. It is vital that they assume good faith, be respectful to the new editor, and be open minded. Everyone should be afforded equal input into the process, and the "contentious" editor has every right to make his opinion heard fairly. Next, a good research can be carried in order to find reliable sources for the talk page consensus. If so I believe the article can safely include both sourced viewpoints about one issue. If not the unsourced material must regrettably be removed. Finally, at worst, if the original group refuse to adjust to the fact and persist on edit warring, I would recommend speaking with third parties. Request for comment is my go-to-page. Though I hope this doesn't come about.

Optional question from AldeBaer (talk · contribs)

5. As you may or may not be aware, there is an ongoing dispute at Misplaced Pages talk:No personal attacks regarding linking to attack sites (i.e. off-wiki websites that attack Misplaced Pages editors). Could you outline your position on the issue? —AldeBaer 19:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

General comments

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

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

Discussion

• Please note this editor is female ;) Majorly (talk | meet) 16:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • So is my dog. What's your point? Dfrg.msc 08:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Clearly you weren't here at the start of this RfA when PeaceNT was referred to several times as "he". No need for the aggressive tone really, is there? Majorly (talk | meet) 08:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Calm down, ladies :) – Riana ⁂ 09:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Pardon? Majorly (talk | meet) 12:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Er, it was a joke, because of the gender confusion, and I know you're both male. Never mind me, I shouldn't try to make jokes after 7PM, they don't seem to work :p – Riana ⁂ 12:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
            • Hehe, I got it (...eventually) ;) Majorly (talk | meet) 12:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
              • I love all you guys. Dfrg.msc 05:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
                • And girls too...? Phaedriel - 15:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
                  • *shudders* Way to undermine discussion, guys =P G1ggy! 11:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Support

1. Extreme co-nominator support. She'll do good things, I'm perfectly sure :) – Riana ⁂ 15:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC}
2. Support - A look back through her contribs shows a high level of contribution towards making this a better encyclopedia. Akradecki 15:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
3. Riana nominee. Moreschi 15:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
4. Wow, a great user. Definitely support, and good luck my friend :) Majorly (talk | meet) 15:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
5. Strong Support5 edit conflicts! I've spoke with PeaceNT on Misplaced Pages before and she has always shown a trust for the tools and extreme politeness and civility, she could use to the tools really well! Good luck! Regards — The Sunshine Man 15:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

   I think you're a bit confused with this user's gender. :-) AW 16:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

6. Support - She has shown that she can be trusted with the tools and her contributions has been excellent..Good Luck..----Cometstyles 15:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
7. Support Very Civil.Arnon Chaffin 16:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
8. Support Firstly, I always thought you were a bloke, secondally, I aways thought you were an admin! Best of luck. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
9. Support, I'm so absent-minded that I forget to add my vote? AW 16:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
10. Support. We need more editors such as her to be nominated. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

    I'm looking :) – Riana ⁂ 16:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

11. Strong support Excellent nominators nominating an excellent candidate. By the messages above, PeaceNT is obviously belongs in this non-existant list. Acalamari 16:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
12. Strong Support always had positive interactions with this editor. Should've been one a long time ago. —Anas 16:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
13. Support Great work.--Húsönd 17:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
14. Support - great editor & worker. Will make a super admin - Alison ☺ 17:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
15. Support - Proceed, as per comments above and as per my noting that this user is admin-worthy... Booksworm Vote! Vote! 17:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
16. Support per Moreschi. I have the utmost confidence in anyone nominated by Riana. Walton 18:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
17. Support. Per nomination and excellent contributions. --Mschel 18:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
18. Are you kidding? I thought she already was an admin. Seriously. She left me a friendly note a month ago advising me not to overstep my boundaries in closing AFD discussions, so I could see she knew the ropes. YechielMan 19:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
19. Support – B.hotep /_t• 19:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
20. Support per all of the above. Very surprized she isn't already one. VegaDark (talk) 19:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
21. Support per nom. PeaceNT is a great user who definitely deserves the tools. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
22. Support, per nom. -- Phoenix2 20:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
23. Support per Appleworm. --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 21:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
24. Support Has shown vast improvement as a (fairly) new Wikipedian; makes me a bit jealous how fast she has caught on! That, coupled with the reputation of your nominator, makes this a very strong support. Good luck! Jmlk17 21:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
25. Support - Seems fine, and we need more admins. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
26. Excellent user. -- John Reaves (talk) 22:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
27. Support Easy decision --St.daniel 00:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
28. Support per noms, no doubt at all. Trebor 00:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
29. Support: Has plenty of experience, seems very dedicated. Edit summary usage is also excellent. Should make a fine administrator.  Orfen  | _Contribs 01:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
30. Support per everyone else.Shindo9Hikaru 03:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
31. Support. bibliomaniac15 04:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
32. Yep. Daniel 07:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
33. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 07:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
34. Support as your work appears first rate. Seem dedicated to improving things here. JodyB _talk 11:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
35. Support. Looks like a strong candidate. Nice choice Majorly and co-nominators. Goodnightmush 14:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
36. Support per all above, will be a great admin. GDonato (talk) 14:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
37. Support Excellent candidate; fine addition to the admincorps. Xoloz 15:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
38. Support Strong candidate and it seems one who would use the mop well. Orderinchaos 20:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
39. Support Nice show.--カラム 00:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
40. Default support. —AldeBaer 12:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
41. Strong Support But no more co-noms, please. Xiner (talk) 13:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
42. Terence 14:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
43. Olando 15:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
44. Support. WjBscribe 16:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
45. Strong Support - I have seen her around and have seen great interaction with others. Great candidate indeed. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 17:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
46. Support--MONGO 17:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
47. Support per nom and co-noms Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 19:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
48. Support Definatly a good admin. Captain panda 19:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
49. Support - no reason to oppose, and I trust Majorly. Philippe 20:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
50. Support Joe I 05:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
51. Support Get on it. Dfrg.msc 08:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
52. S The name states it all...Don't see any issues erupting from PeaceNT becoming an admin... --Kzrulzuall 09:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
53. Support --Herby 12:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
54. Strong support, good luck! The Rambling Man 13:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
55. Support for a Peaceful adminship. Newyorkbrad 19:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
56. Support per all of the above. Boricuaeddie 19:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
57. Support- good credentials for adminship- well done! Thunderwing 20:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
58. Support - great candidate. —METS501 (talk) 22:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
59. Support, great experience! Very peaceful, and quite an editor. *Cremepuff222* 00:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
60. Support. Seen her around on RC patrol, great user. - Zeibura S. Kathau 04:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
61. Support No problem at all with this user. · AndonicO 11:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
62. Rettetast 20:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
63. Support ... good name and an even better editor. I have no reason to think that the effect of sysopping PeaceNT will be anything but positive. -- Black Falcon 03:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
64. Support No reason will not make a good admin. Davewild 18:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
65. Support The noms say it all. --Random 19:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
66. Support. Good editor, will certainly be a very good administrator. --Carioca 21:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
67. Support per nominators. Sarah 04:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
68. Support, delightful person and talented editor. Will make an excellent addition to the admin ranks. Phaedriel - 15:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
69. --U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 02:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
70. Support, why not? Extranet is now E 10:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
71. I understand MECU's concerns in opposing, but adminship is no big deal. I doubt he she will do image work before reading the fair use documentation. G1ggy! 11:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose for use of fair use images in userspace. See . This was recent (3 days ago) and blatant. An admin should know, understand and follow this simple rule of our fair use criteria. MECU≈talk 17:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
   • sigh No where has PeaceNT mentioned she wants to work with images. I had a fair use image in my userspace for a while before my adminship. Does it make me a bad admin? Not in the slightest. I personally think the number of people who understand fair use is incredibly low, and many admins don't even go near it. It's a poor reason to oppose PeaceNT though. I would understand if she expressed interest in working with images, but she hasn't at all. And now you've removed them, she won't do it again. Why don't you look at reasons to support instead of reasons to oppose? Majorly (talk | meet) 18:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
     • Whether she wants to work with images or not, she should know and follow all policies on Misplaced Pages. As an administrator, she will be looked to as a model for other users (correct or not). A user that looks at her pages and sees her using fair use images in her userspace could think it's okay, that admins are allowed to do it, or many other incorrect reasons. Familliarity with all of our policies is important for an admin. They are not just an admin of "vandalism" (or any specific area), they are an admin. MECU≈talk 18:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
       • Hehe, I can't think of any reason in the world why a user would want to look in her sandbox... but nevermind. I doubt after seeing this oppose regarding this offensive addition of images to a sandbox (which was probably temporary too) she will continue using fair use images :) Majorly (talk | meet) 18:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
   • Be calm, gentlemen :) Mecu, your concern is appreciated. I acknowledge that this is a mistake on my part to include fair use images in the sandbox. Just for clarification, please rest assured that I am aware of criteria 9 in our non free content policy and always try to remove fair use images in userspace where and when I have seen them before (e.g.) . Then again, it was really silly of me to mess up my own page. I will carefully note this when working with my sandbox from now on and promise not to repeat the error, you have my word of honour. Thank you for removing the images and please accept my sincere apologies. PeaceNT 19:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

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

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

SpuriousQ

Closed as successful by Cecropia 14:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC) at (60/0/0); Formal end time 09:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

SpuriousQ (talk · contribs) - Nomination: Ladies and gentlemen, I am honored to present to the Misplaced Pages community, SpuriousQ, as a candidate for adminship. For several months, I have seen this user appear in my watchlist multiple times with their work to Paris Hilton. Although I haven’t had any interaction with SpuriousQ outside that article, I have actually seen them working in other sections, most often at AIV, where this user has more than 440 edits to. When it comes to article work besides Paris Hilton, SpuriousQ has worked on Nicole Richie, Kiwi Camara, and Kimbo Slice, and as a matter of fact, SpuriousQ has more than 6770 edits to the mainspace, and more than 12,500 edits overall. This user has also been active at the Help Desk, and has given some occasional input at RFCN. From my experience, SpuriousQ is a civil, decent, and hardworking editor, and I think this user will make excellent use of the administrator tools. Acalamari 16:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Co-nomination from Riana: Acalamari has covered all bases really well, but I can't resist the chance to have my say too :) SpuriousQ has been contributing since 2005, but has begun editing more heavily since November of last year. During this time he's accumulated a lot of great contributions, and has shown himself to be a capable editor, a great vandalfighter, a superb communicator, and generally someone who can be trusted. For anyone still down with a touch of editcountitis, Q has about 12500 edits, well-distributed across the namespaces. He is a regular commentator at AfDs , the help desk, and RFCN, and is always polite, level-headed and conscientious.

SpuriousQ also has a very high number (449 at last count!) of edits to WP:AIV - no doubt the ability to block vandals, rather than create backlogs there would be extremely useful for everybody. He also has written some articles - a great blend of article-writer and vandal-fighter. Enough to please everybody! :)

As for the paperwork: e-mail enabled, a clean block log, non-annoying userpage and signature.

Basically, this is a great, well-rounded, dedicated, and communicative user. If he gets the tools, it can only mean good things for us, and I see no reason not to give them to him. So, let's do it :) – Riana_ऋ 17:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. -SpuriousQ (talk) 09:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: For sure, helping out at WP:AIV and CAT:CSD, since a lot of what I do here is vandal reverting and new page monitoring. I also foresee myself fulfilling the usual duties like evaluating expired prods, dealing with unblock requests, closing or relisting discussions at WP:AFD, and whatever else comes up that I feel comfortable doing. I've requested content review undeletions, copy and paste fixes, and page moves before, and I'd be willing to provide those services to others.

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

A: In terms of article-writing, I'm most proud of finding and adding quality references to articles, sometimes correcting misinformation in the process. Some places I've done this are Douglas Dedge, Adragon De Mello, Kiwi Camara, Serengeti, Jeremy Zawodny, Ryan Gracie, and iSkin (I'm also happy for having saved this from deletion). I've sometimes been able to expand upon or correct articles; examples of these are Rand index, Reflection attack, Kill (Unix), Mechanism (philosophy)#Gödelian arguments.

However, my most substantial effort has gone into recent change and new page monitoring, and I feel I do this competently and carefully. If I'm reasonably unsure that a questionable edit was actually vandalism/misguided, I may ask the editor or bring it up on the talk page. I also do quick Google searches for new pages that appear to be nonsense but may have some merit, for example, here. I think I have a very low rate of false positives when it comes to classifying bad edits, and I take care to revert to last good version, since failure to do so is a typical way vandalism slips by and goes long unnoticed.

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: Due to my patrolling work, I get a fair number of questions, complaints, or just plain insults on my talk page. I'm always happy to point people to the relevant policies and guidelines and discuss them further if necessary. I'll simply remove or ignore insults and try not to feed trolling, but if there's a semblance of a valid point or question mixed in, I'll calmly respond to that.

My most contentious conflict involved an editor who wanted to add information to Paris Hilton about some leaked home videos that apparently showed her using racial/homophobic slurs. Naturally, this was all over the Internet, but I could not find any non-trivial mainstream coverage about it. I reverted with a detailed explanation on his talk page basically saying we needed reliable secondary sources covering the incident, and he accused me of trying to remove all negative information from the article. I remained calm and professional in the somewhat heated exchange (Talk:Paris Hilton#people_constantly_deleting_any_negative_information), which culminated in the editor finding some CNN coverage that he added to the article.

Optional question from falsedef

4. A lone editor has taken it upon himself to continually delete large portions of uncited information on highly trafficked article, without discussion. Other editors are continually reverting the deletions. The lone editor has excessively exceeded more than 3 reverts in 24 hours. What actions are appropriate in response to the excessive deletions and reverts? Please note down any Misplaced Pages policies that guide your decision.

Well, there are several factors to consider. First, edit warring is bad, and the lone user should at least be reminded of this and urged to engage in discussion. Discussion should help make more clear whether the user's edits against apparent consensus have merit. Once discussion starts rolling, we can proceed to other dispute resolution avenues as necessary (such as WP:RFC), as outlined at WP:DR.

If it is clear the lone user should know better and is knowingly defying WP:3RR (they were previously warned or have a history of violating this rule), and has proven unwilling to engage in discussion, we should consider blocking under that policy. This would ideally induce the user to discuss the changes upon their return. Had there been more than a lone user, I would more strongly consider page protection to facilitate discussion.

If the deletions are of controversial material about a living person, we have to keep in mind WP:BLP (such material "should be removed immediately and without discussion"). In that case, the version without the material should be reinstated, with explanation on the talk page, and may be protected if it proves necessary, per WP:PROT.

There are also two simple cases I have not mentioned: 1) it is patently obvious that the lone editor is vandalizing, or 2) the other editors are vandals acting in a concerted attack on the page. In the first case, we simply block the editor after appropriate warnings; in the second case, it may be appropriate to protect the page against such an attack. Both of these cases are unlikely, of course, since it is a highly trafficked article.

Optional question from PrestonH (talk · contribs)

5. Why do you wish to be an administrator?

I like contributing here, and sysop permissions would enable me to do so in a greater capacity, as addressed in Question 1. As for why I keep contributing here, the English Misplaced Pages is an amazingly valuable resource, I find myself in agreement with the core policies, and there's always work to be done to sustain and improve it. -SpuriousQ (talk) 03:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from Trumpetband

6. When is it okay to indefinitely block a user?

A.

There are several cases I can think of.

1. The most common case is for vandalism-only accounts: an indefinite block is appropriate if it is overwhelmingly likely that only nonconstructive edits will come from an account if left unblocked. Sometimes this is more immediately apparent than others: e.g., a user's first or only edits are to vandalize user or user talk space, they express intention to "destroy Misplaced Pages!!" or declare "you can't stop me!!", etc. In more doubtful cases, where the vandalism is less blatant and there is a decent possibility of the account later being productive, I'd prefer a temporary block, and if the account continues to make bad edits after having been blocked, an indefinite block becomes a stronger consideration.
2. An indefinite block is appropriate for accounts that have gone awry in some way, where it is necessary to block until confirmation that the issue has been resolved. This may mean user or bot accounts that are suddenly making harmful bot-like edits, accounts that have been apparently compromised, etc.
3. Abusive sockpuppets in violation of WP:SOCK should be indefinitely blocked and the sockpuppeter account may also be, depending on the situation.
4. Another case is a simple username block.
5. Accounts may also be indefinitely blocked to enforce bans.

Optional question from AldeBaer (talk · contribs)

7. As you may or may not be aware, there is an ongoing dispute at Misplaced Pages talk:No personal attacks regarding linking to attack sites (i.e. off-wiki websites that attack Misplaced Pages editors). Could you outline your position on the issue? —AldeBaer 19:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

General comments

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

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

Discussion

Support

1. Support I offered a while back, but he said he wasn't ready. He definitely is now, and I have good faith he'll do a good job. Good luck! Majorly (talk | meet) 09:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
2. Co-nom support. I have every confidence that Q will make a great admin. – Riana ⁂ 09:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
3. Support - Good user from what I can tell. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
4. Support A model Wikipedian, would make a great admin. Good luck to you. — The Sunshine Man 10:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
5. Support. Great user. I agree entirely with the opinions in the noms. Will (aka Wimt) 10:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
6. Support - every confidence. Addhoc 11:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
7. Support - Excellent work. A prime candidate for demotion if that's what Q wants. Pedro |  Chat  11:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
8. Strong Support - A very good editor and would make a good admin..----Cometstyles 11:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
9. Support - Without having any prior knowledge of this candidate, I am confident that anyone nominated by both Acalamari and Riana would make an excellent admin. Walton 12:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
10. Longevity to be admired, shows true dedication. In addition, seems like a near-enough-to-model candidate. Daniel 12:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
11. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 12:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
12. Support, and insert witty wordplay here based on his username. Will 12:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
13. Support, no obstacles. —AldeBaer 13:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
14. I would have gladly been a co-nom. Kafziel 13:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
15. Strong Support Should be of great help at AIV as an administrator. Nishkid64 (talk) 13:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
16. Support With Acalamari and Riana pwning most of my concerns with any admin candidate before I even got to the questions, which were exellently answered and displayed the maturity expected from a candidate, my only concerns were investigating the user's recent activity. Folks, he's apparently already turned down a nomination, over his own concerns that he thought he wasn't ready. Users with this kind of humility are generally the best candidates for the job. Cheers, Lanky (YELL) 14:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
17. Support I see nothing but positive things from this candidate. —Anas 14:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
18. Support. Looks good, I thought he was one. --Mschel 14:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
19. Support with a cliché thrown in for good measure. GDonato (talk) 15:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
20. Riana nominee. Moreschi 15:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
21. Strong SupportGood User Great User.Arnon Chaffin 16:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
22. Strong support as the nominator. Once again, I am late to give my support to a candidate that I've nominated/co-nominated. :) Acalamari 16:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
23. Support - another one of those "WTF - thought you were an admin already??" cases - Alison ☺ 17:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
24. Support Good counter-vandalism skills. – B.hotep /_t• 19:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
25. Support: Plenty of experience and edit summary usage is also excellent. Should make a fine administrator.  Orfen  | _Contribs 20:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
26. Support, level headed and excellent at vandal mopping. Clear need for the extra toolkit. Kuru 21:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
27. Support --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 21:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
28. Support Yes, this is exactly what we need! Jmlk17 21:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
29. Support Seems fine. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
30. support --W.marsh 22:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
31. Support, no problem. Trebor 00:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
32. Support, sure. -- Phoenix2 01:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
33. RFA Clique #1 You're not an admin =O G1ggy 02:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

    "Clique" or "cliché"? —Kyриx 03:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

    RfA clique - they're that group that sits around the benches at WT:RFA and makes fun of everyone else's clothes. Mean lot. – Riana ⁂ 15:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

34. Support --cj | talk 02:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
35. Support You come highly recommended and your work speaks for itself. JodyB _talk 11:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
36. Support may need to review core policies for a refresher, but overall competent with no problems. falsedef 18:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
37. Support Wow, I thought this user was already an administrator. It seems like I am constantly racing SpuriousQ over at RC patrol, with SpuriousQ usually winning. Would make a fine sysop. Do you ever sleep? —Ocatecir 03:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
38. Support I see no reason to not give this user admin tools.--PrestonH 04:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
39. Support. Good user. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
40. Support Have seen this user around, no problems. Xiner (talk) 13:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
41. Terence 14:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
42. Support per other supporters. Captain panda 19:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
43. Support Joe I 05:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
44. Support Per Riana. Dfrg.msc 08:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
45. S Everything I was about to say... is already said. --Kzrulzuall 10:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
46. Support per above. PeaceNT 16:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
47. Support Nothing left to say :-) —METS501 (talk) 23:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
48. Support, Spurious deifnately has the capacity and need for sysop tools. Nothing left to say! *Cremepuff222* 00:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
49. Non-spurious support per candidate's good overall record. No concerns. Newyorkbrad 01:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
50. Support per all above, great user. - Zeibura S. Kathau 04:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
51. Support Should make an excellant admin. Davewild 16:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
52. Rettetast 20:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
53. I think my evaluation can be best summed up by a quote from the nomination ... "this is a great, well-rounded, dedicated, and communicative user". Cheers, Black Falcon 00:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
54. Support --Húsönd 03:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
55. Support - No concerns. --Random 19:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
56. Support per Riana and Acalamari. Sarah 04:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
57. Support I like the answer, good luck! --Trumpetband 13:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
58. Support -- Judicious temperament. Lots of experience which is well-rounded. --A. B. 18:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
59. Support looks good to me. James086 00:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
60. Support. Zaxem 01:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

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 request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

N734LQ

Final (4/15/4); Ended 11:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

N734LQ (talk · contribs) - I am N734LQ, and I'm offering to serve the English Misplaced Pages as an Admin. I feel I hold every trait and Admin should. I take responsibility for my actions, have never and will never maliciously vandalize, or otherwise degrade any item in the English Misplaced Pages. I realize it takes a lot of trust to promote me to Admin, and I know that I can and should be trusted as an Admin. In all of my years on Wikiepdia, I have made over 1,000 edits, of which none were vandalism. I take every chance to improve the quality of this resource, correcting typos, and helping others when in need. If upgraded to Admin, I will exercise my new power with restraint, and continue to help improve Misplaced Pages, until I am sure that Misplaced Pages is all that it can be, and help foster its growth. By voting for me, it takes a lot of trust in me, and I know that is difficult, but I am genuine in my efforts. Please seriously consider my candidacy. If I do become an Admin, you will not regret it. Thank you, and please think deeply about this. N734LQ 04:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Fellow Wikipedians, I am N734LQ, and I am making a candidacy for Adminship. It takes a lot of respect and trust to allow me this privilege, and if given that privilege, I will do everything that is possible, to improve the English Misplaced Pages, and use my powers with responsibility, and always ask for a second opinion before making major changes. It takes trust in me to vote for me, and rest assured, I am one to be trusted, and I will keep that very trust. Wikipedians, it would be my honor to serve every user on the English Misplaced Pages, and if elevated, I will do my best to see to it that Misplaced Pages is at the forefront of the Internet.

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: I fully intend to take part in everything that is humanly possible. I will see to it that Misplaced Pages prospers, becomes a resource for everyone, contains vast quantities of knowledge. People today don't realize that there is much more than meets the eye. Misplaced Pages isn't just a dump for knowledge. Misplaced Pages is a place for all mankind to share discoveries, and to help foster the growth of the world as we know it. If I see a place that nees work, I will stop at nothing to accomplish the task. Everything that needs doing, will get done.

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

A: I cannot name a specific contribution, of the many I have made. Some of my best contributions are also the shortest. If I see a red link (meaning the page isn't created), I will create it. Albeit, it is short, but someone who may come along, may know more on the subject, and can help to improve the article in question. This is important because that grows without bounds. The article is like a plant. First it was just a seed, but with contributions, it grows to its full potential, and flowers with vibrant buds. Another one of my best contributions is that if I see something I think should be linked, I'll link it. People may not grasp the concept, because there is not foundation. Let's use another analogy. Think of a house. The top floor is the article, but you must a have a first floor, the foundation. Without it, the house will collapse. I ant to see people become intelligent beings, capable of knowing the whole story, with a foundation that is unbreakable.

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 before. I created an article about my Junior High School, and it was nominated for deletion. I felt hurt, because it was part of my life. I felt angry, I wanted to swear and insult the user who deleted the article. I was under distress. However, I took it with a grain of salt. I found out what was making me angry, the fact that he took away something that meant a lot to me. I knew that hurting him, like he hurt me, wouldn't do anything. I went to my bedroom, and lied down. I then figured out he wasn't doing it to personally hurt me, so I had to let it go. I took deep breaths, and let it go. I felt so much better about my actions, that I didn't retaliate, I just forgot about it, and went on. In the future, this is what I will do. If someone puts me under stress, I will get to the root of the problem, and figure out the best solution.

Question from WODUP

4. In your opening statement, you say that you have amassed over 1,000 edits in all of your years on Misplaced Pages, however, as of 09:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC), N734LQ's edit count is 435 and the earliest edit was on 16 September 2006. How did you get 1,000 edits and years on Misplaced Pages; did you previously edit anonymously or under a different username?

A: Yes, I edited anonymously. During my edits anonymously, that's where I got my years.

General comments

• See N734LQ's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
• Links for N734LQ: N734LQ (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/N734LQ before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. Moral Support—although I advise pulling out at the moment - take this as a learning oppurtunity, and come back in 4-5 months with some WP:RCP experience, WP:XFD contributions and keep up the enthusiasm. You'll make a fine Administrator some day ~ Anthony 10:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
2. Moral Support - Your eloquent self-nom demonstrates your enthusiasm for Misplaced Pages, but unfortunately your answer to Q1 doesn't demonstrate that you understand fully what admins do. I suggest withdrawing this RfA early and gaining a few months' more experience. Walton 09:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
3. Moral Support per Walton. You're a good user with a clean record, and it's fantastic to see new users who are interested in helping any way they can. I would suggest clicking on your "my preferences" link and enabling "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" under the Editing tab, which should allow you to fix the problem of not entering an edit summary. Cheers, Lanky (YELL) 13:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
4. Weak support - your willingness to help the project is amazing, but I'm somewhat disinclined in my support. I think that it is best to learn specific means to improve Misplaced Pages before becoming entrusted with adminship, if only to prove (beyond a doubt, if not a shadow of one) that you're in it for the long haul. Gracenotes § 21:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I'm puzzled by this... You say you have over 1,000 contributions, yet your contributions list shows under 500. (Did you edit under an IP previously?) Also, you are certainly not lacking in eagerness, but your nomination statement and answer to question one don't show that you know what an admin does. Get more experience and come back in a few months with a clearer idea of what you want to do, I would say. Grandmasterka 05:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
2. Great enthusiasm which is a credit, but way to low on edit count (not edit countitis but <1000 really is too low to show experience). Also I note you have been proactive in creating new articles, but most remain as stubs - often with just one or two lines. I can't see any need for the tools here, but you are obviously a keen editor. Why not focus on developing the work you have started instead, and pop back here a few months down the line. Also - please start using the edit summary !!! Ta! Pedro |  Chat  08:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
3. Inexperience, no demonstration of abilities required to be an administrator (this != demonstrating that you're not here to hurt Misplaced Pages), and hasn't yet showed dedication sufficiently enough to this project to be entrusted with the extra tools. Daniel 12:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
4. Lack of demonstrated experience with policy. No XfD participation. No AIV, RfCU, RFPP, AN/I, etc... participation. Only policy/process related participation I see at all are a question from February about whether he is allowed to blank his talk page and one from this month about putting two flags on the article. That both are questions is a sign that he isn't ready yet even for answering questions about policy and process, much less for taking administrative action based in policy and process. GRBerry 13:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
5. Sorry, (I feel guilty, in a way) but I have to Oppose this due to a lack of edits (total no. of 434), I frankly cannot see how you could have had enough experience on Misplaced Pages to become an admin. However, I will point out that you have been here for quite some time... Booksworm Talk to me! 17:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
6. Oppose - Lack of experience, and I'm sure you don't know most of everything there is to know at Misplaced Pages. Also, answer to Q1 worries me. You say that "it is a place for all mankind to share their discoveries". I'm not trying to be picky, but this might show that you've never read WP:OR. Cool Blue 18:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

   I'm pretty sure that's not so much about original thought as it is about the accumulation, and even culmination, of mankind's collective achievements. Just my take on it, though; such an attitude towards knowledge is rare. Gracenotes § 19:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

   Well, even if that was his take on it, I still have other reasons for my objection. Thanks for pointing that out, though. Cool Blue 20:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

   Understandable. Gracenotes § 20:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

7. Oppose: Lack of experience. Also edit summary usage is poor, I suggest changing it in preferences to making it forced.  Orfen  | _Contribs 20:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
8. Oppose You do not have 1,000 edits, you have 434; unless you edited previously anonymously. Of these edits, only a tiny fraction have an edit summary. I am sorry to say that I do not, at this time see any evidence of significant experience in admin-related activities; I urge you to withdraw this RfA and re-apply in a few months.--Anthony.bradbury 21:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
9. Oppose You have the enthusiasm, but severely lack in the experience. Less than 500 edits is exceedingly low experience, and while I'm not throwing out editcountitis, I don't agree with giving tools to someone with so little (apparent) knowledge of what Misplaced Pages's inner workings entail. Try again in the future after some months of work. Jmlk17 21:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
10. Oppose: You have, like I did, applied for adminship with too little experience. Nearly a month ago I did exactly the same thing. Your answers, whilst enthusiastic, don’t really demonstrate deep understanding of Misplaced Pages policy. I admire your thirst to do “everything humanly possible” to help Misplaced Pages, seems a little too noble to me. Also, it would be good to name some specific examples of your finest work. Speaking from RfA experience, I would say you need to use talk and other non-article namespace pages more. It will stand you in good stead for the future. Please, don’t take this as an attack on your ability to contribute to Misplaced Pages, I’m just trying to look at the situation objectively, if I can. Good luck, and don’t be put off! Max Naylor 14:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

    P.S. Your take on your edit count and ‘years’ of experience on Misplaced Pages also worries me slightly. Max Naylor 14:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

11. Oppose. I have the same questions about edit count as raised above and am concerned that your answers to the questions do not reflect knowledge of the function and duties of an administrator or any review of the ARL. Also am put-off by the 9% edit summary usage. Goodnightmush 14:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
12. Oppose per everyone else - it's great that you're willing to help the project, but I'm afraid you just don't have enough experience - don't let his put you off from contributing, though - with more experience, you can make a good admin. Oh, and can you explain what you mean by "thousands" of edits? Tim.bounceback 16:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
13. Oppose. Recommend Withdraw. I'm sorry; I'd be one of the last editors to succumb to editcountitis, but I see little evidence of any understanding of Misplaced Pages policy or procedures. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 16:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
14. Oppose Extremely low Misplaced Pages space edits and total edits. Captain panda 19:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
15. Oppose Per everyone else. But I like your matzie, kid. Now you know what to do, try again in a few months. Dfrg.msc 08:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral I'm trying to assume good faith here but you have little experience, get some XFD work and some good contribs and generally use an edit summary much more and you'll probably pass, as well I suggest re-wording and being more precise to your Q1 answer, but I would suggest withdrawing this RfA. Regards — — The Sunshine Man 10:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
2. Neutral I too AGF but note the low numbers and a curious conflict between the stats and your claims. Maybe best to come back later. Perhaps and admin can SNOW this quickly. JodyB _talk 12:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
3. Neutral I would recommend that you come back a bit later, as I do not feel that you know the admin side of things yet. But with a little bit more experience I am sure you will make a great admin! Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 08:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
4. Neutral, some work at XfD will probably seal the deal and you'll be good to go. -- Phoenix2 16:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Yamamoto Ichiro

Closed by Cecropia 05:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC) at (60/14/8) successful

Yamamoto Ichiro (talk · contribs) - I nominated myself because I feel somewhat uncomfortable asking other Wikipedians to nominate me. I have been on Misplaced Pages since March 2005. I have not seriously started editing until November 2005. I took some wiki-break and then I became more active again on Misplaced Pages recently. As you can see from my edit history, my main contribution to Misplaced Pages is cleaning up vandalism and warning vandals. I intend to focus mainly on vandalism in the future as well. I also have some history with closing xfd, and I have to admit that some of these closes have been controversial as well, especially with some of the school nominations. For the controversial xfd’s, I re-opened the case when I received comments regarding the controversial closing, and I left the xfd for an experienced editor to close. As for editing the encyclopedia itself content-wise, I most also admit that I have not contributed much in this field. Although I did some work, but it's very insignificant for me to even describe here. However, vandalism work is important to Misplaced Pages because recent change patrol is vital to maintaining integrity of Misplaced Pages. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 03:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A:As I stated above, most of my work will be related to vandalism. I will pay close attention to WP:AIV frequently (sometimes WP:AIV does get backlogged) and I will continue my rc patrol task regularly when there I have free time on my hands. If there is a need, I will close AfD's and take care of PROD's if there's a backlog. --Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 04:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

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

A: I do not have any best contributions to Misplaced Pages in perticular, if dealing with vandalism is considered as a contribution, then I guess that's my best contribution to Misplaced Pages. --Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 04:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

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

A: I rarely participate in any content-disputes or controversial topics. So I virtually have no experience with conflicts on Misplaced Pages. In a case if there is one, I usually tend to avoid them because I have no interest in getting involved. --Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 04:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems I have not answered this questions very clearly. While it is true that I did not have any conflict in regards to content dispute in general. However, I did get into conflicts with xfd closes, and vandals who I deal with daily while I was proforming some maintainance tasks. Vandals do not bother me at all actually, I believe every vandal have the potential to reform themselves later on if they make the effort to do so. As you can see, my userpage is always targeted by vandals. I would fully support a vandal who will take the effort to reform him/herself. I did came interact with a sockpuppet user a while ago, (see my first talk archive), who kept reverting changes with sockpuppets on University of Miami article. It didn't really perticularly cause any stress to me, but I did ask for it to be checkuser'd (this was VERY long time ago by the way as you can see). Also, I have histories with xfd closing, which I did receive some compliants with because it was closed improperly(see my opening statement). Anyhow, hopefully that clears my answer up a bit. --Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 00:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from Amarkov (talk · contribs)

4. In the last two days, you have made one thousand edits. How have you done this, and why did you make so many?

A:It sounds like a lot, but it's not that much because most of these edits are vandalism reverts. With the right tools and scripts, it's possible to revert vandalism with great speed and efficiently. (If you would like to know how exactly I revert vandalism just leave a message on my talk page and I'll explain it in a greater detail). Considering how much vandalism are made each day on Misplaced Pages, I'm afraid that this is just a fraction. --Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 04:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from Lanky (talk · contribs)

5. If you were in an editing conflict with another user who broke 3RR by reverting to his or her version of the page, would you block them?

A:No, I wouldn't, it's bad practice to block someone who is involved in the same conflict as you. I would ask another administrator (who is neutral) for assistance in that case. It's also bad practice to revert other user's edit if they were made in good faith, so I often try my best to avoid revert wars as well. --Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 13:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Optional question fron PrestonH (talk · contribs)

6. Some users abuse Misplaced Pages for a social network site, and some newcomers are confused about what whether Misplaced Pages is. How are you going to deal with a newcomer who socializes alot that is not Misplaced Pages-related?

A:If I see one, I would kindly remind him/her that Misplaced Pages is not WP:MYSPACE and try to discourage this type of behavior without WP:BITEing newcomers, but if the user continues to use Misplaced Pages to socialize, I would rather take it to the noticeboards,village pump or ask another experianced user for assistance rather than taking actions myself against it, simply because this could become very controversial. --Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 01:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from Daveh4h (talk · contribs)

7. As an editor, what is your greatest weakness? What is your greatest strength?

A:One of the reason I do not contribute to Misplaced Pages directly is my poor writing skills, as a result, it is almost impossible for me to raise an article's standards to featured article, or participate in a editorial based wikiproject. My greatest strength would be communicating with other users (although most of the people I talk to are anon's and newbies but I do talk to experianced users as well), and attempting to make a compromise if an issue is ever brought up to me. Although so far there has only been minor issues so far (the most serious one I dealt with so far was the small XfD closing controversy) and I did had to deal with some incivility from anon's, but I don't take incivility from users very seriously. --Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 23:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from AldeBaer (talk · contribs)

8. As you may or may not be aware, there is an ongoing dispute at Misplaced Pages talk:No personal attacks regarding linking to attack sites (i.e. off-wiki websites that attack Misplaced Pages editors). Could you outline your position on the issue? —AldeBaer 19:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

A:As of now, I do not have any strong opinions. First of all, it depends on what kind of attack site, there could be attack sites that only criticises a users action and makes no personal attacks at all. Attack sites that target Misplaced Pages editors, depending on how it's being used and what kind, should be treated differently in each case. For example, if it's a vandal who blanks entire articles to link to attack sites will obviously get a warning and a block if he continues. Same thing with link spammers who spams the link to unrelated articles just to promote the attack site. However, if the attack site is something like, a newspaper like the New York Times or something, and the article has something to do with the attack site and the person is simply citing it as a source, then maybe it is valid (even in this case I'm a bit spectical though, but it obviously does not warrant a vandalism warning). However, attack sites that does nothing but attack editors (sites that does not even make criticism and only makes personal attack), in general, should be removed because it is just like vandalising a page with done in a different style. But as I said, this is a complex situation and it each case should be well examined. --Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 20:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

General comments

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

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

Discussion

Support

1. Support: Excellent at opposing vandalism: makes regular reports to AIV, which I always find to be accurate and timely. Can really use the tools. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
2. Support One of the best candidates I've seen. ⇒ SWATJester 04:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
3. Yes, of course. His judgement is sound, and he could use a tool upgrade. Some people specialize in vandalism patrol and that's fine with me. Antandrus (talk) 04:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
4. Support - Blocking all the vandals he reports to AIV gets tiring after a while. I like admins to contribute content too, but that isn't enough to oppose in this instance. VegaDark (talk) 06:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
5. Support. Everyone who regularly performs RC patrol knows his hard work combined with a healthy dose of thoughtfulness when it comes to approach vandals and experimenting users alike. We have here a great candidate that would make excellent use of the tools for the benefit of us all, and therefore, I happily endorse him. Phaedriel - 06:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
6. Support Numerous reversions have very few challenges in archived talk, leading me to believe that use of script to revert pages was responsible. Although this is a self-nom, there were several editors who offered to put him up. I think he can be trusted with the tools. the_undertow 08:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
7. Support He's a very dedicated Wikipedian and an unwaveringly committed vandal-fighter, so giving him those extra buttons is only going to help Misplaced Pages. That's the point in adminship, isn't it? I support. —Anas 08:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
8. Support per the fact that there is no sign that there is anything lacking in this candidate's vandal fighting ability, would trust them to use the tools effectively and would think that they would certainly be active too. GDonato (talk) 08:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
9. Support. Dedicated vandal-fighter, shows a clear need for the tools. Walton 09:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

   Support seen the guy around, usually associated with something good. Go for it. – Riana ⁂ 09:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC) Neutral per Pedro's concerns. – Riana ⁂ 12:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

10. Support - I'm a little concerned that most of your involvement with wikipedia namespace is to do admin work. For example, you've closed and relisted AfDs, but I don't see you votingparticipating in them. - Richard Cavell 10:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
11. Support - Good Choice..!.----Cometstyles 12:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
12. Support per the answer to Q5. Any user who's level-headed enough to understand that admin tools should never be used unless there's a clear lack of conflict of interest is certainly capable of handling the tools with the deft touch they can sometimes require. Cheers, Lanky (YELL) 13:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
13. Support Nobody's perfect. Yamamoto does more than enough anti-vandalism work to justify receiving the admin tools. YechielMan 14:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
14. Support. A great vandalism fighter. --Mschel 14:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
15. I was thinking of nomming you myself. Clearly slow on the draw though. Support.--Wizardman 15:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
16. Support: While I would like to see a more variety of work, I feel this user could benefit from the administrator tools. Has experience and edit summary usage is also good. Should make a fine administrator.  Orfen  | _Contribs 20:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
17. Support, obvious strong need for the extra buttons - very good at what he does and highly unlikely to abuse the tools. Kuru 21:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
18. Support Will help to keep the backlog down in regards to vandalism and vandal-fighting. Jmlk17 21:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
19. Support. Excellent vandal fighter - one of the best in my opinion - he has continually beaten me to reverting vandalism! I am confident he will use the tools wisely. --Ali 22:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
20. Support not sure if I've ever commented on an RfA before; but this editor deserves promotion, I have been beaten to the punch on reverting obvious vandalism countless times by this editor. Carlossuarez46 00:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
21. Support, Yamamoto knows what he is doing, and can be trusted. Prodego 02:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
22. Weak Support, Good answer to my optional question, but I'm concern by your narrow editing and conflict resolution.--PrestonH 04:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
23. Support. I've seen Yamamoto Ichiro's name popping up all over the place recently. From what I've seen, he will use the admin tools without fear of abuse. - auburnpilot talk 16:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
24. Support, Very active Vandalism reverter, who I have seen on the job. Would make great admin. --Random 22:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
25. Support We have all seen his good work on rc patrol. Giving him the admin tools will help the project. Tom Harrison 23:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
26. Support I've seen Yamamoto catching vandalism on several articles I watch, and I don't see any evidence that he has a "get dem vandals" attitude. From what I've seen he's actually fairly measured and conservative with the warning system. The help at WP:AIV from a vandalism specialist is more than welcome in my opinion.--JayHenry 00:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
27. Support I've seen no reason to oppose him. I'm glad he's going after the vandals. I am sure he'll err somewhere down the road but who hasn't. He's dedicated to the task and I support him for that. JodyB _talk 00:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
28. Support. Capable of considering arguments and changing his mind, as at the bottom of this talk page. An important attribute for an admin. --Fire Star 火星 01:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
29. Strong Support. Great vandal fighter; I was planning to nominate him myself. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
30. Support. My first RfA vote and very well deserved. I run across Yamamoto while on RC patrol often and admire his thoroughness (checking a users previous edits carefully) politeness when dealing with vandals and most of all his caution and careful judgment when it comes to reverts. I have yet to see him make a bad call when reverting. I'm sure he will be a courteous hardworking and useful administrator. Paxse 06:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
31. Support - Hard working and conscientious, this editor is an asset to the project, and will doubtless wield the mop-and-bucket well and wisely. Doc Tropics 18:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
32. Support I find it strange to oppose a candidate for not having an editing conflict. daveh4h 18:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
33. Weak Support There are some great concerns with this candidate, but I think that they are not cause to oppose. I am not totally sure that I am right with this statement, so I may change my vote in the future. Captain panda 19:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
34. Support. I don't find the concerns of the first few opposers especially significant. As to the last two, perhaps the edit was inappropriate, but opposing on the basis of a single minor error seems unreasonable. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
35. Support Joe I 05:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
36. Terence 14:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
37. Support - I've run into this user a multitude of times when I've been patrolling for vandalism and I've found him to always revert the same vandalism as I and post the same warning level on the offending user's talk page as I would have. Additionally, his response to the answers above show a levelheadedness that could be entrusted with the extra tools. As for the concerns with his 1000 edits in 2 days, or his over-zealousness in reverting vandalism, I disagree with them. Misplaced Pages is about the articles but, not all users are prolific editors with access to vast amounts of knowledge, we need as many as we can that can clean up articles and get rid of vandals. Also, many, many users rack up these numbers of edits in very short periods of time (AWB anyone?), so this is not a concern in my opinion. I fully support this candidate. --Kimon 16:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
38. Support - Flubeca t 16:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
39. Support Valentinian 20:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
40. Support, fighting vandalism and answering questions well is good. According to Q2 needs/should to do some writing to balance the scale. Still an asset to Misplaced Pages. Hope for the best. feydey 21:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
41. Support A great asset to Misplaced Pages. The concerns raised in the oppose and neutral sections do not bother me. —METS501 (talk) 01:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
42. Rettetast 20:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
43. Weak support 291 AIV reports from this user? (Wow – I'm not worthy.) I concur with others that the high edits-per-day ratio is easy to get with scripts, and it's not horrible in and of itself. So, need for admin tools for vandalism, countered by low edits-per-page ratio... okay. Mop wisely, and please consider Bibliomaniac15's suggestion to jump in and write. There's really nothing like coming across an article that needs improvement on RC patrol, then spending the next two hours fixing it up. KrakatoaKatie 07:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
44. Strong Support, it's no big deal. I personally think it is justified to call out vandals when they blatantly vandalize a page. Normally I would argue that in the case of the warning Deskana pointed out that subst:uw-vandalism2 is most appropriate. However, Mr. Yamamoto alleges a single user was repeatedly vandalizing the page, in which case the warning would have been justified. Mr. Yamamoto is furthermore the very epitome of humility and civic-mindedness; he need not be perfect to do the community service, especially not at the start of his tenure. Again, be reminded that the lack of admins is critical, and our candidate fills a needed capacity. --Edwin Herdman 09:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
45. Support says he wants to fight and warn vandals - mop and the tools will help him do that very well. Anonymous Dissident 11:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
46. Support. It seems a valuable contributor.--MariusM 14:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
47. Support. Will make good use of the tools. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
48. Support. I was one who wanted to nominate this user, and I trust that he will use the tools responsibly, and exercise caution in areas with which he is not familiar (as his record in xFDs shows). (ESkog) 15:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
49. Support This user having the admin tools will only help wikipedia. With them he could fight vandalism at least 50% better. Anyone who reverted vandalism 2,000 times in two days is someone who should be considered for this position. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 22:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
50. Support A pure asset to wikipedia considering his contributions, plain and simple. Manderiko 22:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
51. Support, I wished him good luck on his RfA, and then realized I forgot to vote! Tim.bounceback 00:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
52. Support it's amazing that someone's extensive anti-vandalism efforts gets spun as a negative characteristic. Vandalism is still a bad thing, right? Someone has to revert vandalism... maybe some people are too good for it but I'm glad people like this candidate do it. --W.marsh 00:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
53. Support - Vandal fighting is not a bad thing... Yonatan 01:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
54. Support I have read the opposing and neutral views and can recognize some valid concerns. However, Yamamoto Ichiro has clearly demonstrated a commitment to the improvement of WP. His handling of the questions raised here on his RFA demonstrate a level-headedness as well. I trust him when he says he will seek out other admins in time of conflict to come to the best possible way to handle a problem. While I see that he has room for improvement in terms of mediating edit conflicts, he will be a tremendous asset as an admin nonetheless. I have often seen him cleaning up the same page and warning the same users as myself. The more admins available to block obvious vandals after appropriate warnings, the better. Its frustrating as a vandal fighter to have to wait around for an admin. I would also like it if he would work on making more contributions to articles, even if it is as a translator from articles written in his native WP. —Gaff 02:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
55. Support I see him help with vandalism all the time (especially because he gets in the way of my reverts ;)) and I believe he would make a good admin. Mawfive 04:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
56. Support Excellent vandal fighter. What's more, he can be trusted with the tools. That is the only question that really matters. --Spike Wilbury 05:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
57. Support Great vandal-fighter M&NCenarius 06:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
58. Support A spot-check of his edits shows him to be an accurate vandal-fighter, with no sign of newbie-biting that I can see. There is ample evidence right in this RfA of good handling of conflict; an admin who can handle conflict but doesn't seek it out will do fine. (BTW I don't like the warning icon you use with the Japanese text. We communicate in English here.) Kla'quot 08:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
59. Support Skillful use of the vandalism warning templates, and accuracy while vandal fighting makes a good nomination. He seems ethical enough and appears to know his wikipedia policy. •Felix• 14:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
60. Support Per above, good job with anti-vandal patrols. --Whsitchy 17:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Sorry, but I have to oppose here. I really do not like it when people spend nearly all of their time reverting vandalism, especially with scripts like TWINKLE. I feel that leads to a mentality of "quick quick get dem vandals", which is not a good thing for someone who can block said vandals to have. And 1000 edits in 2 days, nearly all vandal fighting, is just... not good. If you use a hammer constantly to the exclusion of anything else, everything starts to look like a nail. -Amarkov moo! 04:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

   I understand your concerns. However, there are things I do keep in mind when I patrol for vandalism. The reason I revert vandalism on Misplaced Pages is to maintain the intergrity of Misplaced Pages as I stated above, and to ensure that the articles are not vandalised is important to other editors, and mostly important of all, the viewers. If a viewer goes on a Misplaced Pages sees a page with the words "F*** YOU" on an article, it's obviously going to create a negative image for Misplaced Pages. Getting vandals blocked and having fun whacking them is not what vandalism patrolling is about. WP:BLOCK is never used for punishment and it should be treated as a tool to prevent disruption to Misplaced Pages. --Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 04:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

   I know that, and my concern is certainly not that you will deliberately break blocking policy and block people who shouldn't be. My concern is that you will unintentionally start reverting, and blocking, for things which are not clearly vandalism. I've seen perfectly well-meaning people start to give out vandalism warnings for any substantial removal of content, even that done in good faith due to a concern over the integrity of the material. I'll accept this to some extent as a necessary effect of having vandalism get reverted, but if that's going to happen, I don't want that same person making the decision on whether or not to block. -Amarkov moo! 04:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

   And since I realize I didn't really make this clear, this is in no way saying that I don't like your edits. I congratulate you on actually being able to revert so much vandalism that 1000 edits takes you only 2 or 3 days. I just don't think you should be an admin. -Amarkov moo! 05:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

   How do you congratulate him on performing a function that is a large part of the admin job, but don't think he should be an admin? He has chosen to revert vandalism. He's not YET shown any sign of "giving out vandalism warnings for any substantial removal of content". Shouldn't you be assuming good faith in his judgement, or is it thoughtcrime? ⇒ SWATJester 05:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

   Opposing people for what they think is, in general, stupid; it just turns RfA into "I deny all my previous opinions until I pass". The problem is constant use of TWINKLE, which my experiences have indicated is not a good thing. Thus, I can not support someone who uses it so much. I'd be perfectly happy to be proven wrong if he passes and goes on to be a really good admin, but I am not convinced enough that he will. -Amarkov moo! 23:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

2. Per Pedro in neutral, although I find this so concerning that I must oppose. A failure to demonstrate ability in remaining cool in a heated discussion, and be able to deal with conflict well, will generally garner an oppose from me. Getting the extra tools is the one action, more than any other, that creates contention and drama on Misplaced Pages, and I don't believe you have enough experience dealing with disputes to be an effective administrator. Sorry, Daniel 12:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
3. I am strongly opposed to this candidate retaining extra buttons, particularly the block function. I do not feel as though Mr. Ichiro possesses the well-roundedness nor a clear scope of the primary purpose of editing Misplaced Pages is to retain any extra responsibility. While having some buttons are no big deal, Misplaced Pages already has too many admins that live to revert vandalism and block people without any extra thought, which I feel this candidate might do, given his recent spree of vandalism reverting in which he could not have given due time to each revert and potential "vandaliser." gaillimh 00:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

   The editor may correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume that Yamamoto is his family name and Ichiro his given name (see Japanese name). So, Mr. Yamamoto. Chick Bowen 01:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

   Yes your right. Ichiro is the given name and Yamamoto is the last name. I'm not too concerned with that since I did register my account in an unconvential Japanese name order. Anyhow, I don't think we need to be discussing this anyways (little bit offtopic). --Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 17:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

4. Oppose per Pedro and Daniel. Zsinj 02:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose. I'm afraid I must oppose this RfA. In my previous interaction with this user, I found him a bit too quick on the trigger, so to speak. One user, User:Anywherebuthere23 made this edit to George W. Bush. As I understand it, this is false (being English and not particularly interested in American politics). I reverted that edit and went to place a {{test}} on the user's page, to find that Yamamoto had placed a blatant vandalism template on the users page. That was unwarranted, as the user's other two edits ( ) although totally useless, weren't vandalism. I have concerns that if this user should develop from placing bv templates on user's pages to blocking them straight away for fairly inoccuous edits, we could have a bit of a problem here. When I raised the issue Yamamoto was civil and understanding, and I am glad he edits Misplaced Pages. I would just not like him to have the power to block users yet. --Deskana (AFK 47) 15:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

   Looking at the edits you cited, I can understand why the candidate assumed they were made in bad faith - the George W. Bush edit ("he is a democrat") is something that anyone with knowledge of American politics would know to be false, and looks like a deliberate attempt to compromise the article's integrity. Although I understand your reasons for opposing (arguably, WP:AGF dictates that we should not treat these kind of edits as deliberate vandalism), the fact is that edits like that do compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages, and for that reason I think the candidate can be forgiven slight over-zealousness in these cases. Walton 16:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

   I would like to point out that most of my reverts and vandalism warnings do elevate from {{test1}}, {{test2}} and so on..., I almost always use that pattern for normal, non-serious vandalism like inserting text like "John was here" or blanking pages and replacing it with "fuck you" even. I normally use {{bv}} for something serious like placing shock images on articles that have high visibility like the featured article(you almost have to know the wikicode to do something like that). However, that exceptional case which Deskana brought to me was result of probably George W. Bush repeatedly being vandalised by a different acccounts registered by the same vandal just to vandalise. In the past vandals created "sleeper accounts" to vandalise today's featured article on high visibility articles. This was especially true for the GWB article. See the history of Adriaen van der Donck, where one user created multiple sockpuppet "sleeper accounts" to place shock images on today's featured article. In any case however, I do respect and understand your concerns as I did really overreacted to the GWB vandalism, and I should of at least used {{uw-vandalism-1}}. Sometimes there are also cases where I should of given {{blank1}} rather than {{blank2}}. Which the user also brought to my attention. Nevertheness, I do make mistakes like everyone else, which is why any user could come to my talk page and talk to me about inapproperate warnings and I'll cross them out as needed. However, I do constantly try my best to WP:AGF and I do believe that vandals do have potentials to become good editors. --Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 16:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

   I understand why people don't assume good faith in all instances, but you can seriously scare people off by being overzealous. "He is a democrat" is NOT blatant vandalism, no matter what the intent by the person adding it. I'm sorry, but I can't support this RfA. Good luck. --Deskana (AFK 47) 19:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

   However, please do not misinterpret my comments. I know that in a future RfA I could support you, and I am certain you are a kind and civil user who is doing good work. I just cannot support this RfA. Please do continue working hard. :-) --Deskana (AFK 47) 22:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

   (I hope I'm formatting this correctly) In aggreeing with the importance on AGF, I would like to point out, Deskana, that I am concerned that I have seen WP:AGF problems(being too quick to block a user as a vandal or otherwise, instead of assuming that they are still a newcomer) from you aswell. You have blocked this user indefinately, who has made only one edit, for being totally unacceptable. I couldn't understand what was totally unacceptable about that edit, because all that editor did was replaced the George Bush page with typical profanity against the person. I've seen edits like that done millions of times, and I think at least a few warnings before blocking would have been more appropriete.(Is there are reason why you did consider it unacceptable?)--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 02:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

6. Oppose per Daniel and Deskana. WjBscribe 17:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
7. Oppose per Deskana. Xiner (talk) 03:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

   Weak oppose While I like that you're active fighting vandalism (your AIV reports are usually correct by the way, which is nice :)), I don't like your answer to #3; I suggest taking at least one WP:AMA or WP:MEDCAB case. I'm not so worried about you being trigger-happy, as Deskana said, but it might help if you tone it down a bit. Another thing that bothers me is your editing pattern; you seem to be (insanely) active for a few months, and then don't edit (or edit very little) for just as much, if not more, time. A final minor problem—for want of a better word, it's really not a bad thing—is this. The last wiki-space edit that wasn't AIV, a revert, or an RFA was in November. I'd suggest balancing things out a bit (even though what you're doing isn't necessarily bad). · AndonicO 11:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

   Regarding to the edit patterns, my activity was purely limited by the amount of time which I could contribute to Misplaced Pages, during some months I just do not have the time to participate on Misplaced Pages due to studies, etc. Regarding to Misplaced Pages space edits, I do have edits on AfD's, although it's a very small portion of my Misplaced Pages space edits. --Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 22:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

   Moved to neutral. · AndonicO 23:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

8. Oppose. Despite having seen some great vandalwhacking from this user, I am bothered by several answers to questions.Per my RfA Policy, I will always look against a user who says "nothing, vandalism..." to question 2. Secondly, question 3's answer gives the impression that as an admin, you will still avoid conflicts, even though from what I understand a lot of admin work is centered around conflicts, and resolution of conflicts. Would you be comfortable there? Question 6 bothers me because people taking it to "someone more experienced" annoys me, considering that (if you're a sysop) we have promoted you on the assumption that you know what you're doing, not that you need support form above. It is for these 3 reasons that I can't support you. Better luck next time, and please take on board all the advice given by other editors here. G1ggy! 04:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

   Well, I can't really say anything about your first comment. Regarding conflicts, I do tent to avoid content-dispute related type of conflicts, but I do get into conflicts with vandals (who sometimes registers a delicated vandalism-only account to vandalism my userpage). I also dealt with some conflicts with sockpuppets and compliants about my xfd closings. However, isn't adminship more than just dealing with content-dispute conflicts? Isn't there admins who just deals with maintainance tasks that needed to be done, like closing xfd's, attending WP:AIV, and especially WP:ABL? Of course I won't be taking this to the experianced user forever, just for more controversial things that not even myself with know how to deal with, I'll ask for help. --Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 22:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

9. Oppose. Per what was written above, especially the comments from Amarkov. I don't buy into his "lack of English skills" as being a legitimate reason for editing articles, mainly because from reading this RfA, his skills appear to be fairly good. Given his Japanese language skills, I could see him editing hundreds of articles, improving many of them. In addition, I know that Admins get into intense discussions with editors, and if he is deprecating his language skills, then how can he provide leadership and mentoring to new users? I've known a lot of editors, myself included, who became better editors as a result of good mentoring. Orangemarlin 17:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

   Actually I was glad that you thought there was no huge grammar error that would make my opening statement unreadable. Some of the things I wrote were commented being "sloopy grammar" by other users, such as some edits I made to the MMORPG article. Also, I don't believe adminship is about position of leadership or power, it's merely a group of people with access to tools used to do maintainance tasks for everyone else, which is what I'm more focused on. I don't think there should be division between normal users and admins. --Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 22:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

   I appreciate your comments. I really think you will be a great member of the community, and you could be a very good admin. I want to give you a push to be an editor firstly. You could add knowledge in untold number of articles. With more editing of articles, I would become a strong supporter of your RfA. Orangemarlin 16:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

10. Oppose. Just vandalwhacking. Haber 18:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

    I think vandalism patrol and reverts are important to maintaining intergrity of Misplaced Pages. Is there something wrong with just vandalwhacking? Of course I'll also be planning to do some maintainance related task as well, since there seems to be a huge administrative backlog. --Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 22:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

11. Oppose In addition to some of the concerns above, I am troubled by your response to Question Six. Once you become an admin, you yourself will be expected to take the responsibility for making possibly difficult decisions about users, rather than asking others. Are you aware of how this problem is handled now, and the methods used for dealing with such users? If you had to make the decision yourself, what would you say, and what would you do?DGG 20:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

    Well, at first I'll ask for experianced users for suggestions on how to deal with issues. But I'll eventually take responsibility once I'm confident that I have the ability to do that when I learn. But isn't there also administrators who just deal with maintainance tasks as well? --Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 22:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

12. I don't mind the user's affinity for scripts or vandal-whacking, but I worry about accidental good-faith newbie-whacking. Ral315 » 06:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

    I'm not going to say this has never happend before,, as a rc patroller, I do make mistakes (like every other human in the world do). If there is a questionable content-dispute edit rather than simple vandalism, I will not revert it myself. and if someone brings it to my talk page if I ever given a warning by mistake, I'll be very happliy to cross out my warnings and apologize. Of course, I'm constantly trying to keep my mistake to the minimum so I won't accidentally WP:BITE the newbies. In fact, if I see a newbie reverting vadalism, etc. I will often leave a welcome message on their talk page. --Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 13:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

13. Regretful oppose per above (especially G1ggy!'s comment), as well as my own reasoning (below) because I have no doubts that the candidate is a good contributor whose vandal fighting efforts I appreciate. I am, however, concerned that he may be a bit too trigger happy eager.
    I have only dealt with the candidate once and, while I found him very pleasant to communicate with, I think I should briefly mention the issue: on May 22nd, the candidate closed the American Airlines destinations AfD (a group nomination of a little over 200 articles). There had been a very similar AfD previously, which resulted in the articles being kept. Just like that AfD, this one was far from straightforward and several editors expressed strong opinions, some of which amounted to WP:ILIKEIT. (Full disclosure: I replied to two comments in that AfD but did not partake in it myself.) The guidelines state about non-admin closures: "Close calls and controversial or ambiguous decisions should be left to an administrator." Now, granted, we usually don't let AfDs sit for more than five days and this one was a bit overdue but I feel closing this AfD should have been left to an admin (especially given the "history" with xFD closures that candidate mentioned). Okay, so far, not a reason to oppose in itself. The candidate was then faced with removing the templates from 200+ articles and asked for assistance on IRC (not a bad call) which I offered. The (minor) problem is that all of this happened after the AfD was closed. I feel that before performing the non-admin close (which is the exception to the rule), one should think the entire process through and, if necessary, ask for help before acting.
    I feel this it's particularly important for an administrator to first thoroughly investigate a matter before acting because there's simply a greater potential for fallout (which may affect a great number of users). All of these are pretty minor points which I wouldn't consider grounds to oppose but if viewed in their entirety, I cannot in good faith support the candidate at this time. Sorry. -- Seed 2.0 15:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

    Regarding the that AFD nomination, I am well aware of WP:ILIKEIT arguments used in that AFD. I do have to say that I did close this AfD while I had little time (and it did take longer than expected for me to came up with the decision as well) to remove the AfD tags. However, I did have enough time to read through the AfD and came through a well backup-based conclusion. Although the arguments for keep was weak, there was a concensus to keep the article nevertheness. I have also taken consideration of the delete arguments and some of these deletion arguments are no better either. Some of these deletion votes can be summed up asWP:UNENCYC or just a policy. Second of all, Misplaced Pages is built on consensus. Although I know a lot of people would argue that deletion is not a vote, which I am well aware of. At least all the keep votes had an argument, and it is clear that the consensus in this case was to keep. Third of all, although you say the keep voters mostly madeWP:ILIKEIT arguments, I don't really see that very often. Some of these arguments are Misplaced Pages is not a paper, merging would make the articles very long, etc. Which is a valid argument to me. Although I am open to various other views on the closing of this AfD if you can convince me otherwise or provide me with a strong argument for deletion, in which case I will reopen this AfD (although nobody have sent a compliant so far about this AfD), I strongly feel keep in this case is appropriate. So anyways, yes, I did spend time thinking this AfD over and I believe that is the most suitable decision. --Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 18:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

    Also, just making a comment about the policy about non-admins closing AfD debates. I can understand why that policy is in place. However, I believe I have firm grasp of the deletion policy to close debate, and not being a deletionist or inclutionist, I closed this AfD because I am confident on my ability to close this discussion. Also, in this case, the consensus is obvious as well. --Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 18:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

    Thank you for taking the time to respond to my comments. For the record: I agree with your assessment. I would have closed the AfD as 'keep', if I were an administrator. In fact, I usually would have made my opinion known in the debate (I didn't for a couple of reasons that have nothing to do with the AfD or this RfA). My problem isn't with the end result but rather with the process. I know that you meant well but since this was a non-admin close, instead of 'closing and, if in error, reopening', I'd have generally preferred you leaving the AfD alone. As you noted, you've had a few problems with XfD closing in the past and a new editor is going to take a close at face value and will most likely assume that it's written in stone. Being bold is good but I think one can be too bold. One of the great things about wikis is that (almost) all edits can easily be undone. It does however create extra work, and that's particularly true of some administrative actions. I'm not opposed to you being an administrator per se. I just think that a few more months as a user might help make you a better administrator. Also, please don't worry too much about your grammar. Yes, proper grammar is important to get your point across but you're doing fine. Should you get the bucket, I wish you good luck. But I would ask you to please take a few extra seconds to consider how your actions might affect other users before you use the tools. -- Seed 2.0 19:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

14. Oppose Per Deskana.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 02:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral "I virtually have no experience with conflicts on Misplaced Pages. In a case if there is one, I usually tend to avoid them". I admire your vandalism efforts but as an admin you are very likely to get into contention. It takes great honesty to admit your lack of experience, and I'm hardly encouraging you to wade into a hot topic for the sake of it, but I am worried about the intimation that you will avoid difficult or heated discussions alltogether. Pedro |  Chat  09:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

   Well, just want to clarfy things up, maybe I didn't take enough time to answer Q3, I didn't have any content-dispute related conflicts. I did get into conflict with sockpuppets once (although that's some time ago, had a checkuser checking it), which was resolved relatively quick. I was dragged into conflicts with some vandals (you can see my page is a target for vandalism) and some anon ip's with incivility. If you read my opening statement, the controversial closing of few of my XfD's might be a conflict (depends on how you interpret it I guess) But if you are refering to editing conflicts in content-dispute then I really have nothing much to say about that because I don't often make editorial edits. --Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 13:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

   • That's a fair response. It's dificult to see how you can demonstrate that you will be able to handle controversy; As I said before you can hardly going looking for it just to prove you can deal with it! I'm just a bit worried (as per Daniel) that having the tools will/may lead you to situations you have aknowledged you have no experience in and how you would react to them. Your response here is, in fairness, what I would expect of a potential admin, so although I personally still feel unable to support because of this gap in your strengths, I wish you well in your RfA.Pedro |  Chat  14:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

2. Neutral per Pedro and Daniel. – Riana ⁂ 12:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
3. Neutral per Pedro. Also very few of your edits are for article creation and expansion.Also, I would like to know why you created 3 user accounts which serves no purpose --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 21:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

   Those user accounts are for Misplaced Pages:Request_an_account --Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 22:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

   I rarely create articles and expand them mainly because there is nothing much for me to contribute. There are already articles on almost everything that is knowledgeable to me. Also, I choose to specialize in dealing with vandalism and maintanace task because they are no less important to Misplaced Pages than making edits to Misplaced Pages itself. I guess it all boiles down to what your specialized in though. I just chose to specialize in dealing with vandalism. --Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 00:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

4. Neutral. Sorry, sitting on the fence. I find the fairly narrow scope of editing concerning, but not quite enough to oppose. Trebor 00:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
5. Neutral per Pedro and Amarkov. —AldeBaer 12:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
6. Neutral. You're a very excellent vandal fighter, but you've got to have some faith in yourself. I've seen people who have half your spelling and even less grammar and been more enthusiastic to write articles. Just give it a try. bibliomaniac15 05:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

   Thanks for the encouragement, maybe I just had some bad experiance, I don't quite remember but someone called my edits "bad grammar" or something like that. --Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 22:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

   Anybody who is complaining about a user's grammar is wasting their time. It is important to get the content fleshed out first; grammar types can spend their time doing what is quite frankly cosmetic work afterwards. I wouldn't sweat it. --Edwin Herdman 22:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

7. Neutral per Bibliomaniac15. --Guinnog 20:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
8. Neutral Good answers to my concerns. · AndonicO 23:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Bobak

Closed (62/0/1); at 23:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Bobak (talk · contribs) - Ladies and Gentlemen, meet Bobak. Bobak has loads of experience in articlespace - see the list of the articles he created here. He has had a lot of community interaction, evidenced by a large number of edits to the various talk namespaces. Finally, he has a couple of hundred edits to the projectspace. Based on an examination of his edits, I am satisfied that Bobak is sufficiently knowledgeable in policy and will exercise discretion when using the administrator tools. Finally, Bobak is well educated and mature, and will make a splendid addition to our sysop corps. Thank you. -- Y not? 01:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you so much for the kind words, Y. I accept. --Bobak 20:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello everyone. I joined Misplaced Pages on July 8, 2005 (coincidently my birthday...). Like many newbies I found the sheer size and scope of the project intimidating...but at the same time it pulled me in. Over the past year I've started to feel very comfortable with working within the project. Last November I floated an Editor Review to see what I needed to work on. From that review I learned more about what I should do to be a better editor and worked on things like using more edit summaries and, more importantly, uploading qualified images onto the Commons instead of just English Misplaced Pages (I also stared to see if I could add those photos to photo-less articles on the other language Wikipedias). I feel that I've logically come to a point where I would have a good reason to use admin tools: Like most users, I want to keep track of the articles I’ve created/significantly added to/etc. Currently, my watchlist has over 900 pages and images. I now tend to spend more and more of my time on Misplaced Pages each day patrolling this "beat" and making fixes wherever I can. I think having the admin tool kit would make me a more effective custodian. I strongly believe that people keep learning throughout their lives, and I readily admit that I do not know everything, but I plan to learn and play it safe where I don't know. So please consider me as a candidate for administrator. --Bobak 20:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: One of my favorite hobbies early on was patrolling the newly created articles (when anons could create them) and practicing my speedy-deletion stamps –-so I would enjoy taking a look through candidates for speedy deletion. I’ve recently started doing a bit of RC patrol and I can see myself getting more involved in patrolling the almost incomprehensibly gargantuan flow of edits coming into Misplaced Pages at any given moment. Although I have never participated, Misplaced Pages:Requested moves also sounds like something I would enjoy working on (particularly image names, because I made that mistake myself early on). I also only recently became aware of Special:Unwatchedpages, which sounds like something I can also help with since I find enjoyment in patrolling a lot of pages. I admit I hesitate to wade into copyright debates. This is because I am a lawyer in real life and many issues tend to fall into the cracks of "it could be argued..."

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

A: Tough question. While I don't usually dive into creating a FA, I do enjoy starting and expanding articles on topics I find interesting (either long term or "I read it in today's paper" short term). I've developed a strong respect for citation, so I try to keep my additions consistently cited to major sources. For examples, I'd draw your attention to the latter portion of my created articles list. I am also equally proud of the hundreds of photos I've added from my own collection (279 at last count) as well as from historic-PD sources on the internet. I guess you can summarize my contributions as "volume, but with quality". If people would like more information or specific examples, I will be happy to provide them.

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've been in a few edit conflicts, but none of them have caused me too much stress. This is for two reasons (1) I've spend the past 6 years moderating/administrating a rather (how to put this lightly...) raucous video game forum and the incivility there had just about deadened me to most internet banter; and (2) I think the processes available on Misplaced Pages help slow down hostility and allow time for reflection. Going back to those edit conflicts I have been in: I have been able to remedy them using good ol' fashion talking-it-through and occasionally via process (although those instances have tended to be much larger conflicts than me vs. someone else). As a result, respectively I have been convinced that my position is wrong and accepted the times where larger Misplaced Pages processes have determined that the position I was a part of wasn't what we were going to move forward with as a project. From the occasional vandalism to my userpage, I assume I've rubbed some people the wrong way --but they've all been anons or sockpuppets. If there are any specifics people would like me to address here, I am happy to do so.

Optional question from falsedef

4. A lone editor has taken it upon himself to continually delete large portions of uncited information on highly trafficked article, without discussion. Other editors are continually reverting the deletions. The lone editor has excessively exceeded more than 3 reverts in 24 hours. What actions are appropriate in response to the excessive deletions and reverts? Please note down any Misplaced Pages policies that guide your decision.

A: As an attorney, I have to fight myself to not cryptically reply "it depends" and leave it at that with a sly smile and raised eyebrow. But seriously, this does depend on a variety of factors (so I'll use some basic IRAC): The issue stated above falls best under the rule WP:3RR, which states "An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time." Now, based on the general description above, the lone editor ("LE") has gone significantly over the 3RR; however, the next questions would be whether the subject matter fell into the narrow exceptions for the rule. Its possible that the material could be WP:copyvio and/or, depending on the subject matter, fall into WP:LIBEL or WP:LIVING issues --if things get that complicated, it would require delving into WP:DR. Assuming LE is acting purely within a classic 3RR problem outside of exceptions, my own personal approach would be (if the most recent edit was LE's) to revert along with a warning both in the edit summary and on LE's talk page --making a clear reminder of WP:EQ. If LE's most recent edit had already been reverted, I would still put a notice on LE's talk page. I might need to make similar notes on the other RVing editors talk pages if they had also gone too far. I would also create a new section in the subject article's talk page to discuss the dispute (if there already wasn't one) and work through WP:DR; the page may also require WP:PROT from the outset, but this depends on the particular level of the dispute (there's the other 500lb gorilla in the room, but I'm assuming I'm not a party to any content dispute). There remains a question as to whether the material, though uncited, wasn't particularly controversial (or clearly WP:ADVERT, WP:POV etc), couldn't LE instead use the {{fact}} tag --this whole dispute could also bring in a long discussion on WP:V, but I'm focusing this answer on the LE since the actual subject matter isn't clearly stated in the question. If LE remains uncooperative, then he'll need to get thrown in the blocking cooler for up to 24 hours. In the meantime, the article should be watched to be sure that LE doesn't return as another account. Even if LE fell into an exception of 3RR, I would write a note on his talk page reminding him to follow proper WP:EQ and WP:DR so that LE would understand how to better operate within Misplaced Pages --of course, it's certainly possible that the editors reverting LE could've also been on the problem-end of some of these rules, but... it depends... (the sad thing is, with a question like this, I could probably keep ping-ponging things for about 3 hours in test conditions... I'm starting to get flashbacks) --Bobak 14:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

General comments

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

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

Discussion

• This was the state of the oppose column before I removed all of it except Xtreme racer. See the section on the talk page. Picaroon (Talk) 01:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Support

1. Nom support -- Y not? 20:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
2. Support: User seems to have plenty of experience and edit summary usage is also excellent. It's nice to see someone very experience in Images, should be able to help out nicely. I see nothing wrong, should make a fine administrator.  Orfen  | _Contribs 20:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
3. Support - Good answers to questions; good edits; no reason to oppose.↔NMajdan•talk 20:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
4. Support, looks like a well-rounded and knowledgeable contributor. --Spike Wilbury 20:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
5. Support Good person to be an admin. Captain panda 21:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
6. Support, certainly no reason to oppose. -- Phoenix2 22:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
7. Edit conflict Support for attitude towards admin tasks, experience and contributions too. I never did see the diffs that I requested in the editor review for evidence, did I? (aeropagitica) 22:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

   Here's an example of a dispute from Capella University that I mentioned in the Editor Review (it's a talk page which shows the conversation in its entirety) --it's not diffs but it shows how a dispute on the article turned into a discussion and agreement. For examples of my best articles, here are some , , , , .--Bobak 23:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

8. Support The dedication shown through article creation and maintenance is impressive. the_undertow 23:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
9. Support - I was considering nominating Bobak myself. I have had several positive experiences with this user since being here. VegaDark (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
10. Support Great answers to questions. Lemonflash/_(c) 23:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
11. Support That's one of the funnier nomination statements I've seen in a while. It shows the candidate's forthrightness and willingness to learn. YechielMan 23:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
12. I see no particular reason to not support. DS 00:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
13. Support. Good contributor, level-headed, some experience with process. Even deals with sockpuppets well.... -- MarcoTolo 01:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
14. Support After doing some reviewing of this users contributions I am changing from oppose to support as I believe that any edit wars this user's has been involved in he has handled properly and he would be a great addition as an administrator unlike I stated before as I admit I probably didn't do enough research, I am sorry for this but I give my full support to this user now. Xtreme racer 02:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
15. Support Alright... sounds good. Jmlk17 02:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
16. Support for good contributions, procedural skills and pleasant attitude. --Fire Star 火星 03:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
17. Support If he handles all the assorted-instigators on wikipedia as calmly as he handled that wave of 10 sockpuppets on his own RFA I think he'll be a great admin. --JayHenry 05:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
18. Support. Someone else who went to the U of M? Hells yeah! Looks good to me. (This guy's actually an alum, whereas I'm just an !alum.) Grandmasterka 07:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
19. Support. I have no doubt Bobak will be a great admin. It's always been a pleasure to edit articles with him. Good luck. Grandmaster 08:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
20. Support--MONGO 08:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
21. Support per nom. No problems. - Zeibura S. Kathau 12:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
22. Support per nom. Welcome to the attorney sysop cabal! Right this way to be fitted for your cape . . . · jersyko talk 12:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
23. Support. Very delighted to see this nomination, good luck. Atabek 14:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
24. Support I see no reason to oppose, this is a very good admin candidate, nicely spread out edits and generally good work, keep it up. Regards — The Sunshine Man 14:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
25. Support: Much as it pains me to support someone who created a Misplaced Pages article on this infernal dirge, his record and answers look solid, and no reason to think he won't make a great admin. Plus, the RfA had the side benefit of exposing a sockpuppet farm, and he handled the trolling well enough. MastCell 16:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
26. Support. Adminship is no big deal, and I see no problems with this candidate. Walton 17:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
27. Support good record, no problems, good experience. Sure, why not? —Anas 20:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

    -- Y not? 00:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

28. Support Like your answer to question 3. Will be a good admin--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 20:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
29. Fellow jurist support, of course. All looks very good. Sandstein 21:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
30. Support I see no reason to object, I checked your edit history and everything seems Aok. Karrmann 22:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
31. Support and a tip of the hat for creating Mills District, Minneapolis. (Which reminds me: I still need to work on that history section.) --Elkman 23:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
32. Support This user has been a valuable and I'm sure would continue as an admin. Gutworth 02:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
33. Support in agreement with the above. Acalamari 02:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
34. Support per MastCell, great work. Ganfon 03:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
35. Support Great optional statement, no problems. – Riana ⁂ 04:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
36. Support. Good editor. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 05:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
37. Support no problems cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 07:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
38. Support. He'll make a good admin. Good luck. --Mardavich 08:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
39. support,Misplaced Pages will be benefited from his adminship. --Pejman47 09:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
40. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 12:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
41. Support as a user who has shown a great deal of aplomb in handling conflict. I find his creation of this article deeply troubling, however. ;) JavaTenor 16:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

    (glances at user page) No credit for this? ;-) --Bobak 17:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

42. Support Dedicated and neutral, high potential for the adminship--behmod talk 20:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
43. Bobak appears to be a good, trustworthy fellow whose letters alone make him well overqualified to click a few buttons :) gaillimh 06:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
44. Fight On! Bobak is a solid contributor and would be an asset as an admin. — Scientizzle 08:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
45. Support No, major problems. Perhaps bit of bias that should be better restrained, but seems unlikely to abuse admin powers. falsedef 18:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
46. Support per the ever-capable nominator and inasmuch as it seems quite plain that the net effect on the project of Bobak's being sysopped should be positive (and lawyers, IMHO, make, to be sure, the best admins). Joe 22:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
47. Support - good candidate. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
48. Default support. —AldeBaer 12:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
49. Support. Wonderful candidate. I'm really impressed by his hard work on uploading images. PeaceNT 04:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
50. Strong support. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
51. Support Joe I 05:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
52. Support Dfrg.msc 08:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
53. Terence 14:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
54. Support Should make a good admin. Davewild 21:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
55. Support, great candidate. Very thorough answers to all of the questions. We need more of these! *Cremepuff222* 00:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
56. Support Good luck as an admin. —METS501 (talk) 01:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
57. Support - Looks good. No problems here. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 02:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
58. Rettetast 20:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
59. Support I would've preferred some more participation in the project space, but I'm convinced that you're experienced enough and will do a good job as an admin.--Húsönd 03:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
60. Support. The candidate has a good understanding of policy, is well-rounded (contributions to multiple namespaces), and seems good-natured. Good luck, Black Falcon 04:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
61. Strong support. This candidate made a favorable impression on me as far back as 2003 (??) with articles on SNK/Neo Geo titles at another site. Bobak continues to fight the good fight on Misplaced Pages! Secondly, we need more admins - there are only 0.27 admins per 1000 administrators. --Edwin Herdman 05:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
62. Support Nice answers to the questions. I like his edit count as well. --Random 19:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Neutral yes seems to be a good editor but there is one thing lacking which is talking to other ediotors only 685 of those about 1000 ibn total needs to talk more that why i must oppose sorryOo7565 21:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC) i look back i want to change my vote to neutral per my comment how can i change my voteOo7565 21:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Opinion moved from oppose to neutral as per Oo7565's request. (aeropagitica) 21:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Considering the total number of edits, I think the number in the "User talk" namespace for this editor is fine. -- Phoenix2 22:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Stricken comment by user who's spammed all RFAs with pointless comments.--Húsönd 23:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

1. The concerns given in the opposition are troubling, but without concrete evidence of wrongdoing, which I can't find, I won't oppose for them. Rewording due to massive sockpuppetry... You do seem to have a few problems with editing neutrally, but not nearly enough for me to oppose for. I may consider changing to support later on. -Amarkov moo! 03:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

   All I can say is please look at edit histories and see where we may have come into conflict. I have a lot of involvement with college football articles, and some do create passion in users. Oddly enough, I have yet to hear anything regarding my Minnesota (also an alma mater) edits... I welcome criticism! --Bobak 00:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

   What? I've never seen you before, so I couldn't have come into conflict. And you don't have to respond to everything... -Amarkov moo! 00:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

   Whoops! I can see how that was confusing... that was meant to be address to you and your voiced concern, not about you. --Bobak 01:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

   I've struck out the rest of my comment. I'm still not entirely sure about this, though (or maybe I just have the common failing of finding it hard to admit I am wrong), so I'm staying in neutral. Lack of my support is hardly going to sink this, so it's not a big deal, right? -Amarkov moo! 04:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Bjelleklang

Final: (45/7/9); ended 22:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Bjelleklang (talk · contribs) - Well, what can I say? I'm (just another) wikipedian, I've been around since sometime during the fall of 2005, and have contributed in what I see as a wide area, also including the toolserver. I feel that I've gotten familiar enough with the various policies and practices here to become an admin. I might not be just as active as other people, mostly due to school and other commitments, but I try to contribute when I can. Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 22:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept.

Jimbo (and others) have said that adminship is no big deal, and I tend to support that. However, not beeing an admin is not a big deal either in my view; it only means that I have to contribute in another area of Misplaced Pages instead.

Addition, 18th may: I fully understand that some people may have a problem supporting me as an admin due to fairly low activity compared to other users/admins. I know that Misplaced Pages contains quite a few policies for admins to be aware and updated on, and I also know that I probably won't be updated on everything at all times. This is also why I will try to focus on specific areas/issues (as mentioned in Q1), so I will have a better chance of staying updated at all times within these fields. That means that I won't necessarily be updated on everything else at all times, but I will have a general overview on the other policies. It also means that I have to be more careful if I should find myself involved with another type of issue. However, consulting a policy page doesn't really take that long, and if uncertain/at regular intervals, I will read through the relevant policies, just like other users, inactive admins deciding to become more active, as well as most other active admins as well. This is not meant to convince anyone of anything, but more to address an issue both supporting, opposing and neutral users have mentioned as important. Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 14:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: Hard to say, but most likely by keeping an eye on Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism, Category:Images and media for deletion, Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard and Category:Proposed deletion.

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

A: I'd probably have to say the IRC client, as it has proven to become a good tool in order to help new users not yet comfortable enough with Misplaced Pages. And possibly the work done to help new users getting started through the help desk and new user help.

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: No real conflicts as such; most of them have been with users not willing to accept policy and concensus. The closest thing to a real conflict would probably be over Hanging, where one or more people kept pushing their POV against Singapore, and most recently in the period when Saddam Hussain was hanged.

4. Can you give an example of an XfD that you think was closed wrongly, and explain why it should have been closed differently? ··coelacan 06:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

A: Not really, up until now I've never felt too strong for any Xfd's I've been involved with; I have no problems nominating or participating in them, and if the concensus is opposite of my opinion, I so far haven't had any problems accepting it. After all, the whole foundation for the project is to gather concensus for some or other action, and that also means that I have to be able to accept that concensus could be different from my own opinion.

5. When is it appropriate to implicitly invoke IAR? Explicitly? Are there times when it should not be invoked? ··coelacan 06:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

A: I look upon IAR as the last resort when dealing with editors obviously ignoring policies. Although I look upon this as more of a theoretical concept, I'd say that it could be used in cases where editors are unable to get assistance, either from other editors or admins, or in some cases where the bureaucracy seem to do less good for the project than the action itself. That being said, i believe IAR should be avoided as much as possible, as I think that it might cause more harm than good in some cases where discussion would be better.

Optional question fron PrestonH (talk · contribs)

6. There has been a recent problem with admin accounts being hijacked because of weak passwords. Is your password strong enough to withstand vandals/hijackers from hijacking your main account? (If not, please change in your preferences)

A: I'd say it is, based on experience from working on the IT-help desk at Agder University College, where we amongst other things administer around 9000 user accounts for the Norwegian research network. Hope this was a satisfactory answer :) Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 10:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Optional question fron Xiner (talk · contribs)

6. Could you respond to TwoOars's concerns about your "minor" edits?

A: Sure. As a result of TwoOar and Goodnightmush's conern, I've read through the policy, and as a result (as my contribs will show) I've begun to mark my edits appropriately according to policy, especially "A minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. By contrast, a major edit is a version that should be reviewed to confirm that it is consensual to all concerned editors. Therefore, any change that affects the meaning of an article is not minor, even if the edit is a single word." Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 14:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

General comments

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

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

Discussion

• While clearly it'd have been better if Bjelleklang had more recent activities, I'd like to point out that I don't remember seeing Bjelleklang chit-chat much on IRC. He's really there to help, and ably so. Xiner (talk) 13:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Support

1. No valid reason to oppose has been brought up here. John Reaves (talk) 00:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
2. I have seen this user's work with the helpdesk and am confident that Bjelleklang knows what to do and will seek help when necessary. I trust this user with the tools and I believe that they will work in the best interests of the project. --After Midnight 01:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
3. Support, confident this user will not abuse the tools. --Phoenix 03:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
4. Support. If the only reason to oppose him is his failure to maintain a superhuman rate of editing, he's okay by me. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
5. Support. He has shown consistent dedication to the project. Maintaining any level of editing for over a year is tough. Trust me, I struggle with it all the time.--Danaman5 05:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
6. Support Call this an unfair generalization if you must but opposers are no good at everything. All jokes aside, there is a real concern here with how strict people are getting on voting for administrators. Just because there's more admins these days doesn't mean you should tighten the rope... what's wrong with having tens of thousands of administrators? It shouldn't be that far of a stretch, after all, this is no big deal. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 06:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
7. Support Helpful, has knowledge of policy and very civil. No valid reason to oppose. As for the low activity, users need not dedicate their lives to Misplaced Pages. We should be happy with whatever help we can get from fellow volunteers. Also per Croat Canuck. - TwoOars 09:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

   Having said that, I checked why mathbot tool says your edit summary usage is so low whereas interiot's tool shows 100% edit summary usage for all recent edits. It seems you are marking almost all edits including conversations, inserting images and removing large parts of an article as minor edits. I think you should be more careful regarding this and label the edits properly even if they are non-contentious. - TwoOars 10:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

8. Support Good user with a history of helping others. While the recent activity is a little low for an admin candidate, that's no reason not to support. Ten admin actions a day by this user frees up that much time for another admin. Cheers, Lanky ○ Yell ○ 13:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
9. Maybe the admin tools will make him more active, maybe not. Either way there is no harm since we can trust this user. Support --Rettetast 14:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
10. Support. I feel that an experienced, friendly user who knows the system and is willing to help out should get the mop if there are no major concerns. Infrequent participation at times is not a major concern for me - even if the candidate logs in once a day and deletes one speedy candidate, that is helping out. --Spike Wilbury 16:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
11. Support - Definitely experienced enough to deserve the mop. However, user did not taken my advice into consideration in his editor review, which is to maintain an average of 200-300 edits per month if considering for adminship. Others have pointed this out below. Aquarius &#149; talk 17:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
12. Support per all above. It shouldn't be necessary to give up life and glue oneself to a computer screen in order to pass RfA. Walton 18:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
13. Change to support per convincing arguments -- Y not? 18:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
14. Support per all of the above. Boricuaeddie 18:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
15. Support Solid answers to questions. Inactivity isn't a real issue here, as the editor never left completely. If s/he now has the time to contribute to clearing backlogs, previous flirtations with having a life outside the wiki are easy to ignore! ;) Xoloz 19:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
16. Weak, really weak support Honestly, I don't feel too comfortable supporting you. Your activity doesn't promise any much involvement as an admin. I'll assume you will not abuse the tools; that's what is most important after all. Good luck with your studies. —Anas 19:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
17. Support. Will you abuse the tools? No? Good. I especially like answer to Q5. Abeg92contribs 22:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
18. Support Contribs are balanced and show some interest in admin work. YechielMan 23:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
19. Support on the condition that you review what a minor edit is. (see TwoOars above) Goodnightmush 00:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
20. Support. you're not an admin? ~Crazytales  02:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
21. Support I've been waiting for this one since March last year when I encountered him reverting serial POV insertions in the hanging article. Resurgent insurgent 02:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
22. Support. The encyclopedia will be better, not worse, with Bjelleklang as an administrator. It is worth noting that he has stopped marking all edits as minor after TwoOars commented above. WODUP 03:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
23. Weak support No humongous concerns, all the bits working properly. Please do take some time to familiarise yourself with newer policies/ideas - cascading protection, the reformed speedy deletion criteria, new notability criteria - before jumping into administrative activity. Best of luck, – Riana_ऋ 05:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
24. Support. Good on you for coming back. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 11:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
25. Support. It's always good to see someone willing to put time into helping new users. -Rjm656s 19:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
26. Support I think it is a positive that this editor is firm about his/her priorities (such as school and work)--demonstrates that as an admin he/she would be able to balance responsibilities.--Xnuala (talk) 01:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
27. Support, zero serious concerns. Deiz talk 05:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
28. Support - sensible answers to questions and plenty of edits at the help desk. Addhoc 11:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
29. Support. Seems sensible and level-headed. Haukur 13:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
30. Support. Positive impression of this editor. Although adminship is no big deal, seeking it does imply intent to step up more actively than in recent times, which I assume is the case. Murgh 18:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
31. Support per Daniel's oppose. We need more glory days and more admins. Who cares if they have 3000 edits a year or 600. Zsinj 02:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
32. Support. While he may not spend all his time awake on Misplaced Pages (tut tut!), his continued contributions to helping newcomers, and his various Wikimedia-related software tools, not to mention, of course, his editing and housekeeping contributions, show that he would make a very good admin indeed. - Tangotango (talk) 03:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
33. Why The Hell Not? I don't think lack of edits is a reason to oppose if I can trust the user, and trust that they'll read policy and follow it. Ral315 » 05:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
34. Support See no evidence will abuse the tools. Davewild 08:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
35. Support I trust this user.--PrestonH 17:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
36. Support Going through edit history I find no reason not to trust this user with the tools. —Ocatecir 17:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
37. Weak support Daniel's concerns are those that are properly raised relative to inactivity (as against those that suggest that inactivity speaks ill of one's commitment to the project, one implications of which are that adminship is a trophy), but the candidate seems possessed of sound judgment, and I so will trust him to know whereof he does not know and to peruse present policy (or, if necessary, the discussion underlying the development/evolution of policy) before acting qua admin (although I would observe that the tasks of which Bjell intends to partake are not those relative to which policy has changed significantly of late); consequently, I feel comfortable concluding with at least more than a modicum of confidence that the net effect on the project of Bjell's being sysopped should be positive. Joe 18:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
38. Support. Actually, I don't think things have changed all that much in the last year. Requirements for fair use images are a bit more stringent, some CSDs have been expanded somewhat, BLP issues are enforced more carefully, WP:CP is no longer used much, and protection policy is always changing, but never in uniform or universally agreed-upon ways. None of that is all that big a deal, and I don't Bjelleklang will be at a serious disadvantage beyond any new admin. If you find yourself confused about anything, please don't hesitate to ask any admin (including me) for assistance. Chick Bowen 01:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
39. Default support. —AldeBaer 12:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
40. Support I believe that the candidate has a good grasp of policy, so the lack of recent activities isn't enough of a reason for me to oppose. Xiner (talk) 03:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
41. Support I've been looking through some of the diffs that came out of the diff-generator (see the talkpage); the only problem that anyone's found with this candidate is inactivity on occasion, and I don't see why that's a problem. (I'd like to suggest to the candidate that reading through the archives of the Misplaced Pages Signpost may be a good way to get up to speed on any major changes that they might have missed during inactive periods.) --ais523 10:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
42. Terence 14:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
43. Inactivity is not a very compelling reason to oppose; nothing of great significance has changed in the past couple years. Nor do I think it's really necessary to make a lot of (or any) edits to stay abreast of what's going on here. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
44. Support A review of his talk page shows that he is commonly approached by editors for help. This suggests to me that there is already a level of trust which we should recognize. The lowish numbers for his editing in no way suggests he will harm us.. JodyB _talk 13:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
45. Support, certainly. --KFP (talk | contribs) 17:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Wrong time for RfA. You have not been meaningfully active since January 2006 - over one year ago. -- Y not? 23:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, I try to contribute when I can, but as I have to put school and work before Misplaced Pages, I don't often get too much time to contribute. Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 00:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

1. Oppose: Lack of activity and low edit summary usage.  Orfen  | _Contribs 00:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

   Oppose you have been M.I.A. for some time it seems. Jmlk17 01:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

   Aside from Wikibreaks, he's been editing around 3 times per day. If you consider that "MIA" I've got some editcountitis pills to give you. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

2. Oppose - you had tons of edits in 2005 and then nearly stopped editing all together, with just a few spurts here and there. You haven't even hit 150 edits for the past three months combined. While the actual edits don't seem to pose any sort of a problem, the inactivity makes me uneasy about supporting. Sorry. I do wish you luck though. --pIrish 04:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose- we need editors, not people who lurk on IRC. Errabee 21:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

   For clarification, most people who "lurk" in the bootcamp/helpdesk on IRC are there helping users become better editors. IMHO, this is a valuable service which is to be commended; helping others edit can result in more people creating content that one person would do alone. --After Midnight 03:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

4. Oppose. Lack of recent activity. Dorange 01:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
5. Misplaced Pages's changed a lot since you last edited recently, and things that are common-knowledge for administrators and administrator candidates you may lack the knowledge of. I really don't like noting this opposition, but I fear that a user who isn't up to date with the current everything on Misplaced Pages may make decisions which are now viewed as 'bad', which may not have been way-back-when. Sorry, but I'm not confident at this stage given your recent extended inactivity. Daniel 05:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
6. Oppose lack of activity as a general editor causes me to wonder why you need the tools right at this moment. I also agree with Daniel's perspective directly above--VS 12:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
7. Weak Oppose Because of your lack of recent contributions, I must oppose. However, I am loath to do so since this is my only reason for opposition. Having more activity for about 2 or three months will make me support in the future. Captain panda 19:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral While I see nothing wrong with any of your edits, and your contributions into wiki-namespace are clearly satisfactory, you appear to have been fairly inactive for about a year. I will change to support after a satisfactory explanation as to why this is so.--Anthony.bradbury 23:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

   I've had around 600-700 edits for the past twelve months, and although not nearly as much as other editors, I've also spent quite a lot of time on IRC helping out other users, primarily new users, many of whom are unfamiliar with policies and practices, and prefers a real-time chat instead of using talk pages to communicate. I also have school and work to think of, and sadly I have to put those before Misplaced Pages. I try however to check in more or less each day, although I don't always edit. Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 00:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

2. Neutral I wouldn't say that it's sad to put things like school and income before a voluntary project. Lack of participation isn't a bad thing when it is balanced by hard work in those areas. You can try again when you can be more active with the project. (aeropagitica) 04:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
3. Neutral You use to have many edits, but much now. When you get more active, then I would happily support your nomination.Lεmσηfιαsh/_(c) 23:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
4. Neutral No reason for me to oppose , but limited recent editing doesn't indicate a strong need for the tools.--MONGO 08:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
5. Re Q4, XfDs are closed wrongly all the time, which is why we have DRV; it's just inevitable with so much traffic. Some DRVs are filed from a refusal to accept consensus, but not all closing disagreements can be characterized that way. Not a reason to oppose. But I'm not sure about supporting, as I also can't comprehend the first half of your answer to Q5. Daniel's point concerns me as well: I'm not bothered by the possibility that you won't use the tools often, but I'm not assured of your familiarity with current policy for when you do use the tools. I guess I'm leaning toward support, but I'm not yet persuaded. ··coelacan 10:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

   • Reply: I know that some users disagree with the descisions made on Xfd's, but so far, I haven't been involved with an Xfd I didn't agree with, or one where I couldn't understand the other side of the discussion. As for Q5, my point is that since IAR could be used to override other policies, it should only be used as a last resort, and after careful consideration. Hope this could make things somewhat clearer :) Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 04:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

6. Neutral, per Daniel and coelacan. Can't see anything wrong with this editor, but I'd expect admins to be more active - Zeibura S. Kathau 12:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
7. Neutral Moved from oppose. You had many edits, and seem to be a very good editor, but your lack of edits as of late concern me. I could easily support a bit later down the road if you get back into the project a bit more. Jmlk17 01:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
8. Neutral I think this user's sporadic edits are a bit worring, but I see nothing else to complain about. Gutworth 02:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
9. Neutral, it probably would have been a good idea for you to edit a bit before having an RfA. But, lack of recent editing isn't grounds for an oppose, so I'm just going to have to stay neutral here. *Cremepuff222* 00:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
10. Neutral Due to the inacitivity from 2006 Feb to untill this moment. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ 16:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Tenebrae

(17/33/5); Ended, 23:00 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Tenebrae (talk · contribs) - A very knowledgeable user in terms of wikipedia editing policy and an active member of WP:CMC project. He's shown great spirit in the community and able to work hand-in-hand with his fellow co-editors. He's willing to work with other users for the betterment of an article †Bloodpack† 22:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept. I have been a Misplaced Pages editor since 2005, and have made friends in the community. Two of them were Admins who likewise came out of WikiProject Comics, and who are now on indefinite hiatus. I can think of some of WPC peers who are so very qualified, and if they were to step up, I would step down. But someone who knows comic books, the basis of some of the biggest things in present pop culture, should be an Admin who can deal with comics issues knowledgeably. --Tenebrae 06:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: Dispute resolution, page protection, vandalism, trying to keep calm heads with WP:CIVIL, and trying to fill the very large gap left on the Comics Project page by the now departed admins noted above.

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

A: As a journalist/editor in real-life, I believe I've added a certain level of grammar, conciseness, directness and readability to existing articles, and I have done the professional-level research one would expect on the more than 135 articles I've created — 70 of them biographies of comic-book giants such as Syd Shores, Lou Fine, Sol Brodsky, Nick Cardy, George Tuska and Joe Maneely, who inexplicably did not have Misplaced Pages entries. As well, I've added lengthily researched articles on comics history. I'm proudest of having helped newsbies start and flesh out articles that they wanted, and to help instruct them on Wiki guidelines -- User:Basique and User:Maple Leaf in particular.

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: Anytime you make corrections or additions, you run the risk of offending someone. In some cases — indeed, in the case of the editor who nominated me — I'm proud to say that after initial misunderstandings we came to be Wikifriends. I've helped newbie editors who spoke with heated or confused comments start Wiki articles that have since attracted many contributions, and those new editors and I have stayed on good terms; they sometimes come to me still for advice and information.

Sometimes I've asked for an RfC, and while usually my peers support my version of an article or passage, they've also found points that could be clearer or more definitive, and we've worked together on improving articles. I could have more patience with vandals, I suppose, but I believe I post calmly and straightforwardly. And I never give up on another editor who may frustrate me but who I believe can learn the Wiki ways. I will say that great admins like User:Hiding and User:ChrisGriswold have shown me — and anyone else who reads their posts — model behavior of how to be calm, firm and fair. --Tenebrae 06:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

General comments

• See Tenebrae's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
• Links for Tenebrae: Tenebrae (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)

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

Discussion

• I am disappointed this nominee decided to go ahead with this nomination against advice I gave. Earlier today, this user canvassed nearly three dozen talk pages with links to this RfA before it went live ( for examples) I advised the nominee that this was quite bad form . Subsequent to this, he removed the canvassing that he had done earlier . I found the removals to be laudable, but informed the nominee that continuing with the RfA would not be a good idea as the effect is still the same . He has decided to go ahead with this anyways, despite twice being asked what his rush was. There's nothing that can be served by him being an admin now that can not be similarly served by waiting at least a couple of weeks and allowing the slate to be cleaned of the terribly negative effect the canvassing has. I think this shows poor judgement. I think the nominee has done a wonderful thing in responding to the criticism I sent him and took appropriate action except for continuing this RfA. --Durin 19:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Cause of the canvassing issue, i am just pointing out that I would of supported even if he didn't, but granted if I had not seen it on my talk page I would not even know this was going on(had to look in my history to find the link to this). Phoenix741 20:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• You just proved my point; the point of an RfA is to garner consensus. By having canvassing, the opportunity for consensus is removed. Instead, it becomes a vote. Perhaps I should canvas IRC to get people to oppose this nomination? Would that be considered fair? Of course not. We do not canvas because we are after consensus. --Durin 20:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• ok, i see your point.Phoenix741 20:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The canvassing is a valid criticism, as oblivious and unintentional a rule violation as it was. You're right. The opinions, pro or con, I can't comment on, but as a point of factual accuracy, nothing was being hidden when I archived. Nothing can be hidden on Misplaced Pages, as comments below show. I offer as proof the fact I did not archive the continuation of the canvassing discussion. It's there on the current page for all to see.

I do thank Durin, who has been utterly fair, and who has never made a hiding accusation.--Tenebrae 06:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why canvassing is prohibited. Surely the users best fitted to evaluate an RfA candidate are those who have worked with that candidate before? So why shouldn't they be invited to comment? I do know that it's very difficult to gain a real understanding of someone's editing history when you only encounter them for the first time at RfA. Walton 18:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

What I don't understand is why the people who have worked with an editor in the past shouldn't be notified when that editor has been nominated for adminship. I doubt that most editors watch the Requests for adminship page. How many people can the nominee tell before it becomes "canvassing"? Five? Three? One? None? Without such notification, the only people who will get to express their opinion are ones who have no prior experience with the nominee. To my mind, that would be a lopsided picture. --GentlemanGhost 10:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It's sort of silly to expect the people who regularly patrol WP:RfA to know a candidate better than fellow Task Force or Wikiproject members. I really think the policy should be ammended, actually. A simple "I've been nominated for adminship, please leave your thoughts" should be encouraged. In my mind, canvassing would be "I've been nominated for adminship, please come support", which implies you're expecting a certain action from a user. Cheers, Lanky (YELL) 13:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Recommend withdrawal, to prevent further heartache - there are obviously some issues to work on here. Perhaps try again in a few months' time? – Riana_ऋ 17:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

That's kind and it's empathetic to suggest. Don't worry — I'm not taking anything personally, and with the degree of support and discussion here, it seems premature to cut this short. Things are being said that need vented.

I'm finding this helpful and eye-opening, both about myself and about the priorities of a segment of the community. This can only be good for everyone here. --Tenebrae 18:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

That's very wise of you. This is unlikely to pass, but I wish you all the best anyway, and hopefully will feel ready to support in a few months. – Riana_ऋ 18:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Riana, for your calm demeanor and neutral tone. I find some of the emotionalism on this page ironic given the incivility allegations.

I need to clarify an issue of factual accuracy. It's inaccurate to say I see adminship as a badge. In my original posting I said that if a knowledgeable editor whose work I knew "were to step up, I would step down." --Tenebrae 13:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• It should be noted that this editor has over 15,000 edits. Yes, the canvassing may be a big deal to some Wikipedians, but overlooking edit count (which most users at RfA use as a tool for supporting or opposing) is being ignorant. --T_{Talk to me} 23:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• COMMENT AND SUGGESTION Im the one who nominated Tenebrae for this adminship, I have strong confidence, faith and trust that its not his intention to ask for a vote when he PMed those people. But the idea of PMing a co-editor would really give anyone a "common" impression that he/she is asking for a "vote/support", but in Ten's case its not. So my suggestion is if a nominee belongs to a certain wikiproject, the nominator (like myself) MUST post in their respective noticeboards his/her RfA candidacy so that the nominee does not have to do it by themselves. And the members of the wikiproject who knows/familiar with this person (nominee) will have the discretion to go to the nominee's RfA page. WP:CANVASS is a rule/law and as a wikipedian, its my responsibility to obey/follow. I didnt nominate/vote Ten because hes my wikifriend. I nominated his skill and knowledge and I wholeheartedly trust them. WP:CMC people are professional editors and I'm not saying others arent. They're voting him here for his capabilities and not for wikifriendship. Cheers! †Bloodpack† 22:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed, we should know what who is on the RfA if they are part of that project, so we can give our ideas about the editor.Phoenix741 23:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
• I also dont feel being "impulsive" as the major problem. It happens to the best of us especially when dealing with provocative vandals. Anyone can always refer here or in worse case scenarios, in here †Bloodpack† 01:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to disagree here. We simply don't want admins who will end up amassing RfCs and going through desysoping. These are emergency procedures that we'd like to avoid whenever possible. Tenebrae has shown to be way too agressive and uncivil (see the various diffs provided below). You seem to think that the only issue being brought up below is the canvassing issue but that's simply incorrect. Pascal.Tesson 17:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not that we think the only issue is canvasing but, because people are jumping the gun on canvasing, the vote is stacked way in the oppose line. I belive that the vote would be about even if people did not jump the gun, which is something that I have a problem with cause it is not fair.Phoenix741 21:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Addition: yes I called it a vote(even though I know it is not), so sue me, but you get the jist of what I am saying.Phoenix741 22:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

If that's any comfort, a candidate with about half of people opposing is doomed to fail in any case. Pascal.Tesson 19:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Therefore, we shouldn't bother commenting? It was doomed to fail before I ever looked at it, but I felt I should voice my support anyway. I was reluctant to do so, given that I was one of the people he contacted, so it might encourage even more of a pile-on regarding canvassing. However, it has since become apparent to me that this process is flawed and needs to be commented on. The next time a WikiProject Comics member is up for an RfA, I hope that someone will let us know. --GentlemanGhost 00:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as per nom †Bloodpack† 22:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
2. Support while kinda Neutral. Honestly I think that haveing at least one Active Admin in every MAJOR wikiproject is a good idea, someone who understands the project and what not. That way things will be able to go alot quicker and such. I know from experience that when chris was on, problems were alot eaiser to fix and what not. Now Tenebrae is a good editor, and he does know his comics and we have worked on some stuff togeather(him and me basicly built the list of SHIELD members page). But and this is why I am leaning towords neutral side) he does seem to lack some sort of personal touch. I guese like people skills, this goes with the frist Oppose by Chowbok and flying off the handel and stuff like that. If he can be a little more laid back then I think he would be a great admin.Phoenix741 19:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
3. Support - again 20000 edits and more than a year experience is good enough for me..----Cometstyles 19:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
4. Support - I've had good times working with Tenebrae2 and I think that an asset like this should be able to help us get a handle on some of the more .... virulent aspects of the Comics Proj. While I don't think he should be an editor JUST because of the comics stuff, it's how and where I know him from, so that's my point of reference, and I know there's generally good work being done there. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 20:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
5. Support record speaks for itself. Manderiko 22:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
6. Support, per Cometstyles. Phoenix2 03:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
7. Moral Support (wavering above neutral) - Overall a decent editor, typically involved with vandalism or contentious editing situations. And while at times, I think everyone in the discussion could probably use a refrsher of WP:EQ, I'm typically glad to see that he's in the thick of things discussing and working towards making things better. We could definitely use another administrator at the Comics WikiProject, and I think we could do worse than User:tenebrae. - jc37 07:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
8. Support, since recognition of the importance of Joe Maneely where others do not indicates a high level of administrative expertise. Pepso 10:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
9. Moral support: Good job at fighting vandalism, which is good trait for an admin, though the canvassing was an unfortunate error. As it doesn't look like this'll pass, spend some more time doing good work here and come back; you'll likely have a better chance. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 17:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
10. Support. I strongly feel that canvassing for RfAs should be allowed. I realise I'm in a minority here, but I think that the people best able to evaluate a candidate are those who know the candidate and are already familiar with their editing. So why shouldn't the candidate be able to inform the users they've worked with in the past that they're going to RfA? Walton 18:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

    Wow, I must say I agree, you certainly have a point... For instance, at AndonicO´s RfA, I was able to support him by mere luck, since I ran into his talk page by total coincidence and realised there that he was going for it; but if such a coincidence wouldn´t have happened, I would not have been able to support him! So, say the coincidence had not happened... Then, I would not have been able to support him becuase I never knew he was going for RfA! ♠Tom@sBat 22:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

    I totally agree with Walton that canvassing for RfAs should be allowed, but as of yet, it is not - and not knowing policy is a deal-breaker, no matter what my personal feelings toward that policy are. —AldeBaer 07:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

11. Support. Seeing as this unfortunately unlike to pass, I praise your courage of not letting it get you down, and seeing it as an opportunity to listen to criticism and learning in which areas to improve. This is a sign of humbleness and wisdom that is rare to find indeed. I have no doubt whatsoever that next time you'll be a shoo-in. Best wishes, Phaedriel - 00:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
12. Support vs massive {{shrubbery}} issues in oppose votes over "canvassing". --Random832 01:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

    Respectfully, I count sixteen opposes which either don't have anything to do with the canvassing, or mention the canvassing as just one of the reasons to oppose. I do somewhat agree that opposing just for the canvassing is a touch odd but there are plenty of valid oppositions here. Cheers, Lanky ○ Yell ○ 02:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

    I haven't responded to specific editors here, preferring to respect their opinions regardless of whether I agree. I believe the above editor might have been more helpful had he added this comment to the Oppose or Neutral category, or to Discussion above. User:Random832 is as entitled to have an unvarnished opinion as anyone here.--Tenebrae 12:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

13. Support Per Walton Monarchist. --T_{Talk to me} 23:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
14. Support He is a knowledgable and regular contributor to WikiProject Comics. While his record is not perfect, he has often been an civil, impartial mediator on thorny issues. --GentlemanGhost 10:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
15. Support as a fellow WPcomics contributor I've occasionally noticed acting adminworthy. I was certainly not canvassed, and only found out about the RFA via a post about this proclaimed "bad form". I personally find a some of the opposition attitude to be "bad form". Murgh 13:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
16. Support - Won't change my support just because an incident. His general actions in here show he's a good editor, very experienced. And the canvassing incident is not bigger than that. —Lesfer 00:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
17. Support. I was going to stay out of this since it had already descended into gripes over canvassing before I ever saw this, but as I've said elsewhere, those of us who edit the comics pages must be notified when a comics article editor is up for adminship. There is a difference between posting notice and soliciting votes. Tenebrae even notified those he has had extended disagreements with, so it was absolutely not any kind of attempt at votestacking. It was notification to those most familiar with T.'s work. Since I already weighed in below when I chastised some who may have jumped on the "canvassing bad" bandwagon, I need to express my specific vote. Tenebrae is a smart, knowledgeable editor who conscientiously strives to apply Misplaced Pages policy, as is demonstrated by the fact that Tenebrae caught his/her own canvassing error before anyone else could point it out. Tenebrae is certainly most persistent than I am in fighting bad edits or those that simply aren't in the spirit of project goals. Although we have agreed on many things, Tenebrae and I have disagreed more than once, and I have always been impressed by T.'s clear, articulate, and patient discussion while we figure out what works best. This person could accomplish a lot of good with admin tools, and the canvassing issue that some people have used as their primary basis for opposing this RfA does not in any way contradict that. Doczilla 04:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

My fault there. Shouldve made a notification in the comics noticeboard. And like Doczilla, I also had disagreements with Ten. †Bloodpack† 07:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. After a fairly minor edit to an article that Tenebrae disapproved of, he flew completely off the handle, culminating in accusing me of being a sock puppet simply because I agreed with another editor's revision rather than his. He never tried to discuss this in a civil fashion. His absolute lack of judgement in this matter leaves me frightened at the prospect of his becoming an admin. —Chowbok ☠ 18:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose - First and foremost I dislike it when people talk about their superior dialect skills, yet make typos/mistakes. Secondly, your nomination seems to imply you think a comic book fan should be an administrator, why is this? Why can't a non-comic book fan use sysop abilities on comic book related articles? Finally, with all due respect to the administrators in question, you defining them as "great" (etc), generally is a non-neutral tone I dislike - when in the face of evidence to the contrary. Matthew 18:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose per canvassing issues ,,. Although I am rather weary of WP:CANVASS as a strict policy, it still is one and so has to be followed. Tenebrae did retract those comments ,,, but only after this heads-up and directly before archiving his talk page (which is to imply the notion that he may have done it to cover up on this deal-breaking policy-ignorance). —AldeBaer 20:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

   Among the thirty-odd canvassing comments is one he even forgot to remove. —AldeBaer 20:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

   Regarding your last link. --T_{Talk to me} 23:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

4. Oppose This diff shows somewhat snippy correction of a new editor's good faith sourcing without follow up on the user's talk page with any advice on proper sourcing. Likewise, the user's warning templates (such as the ones used here) are pretty intimidating and go, I feel, against the general idea of WP:BITE, as does this "welcome" message on the user's talk page. While I know WP:BITE isn't policy it still makes me uncomfortable enough to oppose. Cheers, Lanky ○ Yell ○ 20:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose per those above me, particularly with regards to the canvassing incident. I agree with Durin, I think the slate needs to be wiped clean. --pIrish 23:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
6. Oppose I am afraid that I take a very negative view of canvassing. Even a simple statement that "my RfA is on view" implies a support request. No.--Anthony.bradbury 23:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
7. Strong Oppose per the canvassing and subsequent archival of the users talk page. -- Nick 23:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
8. Oppose: Unfortunatly I am not all pleased with the canvassing. While I also do not like the archiving of the talk page after the incident I also do not quite like the comments that were added, they almost make it seem that the user is more important than any other user in WikiProject Comics. It is because of these comments that I must oppose.  Orfen  | _Contribs 00:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
9. Oppose (edit conflict) per Lanky's diff and Chowbok's concerns. Based on his record, I think Tenebrae is a little too impulsive for adminship at present. I would reconsider in a few months if he demonstrates measured, appropriate interactions with other editors. KrakatoaKatie 00:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
10. Oppose due to canvassing. WjBscribe 00:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
11. Oppose pretty much against canvassing on the whole here. Jmlk17 01:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
12. Oppose per everyone above who mentioned canvassing, and encourage the user to consider withdrawing and trying again another time. Philippe 05:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
13. Oppose I fail to see why a comics-admin is a necessity but there are more serious concerns. Citing as his model an admin who resigned under highly controversial circumstances is a little troubling. Canvassing is a problem. The vandalism warning template is a big problem. But the deal breaker for me was this diff and this one which I find completely unacceptable, even when dealing with a vandal. Pascal.Tesson 06:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
14. Oppose due to some disturbing incidents of canvassing, bad faith and incivility with his contacts with other users. I will be happy to support in a few months if this behavior stops. --Kzrulzuall 07:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
15. Oppose per the canvassing incident. Real96 08:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
16. Oppose again the canvasing. In a sense this may be useful, as an editor likely to do this should not be an admin and therefore has been caught in the nick of time. Having said that, another three months and a new RfA detailing why the canvasing was a bad idea and I'd probably shift to support.Pedro |  Chat  12:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

    In addition, the biting of newbies as evidenced above. We can do without another agressive admin who thinks getting the tools is some kind of promotion. Sorry.Pedro |  Chat  12:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

17. Oppose per incivility to inexperienced users. --Guinnog 13:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
18. Oppose Per canvassing and incivility. --Mschel 15:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
19. Oppose Sorry I'm trying to assume good faith here but I think you are not familiar with what being an admin means, it is about being trusted by the community and using the extra tools to assist in maintenance, your seem to think that "Misplaced Pages needs a comic interested admin", therefore I dont trust your judgement, as well your WP:CANVAS of your RfA and asking other users to participate in it. Regards — The Sunshine Man 16:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
20. Oppose - If you think that Misplaced Pages needs admins who are comic fans - then you don't understand what being an admin means. An admin isn't someone who already knows subject X, but rather someone who can tell, when looking at the history of such an article which edits are good, which are revert wars, and which are vandalism. Od Mishehu 18:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
21. Oppose So far, I've seen nothing that pushes me to support you. On the contrary, the incivility and solicitation are big no-nos. You should've been careful. —Anas 19:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
22. Oppose per canvassing. Captain panda 21:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
23. Oppose per the diffs cited by Pascal.Tesson, which show a misunderstanding of the way shared IP addresses work and are also rather uncivil. JavaTenor 23:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
24. Oppose per Pascal.Tesson's links to DOJ vandal. Warning/blocking a vandal is acceptable. Threatening to call someone at work is outside the scope of wikipedia, and I believe it to show a lack of maturity. the_undertow 23:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
25. Oppose per WP:BITE and general incivility from some of the diffs provided. That he didn't know not to canvas for support also isn't very reassuring. ShadowHalo 23:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
26. Oppose per canvasing, and image uploading problems. Lεmσηflαsh/_(c) 23:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
27. Regretful oppose. The canvassing is just icing on the cake, really - Tenebrae is a good editor, but has too many problems interacting with others. And we already do have admins who are interested in comic books (example: me). DS 00:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
28. Showed poor judgement by canvassing, and this isn't a confidence-inspiring reflection on an RfA candidate. Suggest withdrawing. Daniel 07:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
29. Oppose per incivility and canvassing. - Zeibura S. Kathau 12:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
    1. Reply. While I can't single out any individual and know that it's true, I think some of you have seen the word canvassing and voted in opposition as a knee jerk reaction without reading any of the issues. I was staying out of this discussion to ktry to eep it from getting worse, but this has gotten ridiculous. WikiProject Comics needs editors who are regular contributors to the comics article and who get involved with WPC's activities and discussions, not just somebody who is "interested" in comics. If somebody who edits comics articles is up for adminship, WikiProject Comics regulars deserve notification. Some of you who have voted to oppose simply because you saw the word canvassing need to go back and actually read what happened. Even if you firmly believe it's grounds for rejecting the RfA, you ought to review the nominee's qualifications and comment on them as long as you're at it, so that the nominee can learn, grow, and have a realistic expectation about how any future RfA might go. Doczilla 15:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
30. Oppose In my experience with the candidate in working on the John Buscema article, various problems have arisen. (For example, various concerns about the RfC begun on February 26th.) Although he seems to have a fairly good knowledge of Misplaced Pages procedures and guidelines, he seems to regularily apply them in a rigid, narrow, dogmatic (and impulsive) fashion. I think he needs to develop a better understanding of General Misplaced Pages outlook , Etiquette , and Civilityin order to arrive at a better level of balanced perspective, impartiality, and diplomacy in his editing before undertaking the responsibility of being an administrator.--Skyelarke 03:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
31. Regretful oppose There is certainly a good deal to commend this candidate, and I briefly considered supporting in order, notwithstanding that RfA is not a vote, to counter those opposes based solely on the candidate's having canvassed, which I don't think to have represented some pernicious error in judgment or conversance with policy, but there are most surely concerns with respect to the candidate's temperament and demeanor (although he seems to be civil and deliberative on the whole, the diffs adduced by Pascal and Lanky, et al., are troublesome), such that I can't with any reasonable degree of certainty conclude that the net effect on the project of Tenebrae's being sysopped should be positive. Joe 22:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
32. Oppose. Although I would like to see more admins, your canvassing shows that you may not have sufficient understanding of policy and consensus. Sorry. Sr13 05:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
33. Oppose with regret. I don't mean to pile on and, normally, I would have refrained from expressing my opinion in this RfA. I do so for two reasons: one, since others have expressed that they don't have a problem with canvassing I feel I should speak out because I do have a problem with it. I don't think it's fair to characterize this is a knee jerk reaction -- some of us just consider canvassing unacceptable and think it's a big deal. I happen to be one of them. To suggest we're just jumping to conclusions based on a single 'red flag' word is a bit insulting. And two to ask the candidate to come back and try again in a few months because what (admittedly little) I've read so far, looked promising. -- Seed 2.0 20:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral due to canvassing for interest in this RfA. I know Kelly Martin likes Wikiproject support for potential admins but I don't think that breaking the rules to obtain it is the correct process for gaining such endorsement. I would rather that this editor assessed the fallout from their decision to canvass and return to RfA in a few weeks' time, using the interim to better understand the policies and guidelines that admins of which are expected to demonstrate a working knowledge. (aeropagitica) 21:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
2. Neutral per his lack of the correct citation for image use--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 23:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
3. Neutral leaning towards oppose. The canvassing and other issues are concerning. As (aeropagitica) said you should probably re-apply, this is nothing against you- just the way this RfA ended up. GDonato (talk) 13:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
4. Neutral You´ve got tons of edits (over 20000!); but really, canvassing wasn´t a very good idea; it´s more, if you were not to have not done so, I would have certainly supported you! Now, due to your canvassing, I would have opposed; but, since you removed all those promotional messages, I will remain neutral. ♠Tom@sBat 22:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
5. Neutral, I'm strongly against canvassing, but you have made thousands of edits. Next time, don't canvas and you'll surely pass. *Cremepuff222* 00:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Akradecki

final (42/0/1); Ended 20:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Akradecki (talk · contribs)

Co-Nomination by Lar

Akradecki first came to my attention when I was assigned (along with Guinnog (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) as his coach. I am extremely impressed with this user and his contributions to the project. We've been coaching him for a while, in fits and starts, mostly because some real life things stood in the way, and because he wasn't sure if he wanted to proceed, so our coaching focused more on the "why one would want to be an admin" than the mechanics. We gave him a few exercises but he flew right through those, he gets the blocking and tackling part cold. You can see more on that here: User:Akradecki/Admin coaching and here: User talk:Akradecki/Admin coaching This is a user who "gets it" He is way past ready in my view and will make a superb addition to the mopwielding horde. ++Lar: t/c 20:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Co-Nomination by User:Guinnog

To my shame I haven't added anything of substance to Akradecki's editor review; both of us have had busy spells in the last months. In following Lar's excellent work in the review though, it became obvious to me that Akradecki is more than ready for adminship. I already knew him as a level-headed and policy-savvy editor, but I now feel confident that he has the thoughtfulness and temperament to make productive use of the tools. He will be as good an administrator as he has been an editor. --Guinnog 01:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I humbly accept. Akradecki 22:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: On a day-to-day basis, I plan initially on focusing on CSD backlogs and on AIV (sometimes, when I've reported a vandal there, there's been quite a backlog, so that will always get monitored whenever I'm online). As an editor, I've had the privilege of working with several really good admins who have helped with some complex conflicts, and so I hope to return the favor and make myself available to assist other editors that I work with on a regular basis (and any others who might drop by with a request) with tasks that only an admin can perform.

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

A: If you've looked at my user page or my contribs page, you'll see that I've started a lot of articles. I hope the articles I've started could be seen to fit into the management doctrine of Q...Quantity and Quality. As for specifics, its hard to pick one out, but I think I'd have to say 1999 South Dakota Learjet crash. This was a fascinating - if tragic - subject to research, and I felt a little honored when it was given Good Article status with very little additional cleanup needed. Beyond that, I work heavily in Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Aviation and, to the extend that this project intersects with Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Disaster management, I work with a couple editors there as well. Some view their WP work as an individualistic empire to build, others view it as a social club, I see it as a place where one can work as a member of a team to accomplish what no one individual can, so beyond the articles I've created or expanded, I think the best contributions I've been able to make are those where I work as a team with other editors to make this a quality product.

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

A: Yes and no. Yes, there have been conflicts, no it hasn't caused me stress. As to the first part, it would be hard to do any serious editing/cleaning/improving without having conflicts, especially when you run across those inevitable editors who either want to deliberately harm the project, or those who want to make it into what they believe it should be, instead of what the project really is supposed to be (an encyclopedia, and one as thoroughly compiled and as professionally written as possible). The issue, in my mind, isn't whether conflicts happen, but rather how one reacts when they do happen. My general tack is to be patient and focus on policies and guidelines. I view policies and guidelines as a good thing, because they bring a much-needed uniformity to such a large project. When needed, I follow the sequence of user warnings, until it gets to the point that an admin needs to be brought into the loop. I try to focus on the project and its needs rather than on the personalities and the egos. As for the stress issue, when it's all said and done, there will never be an edit, nor a conflict, which is a life-and-death matter. In my day job, if I mess up, someone could die. On Misplaced Pages, if I mess up, my mistakes can be reverted and I might owe someone an apology, but that's really the extent of it. So, stress? Not hardly.

Optional question from falsedef

4. A contentious edit is against overwhelming talk page consensus, yet is backed up by reliable sources. The talk page consensus view is intuitively seen as correct, and therefore those editors replace the edit with their own, but they no reliable sources. What sort of actions and compromises should be taken to resolve the issue?

A: Cool, I was wondering if/when I'd get an optional question! Nicely posed situation...on the surface, no easy solution (so, hope you don't mind a long answer). One could coldly refer to policy and guidelines...both consensus and verifiability are fully policy, so which takes precedence? Per Consensus, Verifiabilty does. Specifically this provision from Consensus: "Consensus decisions in specific cases are not expected to override consensus on a wider scale very quickly (such as content-related policies/guidelines like Misplaced Pages:Verifiability or Misplaced Pages:No original research)." So, there is an answer, of sorts, provided by strict policy...but is that the end of it? If it weren't for personalities, sure. But there's people to consider, too. Stricly wielding policy will do little other than piss just about everyone off. So, first step, is to engage in a discussion, with the realization that the issue doesn't really need to be decided right now. Patience also plays a part. It might take a couple of days, or even a week. The discussion should be focused on highlighting the policy, and trying to encourage, in a positive way, the group to see that reliable-sourced material is superior to unsourced material. But, there's probably also room to step back and try to see things from the other editor's point of view. Would it be possible to write things in a way that both views are covered? Is it possible to find a ref for the unreffed material? This borders on the Law of the Third Alternative: don't make the mistake of only seeing the world as a choice between only two opposing alternatives. And, there's always the point of view to be considered that asks why I have to insist on my way? Is it really so essential to life that my addition be added, ever if it's the "better" one? One must pick one's battles carfully. Ok, but what if none of this works, and it really is important enough to make a bigger issue of? I'm of the belief that some things simply shouldn't be attempted alone. At this point my instinct would be to go get a second opinion, from another admin that I trust, and proceed from there. I know I haven't given you a succinct, straight to the point answer, but sometimes there are situations in life that simply can't be answered that way. What I hope I've provided you with instead is a glimpse at the process, the approach that I'd take, and have taken in such situations. In the end, would I get the answer right? I would hope so, but I honestly can't promise that. I try to be careful, I try to sensitive to others I work with, but in the end, I can make mistakes. And, if I do, at least I'll have another experience to learn from. Akradecki 03:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

General comments

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

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

Discussion

Support

1. First one's free. Per nom. ++Lar: t/c 04:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
2. Support This editor looks entirely qualified for the admin tools. A good spread of edits across the main spaces & no problems as far as I can see in any of the random diffs that I chose to examine. (aeropagitica) 04:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
3. Support - no signs of abusing the tools..Goodluck..----Cometstyles 05:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
4. Support Completely qualified as stated above; the right fit for the job! Jmlk17 07:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
5. Support. Clearly cool-headed and does good work. - Zeibura S. Kathau 08:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
6. Should do a good job-—arf! 11:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
7. -- Y not? 13:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
8. Support user has a good record of activity in all different spaces, has shown maturity in editing. He seems dedicated, let's give him a mop. —Anas 13:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
9. Support. Fly like an eagle! :-) Abeg92contribs 14:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
10. Support Has a good grasp of Misplaced Pages policy. Will do well with the extra tools. FloNight 15:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
11. Support. I'm convinced that he will do a great job as admin. Phaedriel - 15:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
12. Support, as co-nom. --Guinnog 17:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
13. Strong Strong Support - I have worked very closley with this editor through WP:AIRCRAFT and WP:AVIATION. Great collaborative spirit, great knowledge of policy and an amzingly civil editor in difficult situations. If I knew he was going for RFA, I would have offered to co nom. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
14. Support Quality contributor, solid knowledge of policy. JavaTenor 18:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
15. Kusma (talk) 18:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
16. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 18:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
17. Rettetast 20:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
18. Support - Bueno. Georgewilliamherbert 20:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
19. Support in agreement with the above. Acalamari 21:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
20. Support I agree with Chrislk02: Akradecki is an active, balanced, civil, and constructive editor and would be a creditable addition to Misplaced Pages's administrator ranks. Askari Mark (Talk) 22:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
21. Support: While user has plenty of experience and edit summary usage is also excellent, user seems to have a firm knowledge of the policies and will make a fine administrator.  Orfen  | _Contribs 23:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
22. Support of course. KrakatoaKatie 00:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
23. Support Ready for the mop. Gutworth 02:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
24. Support per noms. – Riana_ऋ 09:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
25. Support Already an crew member, it is time to give him wings! gidonb 13:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
26. Support A fine looking user. Captain panda 21:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
27. Strong and serious support Yes. NHRHS2010 01:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
28. Support Q3 rocked. the_undertow 05:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
29. Support A 'pedia builder. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 11:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
30. Support Good editor, not afraid to remove information when necessary too. (An unsourced edit may be "true" but it's still unsourced.) Anynobody 23:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
31. Support Good editor, good attitude, hard worker. Modernist 11:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
32. Support - looks ok --Herby 10:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
33. Oppose! Not enough portal talk edits!!! Walton 18:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

    Just kidding. Walton 18:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

34. Support Seems versed in policy and experienced in editing, with uses for admin tools. I don't think burnout is much of an issue. falsedef 18:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
35. Support seems like a good candidate --rogerd 02:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
36. Default support. —AldeBaer 12:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
37. Support per excellent answers PeaceNT 18:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
38. Support Joe I 05:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
39. Support Get on it! Dfrg.msc 08:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
40. Strong Support– I was very impressed by his answers to his admin coaches. He does clearly "get it" and he's not a yes-man either. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 14:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
41. Terence 14:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
42. Support per noms. Sarah 17:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

1. At 30-40 edits per day, I'm afraid this user will burn out. I appreciate the number of contributions, but adminship is not a prize for making lots of contributions. I would prefer we promoted admins who are more representative of normal editors. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

   Hmmm, 30-40 isn't so bad really, I know people who make over a hundred - come to think of it, I probably racked up 50-60 a day before I was an admin, and can sometimes get about 150-200 these days. But it's your call :) – Riana_ऋ 09:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

   Thanks, rspeer / ɹəədsɹ , for you input, it actually raises a good point, one that I discussed a bit during the coaching phase, specifically time management. I'm blessed with a job wherein there's "down" time during the day when I can relax in front of the computer. I'm also blessed with a wife who loves jigsaw puzzles, so I have more time that I get to devote to the project (ok, so sometimes my teenage daughter will say "put down the computer, its my time!). I fully realize that if I get the tools, my focus will be shifting to maintenance work rather than so much research, and that should actually be fun. If I feel "burned out" on a particular day, I can always spend a few hours writing an article to refresh myself. As for my current edit count levels, given the large number of articles on my watchlist, a lot of what I do everyday is simply revert vandalism and warn vandals...that can easily eat of 15-20 edits, or half my daily output. Anyway, thanks for bringing up a valid subject to discuss. Akradecki 13:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Notes

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
6. This sort of introspection is exactly what I think admin coaching is good for, more than for practice and rote memorization of mechanical stuff
7. for example, look at his answer to the User:CatherineMunro#Why am I here? essay question. in the Reading list discussion section of his coaching.

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.

Yonatan

final (53/0/0); Ended 21:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Yonatan (talk · contribs) - I first met Yonatan on Commons, where he goes by Yonatanh. I have found him to be a trustworthy, helpful and hardworking user, and a good there admin. He pretty much singlehandedly implemented the Commons version of the Checkuser reporting and tracking system, after I suggested that one ought to be done, and before I myself could get around to doing it. He is often involved in image related and housekeeping tasks on Commons and here as well (there are huge backlogs for images that were moved to commons). He is active as an OTRS user, and in general does a lot of image cleanup work. He has also done a bit of vandal fighting here as well. He runs an interwiki bot, which has a bot flag on over 30 different wikipedias, and he runs a different bot on commons.

Yonatan has never had any significant conflicts here on en, and is a steady chap and stalwart contributor. The project will greatly benefit from his having admin both here and on commons... (dual adminships are very useful to en for a number of reasons). However, it should be noted that this user does not have an endorsement from any WikiProject. :)

++Lar: t/c 05:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I gladly accept this nomination. Yonatan 21:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: Anything that sparks my interest so based on my contributions up until now it'll be a wide variety of areas. However, I suppose this question requires a more specific answer so I'd definitely do a lot of work in the image field which as a commons administrator I have a lot of experience in (and I've worked quite a bit in this area here too). I would probably help out on WP:AIV when help is needed and check CAT:CSD (the article part too). In the future, as I get more experience with WP:CFD I'd like to help out in that area and due to the fact I've had to wait awhile before for protected edits, I'd closely monitor Category:Misplaced Pages protected edit requests. This answer is getting a bit long now but I feel I must also mention WP:BLP since as a person with access to OTRS, I'm bound to run into these issues (and have in the past). Yonatan 06:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

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

A: I don't think I can really point to one area, or one article, where I've contributed the most but I think mostly my edits in the image namespace have been the best and the sporadic contributions to different football articles. I would, however, like to contribute more to the article namespace in the future. Yonatan 06:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

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

A: I don't think I've gotten in any major conflicts with other users on the English Misplaced Pages, although I have stepped in to try and defuse the situation on occasion. On the Wikimedia Commons, I have had conflicts over editing and believe I always remained civil, acted according to policy and asked other people to tell me whether I'm in the wrong or not. Yonatan 06:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

General comments

• See Yonatan's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
• Links for Yonatan: Yonatan (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)
• Yonatan's Commons information: User:Yonatanh (talk • contribs • count • logs • page moves • block log • email)
• Yonatan's Hebrew Misplaced Pages information: User:Yonatanh (talk • contribs • count • logs • page moves • block log • email)

Bots

I run an interwiki bot that has a bot flag on over 30 wikipedias. In addition, I run a bot that substs templates, welcomes new users and in the future will move free pictures from he\en over to commons. Yonatan 20:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Discussion

Support

1. Unconditional support. I've seen Yonatan doing great work both here and on Commons where he is already an administrator. We have a shortage and very real need for people with dual-adminship here and on Commons. One of our biggest deletion backlogs has been categories of images which are also on commons. Yonatan is calm, well reasoned and intelligent with exactly the experience we're looking for in an admin. Would be a real asset with the mop. WjBscribe 21:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
2. Per nom. ++Lar: t/c 21:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
3. Support - trusted at Wikimedia Commons - clearly knows a huge amount regarding copyright. -- Nick 21:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
4. Support, seems knowledgeable and experienced. Lots of positive interactions even when deleting people's images, which can be very contentious. --Spike Wilbury 21:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
5. Support - I've interacted with this user several times on IRC, trying to look up image licenses on deleted images. Shows a need for the tools. Sean William 21:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
6. Support No problems noted. And I like the calm response to the former oppose comment. Should do an excellent job with the extra tools. FloNight 22:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
7. Support--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 22:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
8. Support obviously knowledgeable in the inner-workings of Misplaced Pages; by giving the tools, this user could truly flourish! Jmlk17 22:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
9. -- Y not? 23:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
10. Support Seems alright. Majorly (talk | meet) 23:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
11. Full Support - I was hitting my head against the wall for forgetting where I'd met this user, then it hit me... while I haven't had much experience with this editor, he looks like he can use the tools, and on the strength of our common friends I have no regrets supporting. David Fuchs 23:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
12. Support. Does good work here, on Commons, and on OTRS, particularly in copyright policy. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 23:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
13. Support, yes! --Phoenix 00:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
14. Support we need more people who understand policies/guidelines both here and on Commons, and overall a very good user with experience on both wikis. Although I've only seen/met him on Commons, his experience there somehow reflects how he does here, and I'm very happy to say that you've done a great job both here and Commons. Keep it up! V60 01:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
15. Support I've seen this user around. All is fine. Acalamari 01:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
16. Support A good candidate on the record for this project alone, and people who are able to handle crosswiki matters are an especially valuable asset. --Shirahadasha 01:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
17. Support looks good.-- danntm _C 02:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
18. Support Seems images will profit greatly from his expertise. JodyB _talk 02:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
19. Support. Mainly based off my one interaction with him on Commons, where he was efficient in his moppage, and random sightings of him there doing constructive and sane things. - BanyanTree 04:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
20. Support - enuf said!!..----Cometstyles 05:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
21. Support. Lupo 11:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
22. Strong Support through my interactions with Yonatan, I found him to be civil and helpful, and am confident he will only make Misplaced Pages a better place with the acquisition of the tools. Plus, admins experienced with images are always needed. All the best, Anas 13:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
23. Support -- ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
24. Support Another great candidate for the mop - I'm impressed. Regards — The Sunshine Man 14:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
25. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 18:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
26. Support - looks okay to me. Deb 19:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
27. Rettetast 20:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
28. Support. Good user. feydey 21:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
29. Support: Has plenty of experience and edit summary usage is good. Should be nice having a dual administrator and having an experienced image administrator is also very good.  Orfen  | _Contribs 23:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
30. Support D. Recorder 00:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
31. Support - KrakatoaKatie 00:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
32. Support - This user seems sensible in my limited interactions with him. --After Midnight 01:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
33. Support - any monumental changes to the project will be met with conflict. Yonatan's reaction and composure during those conflicts give me the impression he is knowledgable about policy without being pushy, and knows what to do against opposing perspectives. Furthermore, his HUGE number of contributions on Talk pages lets me know that Yonatan is one to talk something out before editing. ALTON .ıl 05:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
34. Support without doubt, competent and conscientious --Herby 09:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
35. Support, need dual WP/Commons admins, it's a good idea. – Riana_ऋ 09:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
36. Support just for inter-Wiki, let alone his contributions here--Simul8 12:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
37. Support. Trusted editor. utcursch | talk 12:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
38. Support Certainly. gidonb 13:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
39. Support Good user. Captain panda 21:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
40. Support--MONGO 08:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
41. Support - cross-wiki admin...cool...cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 11:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
42. Support Seen him around a number of times over the past year, all of them positive. Oldelpaso 21:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
43. Support We need more sysops. Anynobody 05:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
44. Support Definitely an excellent candidate; is a wonderful admin on other projects, always helpful and works hard. He'll be a great asset here as an administrator. — Editor at Large 13:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
45. Yonatan is an excellent Wikimedia volunteer who has demonstrated his trustworthiness and communication skills on several projects, most notably Commons and OTRS. gaillimh 06:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
46. Migh as well pile on my Support. Goodnightmush 15:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
47. PeaceNT 16:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
48. Not a single reason to oppose, load of reasons to support. MaxSem 05:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
49. Default support. —AldeBaer 12:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
50. Strong support - was on my hit list. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
51. Support Joe I 05:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
52. $upport Good worker, fast thinker. Mop him boys! Dfrg.msc 08:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
53. Support per Mr Lar's excellent nomination. Sarah 15:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose - Per this edit, user clearly doesn't understand copyright. A fictional character which is copyrighted clearly can't be reproduced freely. Matthew 21:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on that? The diff you gave seems to point to Yonatan putting in a tag that the image needs to be deleted. Which I agree with, are you saying it shouldn't be? I don't quite follow your next change to the page, and I'm not seeing that as evidence that Yonatan doesn't understand our policies. ++Lar: t/c 21:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

When I added this tag, the image was being used on the Claudia Black article, I hadn't noticed it was also used in the article it's in now. Yonatan 21:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed oppose per your rationale. You provide an understandable reason to tag the image. Matthew 21:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

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

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

Nihiltres

Final (34/0/1); Ended 21.04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Nihiltres (talk · contribs) - Nihiltres is an experienced Wikipedian, having joined the project in April 2005, and has been very active since October 2006. He is a prolific vandal-fighter and also works extensively with templates. As such, he is an active participant in TfDs, giving him a detailed awareness of the deletion policy. He regularly tags articles for speedy deletion, so he is demonstrably aware of the speedy criteria and would be able to help ease the backlog at CAT:CSD. He also participates actively in RfAs and other community discussions, and understands fully what is expected of an administrator. Walton 10:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Nihiltres 19:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: There are a number of admin tools which I think I could use. The number one thing I intend to use is the ability to delete articles for speedy deletions. There are constantly files and articles being added to Misplaced Pages which are inappropriate, obviously non-notable, or even copyrighted. As an administrator, my primary use of "the mop" would be to help scrub out CAT:CSD, if you'll pardon my metaphor - non-admins are able to populate it as I do, but the clearance from there requires an admin. On the other hand, there are a lot of vandal-only accounts, and many of them repeatedly vandalize pages or create inappropriate ones. Indefinitely blocking obvious vandal-only accounts instead of having to report them on WP:AIV would reduce a step from the process I usually have to go through. I might also patrol WP:AIV sometimes instead of merely posting there, although I don't plan to spend the majority of my time there. If neither of these tasks were applicable, there is always some administrative backlog, and I intend to use that. I'm wary of XfD, but I'm confident that the task won't be a problem with careful, case-by-case examination of what, if any, consensus exists and if certain !votes have been placed for inappropriate reasons.

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

A: My favourite contribution would have to be the rewriting of the Shade's Children article. Although the article is far from perfect, it's definitely my favourite contribution given that I raised it from a misleading stub to its present state as a B-class article, and that the book ranks among my favourites. Aside from that, I do cleanup here and there across some articles, having lately fixed up the Yellow (disambiguation) page to meet dab page standards, for example. I find those to be my best contributions. In terms of my greatest contributions, however, I think of one main thing: shoveling through tagging CSDs, and warning the users who posted them appropriately. My favourite times among those are the times when a user insists that he can and will improve the article momentarily to reveal its notability: although some are deleted regardless, it is cheering that those users put in the effort, and I try to not bite by removing the speedy templates to give them a chance.

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: Unfortunately, yes, I have had such encounters. Aside from vandals, trolls, and the like, who usually simply vandalize my userpage a few times and are blocked, there are two incidents which stand out to me, and explaining how I dealt with them should give a reasonably clear picture of how I have dealt with conflicts before:

1. A while ago, I attempted to standardize the spelling variations of two articles, Blue and Black, to a single spelling. Since this is such a contentious issue, users immediately criticized my change. I think some of them may have reverted my changes. This was unfortunately exacerbated in two ways. First by an ambiguous edit summary of mine: I noted that I changed the spellings to the "more common" version, while what I had meant was "the version more prevalent in the article." Secondly, by the fact that both times, I had standardized the article to the British or Commonwealth spelling. After having users question my judgement and assume (reasonably, I'd say, though wrongly) that I was pushing a variety, I explained my actions, and the articles were soon standardized as per guidelines on the matter, which I learned about in the process. I abstained from making such edits for a while, as well, to avoid backlash. It wasn't much of a problem, but it was quite stressful to have my good faith edits questioned as problematic.
2. Later on, I had a problem with an editor who kept reverting an article to a redirect: the editor was 216.165.158.7/DreamGuy, and the article, for those who are curious, was Photoshop tennis and later also Photoshopping. Although DreamGuy's actions were, in some ways, what eventually was done according to consensus, he repeatedly replaced the articles with redirects against consensus to do so, and was making personal attacks . I implored him to discuss his actions and reach a consensus to do something, a suggestion he initially discounted . After a point, I treated the replacements as vandalism, having warned him earlier that his edits against a consensus could be construed that way as per policy definition of vandalism (replacing pages with one's own version against consensus, in this case.) Eventually, and if I remember correctly, for other reasons, the IP was temporarily blocked. This allowed another editor and I to set up a poll for consensus on what to do with the article(s), which eventually reached a consensus to merge things in certain ways. DreamGuy's IP has since been indefinitely blocked, I imagine as the result of an AN/I discussion I saw, because of the disruptive ways in which it was used. I'm not sure about DreamGuy himself.

In the future, I plan to follow the same approach as I have with these: if my actions are questioned, I explain my reasoning and listen for suggestions. If a user is problematic, asking them to be civil is the first approach, after which other, gradually more forceful warnings and then measures are used if the user continues acting inappropriately. All in all, it is, in general, reasonably simple: m:Don't be a dick. If you think that there's something else I should do that's not mentioned here, please tell me - improvement is always good.

Optional question from daveh4h

4. What is your opinion of ignore all rules as a policy? Can you think of a circumstance where it may be appropriate to ignore all rules?

A: The "Ignore all rules" policy is, in my opinion, one that encourages users to solve problems, and not necessarily to break rules. The policy does qualify it: "If the rules prevent you from improving ". It's a matter of encouraging users to think outside the box, or for that matter, outside processes which have already been established, in order to solve a problem. For example, although in general disambiguation pages should not have images, WP:MOSDAB says that there are a few cases where having an image or several is helpful, like the example given there: Mississippi Delta (disambiguation). I prefer to follow policies and guidelines whenever possible, since they're built on a great deal of thought that has been given to how things shoud be done appropriately and in a coordinated way. I might ignore a rule to help someone do something unusual, to make sure that the formatting looks good even if it doesn't quite fit with the style guide's idea, to make light of an overly tense discussion to ease the atmosphere (see also {{shrubbery}}, I haven't used it yet but it seems appropriate to mention), or some other situation where, technically, one is breaking the rules, but, practically, is doing a good job. The only time I can think of that I have actually used IAR is on a style issue, where the usual ideal looked awful , so I reverted myself . (By the way, I've made a lot of references to disambiguation page procedure. This isn't all I do, if you're wondering - these just happen to make good examples, I find.)

Optional question from DGG

5. As an admin you will have the ability to delete a page in a single step, and not just tag it for confirmation by another admin. When will you use this power, and when will you tag and wait for confirmation? DGG 22:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

A: On clear cases of nonsense, vandalism, and/or attack pages, or, to a lesser extent, spam and obviously non-notable people, I would delete as a single step. It's sometimes clear just from the title of a page that it qualifies for deletion. One I dealt with recently, where the creator repeatedly removed the speedy tag, was called something along the lines of "Insights gained while under the influence of nitrous oxide". In cases where the subject matter may be notable but I do not know of him, her, or it, I often prefer, even as a non-admin, to tag the page with {{notability}} instead of {{db-bio}}. There are a lot of clear cases where the article just outlines a person, often born in the 1990s, who is still in high school, and who either hasn't done anything notable or only *will*, according to the article, do something notable in the future - a violation of the fact that Misplaced Pages isn't a crystal ball. On the other hand, I've seen others where it hasn't been entirely clear, and I have, under those circumstances, given more leeway - especially if the author insists that they are expanding the article and will source it. In a nutshell: I'll delete the obvious cruft immediately - who wouldn't? For others, however, I watch that my deletion/tagging reason isn't just that I don't know about that topic.

General comments

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

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

Discussion

Support

1. Support as nominator. Walton 20:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
2. Support. A quick review of his last couple talk archives showed that he seems to have a grasp on discussing conflicts civilly (there were a few 'hey, why did you tag my article for deletion?' inquiries that he seemed to handle well.) I don't have any recollection of seeing this user flip out and kill people like a ninja (who are mammals, btw) so sure, why not? Looks like a good match. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
3. Support The user is very experienced and is sane. Therefore, the user can be trusted to not make insane decisions. Teke 20:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
4. SupportI forsee no problems from this user using the tools. JodyB _talk 20:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
5. Rettetast 20:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
6. Support Trust him to remain calm under pressure. the_undertow 20:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
7. Support. I see lots of patient interaction with other editors, which goes miles in my book. --Spike Wilbury 21:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
8. Support--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 22:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
9. Support - nothing in the quick review of contribs that worries me. Philippe 23:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
10. Support - Looks good. VegaDark (talk) 00:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
11. Support always civil, shows a clear understanding of policies, and overall a great user. V60 01:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
12. Support Good candidate with a good nominator. Acalamari 01:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
13. Support - Good Candidate, good nominator and even great answers..Good luck...----Cometstyles 05:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
14. Supadupa support great candidate. ⇒ SWATJester 05:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
15. Strong support - a very good user, seen them around and will do well with the tools. Ryan Postlethwaite 09:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
16. Strong Support definitely qualified for adminship. Answers to questions are excellent and user is civil and level-headed. —Anas 12:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
17. Support A great candidate for the mop, your policy knowledge seems excellent and your work with speedy deletions is to excellent, you'd make a great admin, best of luck to you. Regards — The Sunshine Man 14:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
18. Support, Good attitude as far as I've seen. --Quiddity 18:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
19. Support, per all of the above. Boricuaeddie 19:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
20. Support: User has plenty of experience and edit summary usage is excellent. Should make a fine administrator.  Orfen  | _Contribs 23:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
21. Support Alright. Seems like a nice guy ^_^ Majorly (talk | meet) 00:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
22. Support: Nihiltres always wins arguments, unfortunately (for me, that is :-) ). ~ Magnus animuM ≈ √∞ 01:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
23. Support Seems like he will make a great admin. daveh4h 01:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
24. Support, and I see nothing wrong with the dialogue cited below - seems to be a fairly standard response to me. – Riana_ऋ 09:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
25. Support A nice admin this user will make I think. Captain panda 21:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
26. Support--MONGO 08:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
27. Support - A good editor who seems to have an excellent grasp of policies, how to apply them, and how to work well with others. Doc Tropics 16:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
28. Support - A civil and conscientious user who will I feel use the mop well, given past performance. Orderinchaos 21:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
29. Support. No reasons not to. Goodnightmush 15:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
30. PeaceNT 16:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
31. Default support. —AldeBaer 12:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
32. Support Joe I 05:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
33. $upport Dfrg.msc 08:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
34. Support per Walton. Sarah 17:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

1. Neutral for the time being. Could you explain this dialogue? You've been generally civil overall, but the tone of your comments here gave me some pause. The child's claim seemed plausible. I'm not objecting to your deleting the article, and I appreciate your giving a personal rather than a template reply. That said, I do believe it's important to make some allowances in tone when dealing with a child, particularly one who isn't being a vandal and who seems to be caught between a rock and a hard place. It wouldn't have hurt to express just a bit of sympathy for the predicament. This isn't enough to keep you from being an admin, but I would ask you to keep this in mind and do better if this kind of situation should ever come up again. Thanks, --Shirahadasha 02:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a fair comment - my tone was somewhat chilly in that dialogue. For all that I can make excuses (Late-night edit for me, tired, had just been fixing vandalism, and other such pitiful defenses), you've got a point. This is something I'll try to address regardless of the outcome of this RfA - compassion is important in all contexts of life. Nihiltres 02:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, User:Phaedriel deleted the article. User:Nihiltres, not at that time being an admin, could not have done so. Though he did tag it.--Anthony.bradbury 20:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Arctic.gnome

Final (36/1/1); Ended 16:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Arctic.gnome (talk · contribs) - I have been a wikipedian for a bit over two years now, and I would like to take on a bit more responsibility in the encyclopedia. Most of my edits deal with the Canadian government and with the featured topics nomination, but I have individual edits on many other articles. Having admin powers would save me some time in my vandal fighting and project managing, and I think I understand well enough how this place works to be trusted with them. Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: The ability to move, delete, and semi-protect pages would help in my day-to-day editing; I now have to make some requests of admins when I'm tidying up page organization. I would be able to help out with some backlogs that I can't help with now, like speedy deletions. I already spend a great deal of time reverting vandalism and giving out warnings; it would be nice to be able to block vandals on my own. I'd be interested in keeping an eye on the Special:Unwatchedpages to stop vandals. And finally, although admin powers aren't needed for it, I would like to have a bit more legitimacy when closing debates on WP:FTC.

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

A: My biggest contribution recently has been getting the featured topics project off the ground. I found the idea on an orphaned page, so I made the page look nice, re-worked the nomination procedure and criteria, and added links to the project. Since then I have been doing most of the work of closing debates and promoting topics.

I'm also proud of all of my featured lists, such as List of Canadian federal parliaments. In those lists, I (with others) have taken simple groups of links and turned them into what is probably a better source of quick information than anything online or in any book. I'm also happy that there are no longer any gaps in series like 1st to 39th Canadian Parliament and 1st to 28th Canadian Ministry, even though most of those articles are fairly short.

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’ve been in a few some drawn-out debates, the most stressful being in Lengths of science fiction film and television series and Canadian science fiction where a user and I had opposite views about how somethings should be defined. I’ve found the best solution is to offer compromises, like adding a footnote to explain the differing points of view. If the user doesn’t accept a middle ground, I ask members of a related wikiproject to break the stalemate.

Optional question from Durova

4. What would you do as an administrator about ideological or profit motive attempts to manipulate Misplaced Pages? Bear in mind this statement from Brad Patrick as well as this news story, this conference summary, this press release, and these blogs. Durova 18:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from Abu badali

5. What do you think about the recent Foundation resolution on unfree material usage, and what implications (immediate and long term) do you believe it will have for English language Misplaced Pages?

This looks pretty close to the rules already in place; this declaration just gives a bit more authority to users who hunt for non-free images to delete. I don't care about Misplaced Pages being reproducible and copyright-safe nearly as much as I care about it being useful and accessible, but of course I'll obey whatever copyright rules the community chooses to uphold. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 05:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

General comments

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

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

Discussion

• Seems to me that there's a problem with WP:FTC if this user's input is not being taken as seriously as it would be if he were an admin. I've never participated at FTC, but why would adminship there matter? --JayHenry 17:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

  It doesn't matter, but since I'm a main actor with FT, it would probably be useful to have admin powers in case there is ever a big problem that comes up. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Support

1. Support - Great work in WP:CANADA and related areas. Aquarius • talk 17:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
2. support I initially had some concerns looking through this users contributions since many of them seem to be very formulaic. For example, recently on May 9 the user made over 20 edits classifying the importance of various highways in Saskatchewan and Ontario. Similarly, on April 22, the user spent a large amount of time making redirects from "nth Parliament of Canada" to "nth Canadian Parliament". This makes the user's edit count of over 10,000 edits slightly less impressive than it might look initially and such edits make it more difficult to determine a user's knowledge of policy and general temperament. However, the majority of the user's edits are more individualized and as far as I can tell demonstrate a good understanding of policy (I do however disagree with his assertion on his user page that he is not a Wikignome- a substantial fraction of his edits seem to be Wikignoming Canada related matters). I also had some concern about a lack of topical diversity in the user's edits, since having such a background helps also show understanding of policy and makes any potential problems more likely to turn up. This objection I have also found to be not a serious worry for two reasons: First, the user has a substantial number of edits that are outside Canadian subjects. Second, Canada is a very broad topic which covers a large number of different types of articles including articles about geography, politics, culture, science, and entertainment. Artic has edited extensively in all those topics in both mainspace and other spaces. Overall, this is a candidate for giving the tools who is both competent and trustworthy. If I had known about the editor before hand and had known he was intending to run I would have been happy to nominate him myself. JoshuaZ 18:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
3. Rettetast 19:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
4. Support per JoshuaZ. Walton 19:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
5. Support Looking at this editor's edits across the main spaces, I see no reason to think that the admin tools would be abused. (aeropagitica) 19:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
6. Support I'm glad to have wikignomes around - hate to think what the place would look like without them. Give him the tools and let him work. JodyB _talk 20:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
7. Support --Spike Wilbury 22:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
8. Support--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 22:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
9. Support Looks good...supporting. Jmlk17 22:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
10. Support All is well here. Acalamari 01:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
11. Support. Good contributions and experience, and it's clear from his editing patterns that the tools would be put to good use. Krimpet (talk) 07:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
12. Support browsing quickly through his talk page and contributions, I find Arctic a very good adminship candidate and more than qualified to use the tools. —Anas 12:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
13. Support I've seen this editor around, does a good job. DarthGriz98 15:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
14. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this candidate! - 18:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
15. Support, cautious and bold in appropriate measure. --Quiddity 18:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
16. No big deals here - Go ahead. -- FayssalF - 18:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
17. Support: User has a nice amount of experience, however user's edit summary usage for minor edits is very low. This is not enough for me to oppose or neutral, however I would personally like to see this improved in the future. Good luck!  Orfen  | _Contribs 23:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

    That's just because I don't use the minor edit button very often. I've used edit summaries for all edits, major and minor, for the last four months. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 01:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

18. Support - After reviewing this user's wide-ranging contributions I believe he has need for and will appropriately use the admin tools. I am pleased he has improved his use of edit summaries as this is an important means of communication for all users, not just Administrators. — Meersan 16:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
19. Support Trustworthy, behind the scenes contributor who will do the right thing. -- Jreferee 16:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
20. Support, Meets my personal standards. --Random 20:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
21. Support Looks like a good user to become an admin. Captain panda 21:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
22. support but you reely need to work on user talk 240 is relly too low with over 10000 edits you haveOo7565 21:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

    I find it much more useful to use the talk pages of whatever article I'm concerned about rather than a user's talk page. You'll notice that I have 2100 edits in the article talk namespace. That way, other users can contribute to the discussion. The only times when I feel that I only want to talk to one user is when I'm giving new users a heads up about an editing faux pas, when I'm apologizing for something, or when I'm congratulating someone. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 05:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

23. Support--MONGO 08:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
24. PeaceNT 15:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
25. Support from Majorly (talk | meet) 21:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
26. Support Intelligent, well thought out answers to questions, pleasant to work with, never problematic, experienced. WilyD 21:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
27. Support Good work in getting featured topics going, being civil when the project was nominated for deletion, and keeping up with the project as it has grown and gained attention. Trustworthy, good admin candidate. --Aude (talk) 18:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
28. Default support. —AldeBaer 12:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
29. Support See no reason will not make a good admin. Davewild 16:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
30. Support - Agathoclea 18:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
31. Support - I would definitely trust this user with the mop. Nihiltres 22:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
32. Support go Sens go -- Samir 01:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
33. Support Joe I 05:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
34. $upport Venerable and hard-working. Dfrg.msc 09:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
35. Support Sarah 15:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
36. Support, no reason to oppose.--Wizardman 15:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - "I don't care about Misplaced Pages being reproducible and copyright-safe nearly as much as... - We have enough admins with this unhelpful feeling. --Abu badali 18:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

   If you'll read the end of that comment, I said that I'll still obey Misplaced Pages's copyright rules; I respect the rules even when I don't agree with them. I just meant that hunting for copyrighted material is not one of the tasks on which I spend my time; I find that for me, adding content and fighting vandalism are more interesting and more useful tasks. I'm here to make Misplaced Pages useful for users, not to help people make a profit off of mirroring it. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 01:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

   Allowing "mirrors" is the least interesting thing the copyleft nature of Misplaced Pages permits. This feeling that we are here creating just a useful website is what I see as detrimental in the long term. I just wouldn't like to have one more powerful editor that doesn't care about (although respect) our first pillarthird pillar. --Abu badali 04:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

   The first pillar is exactly what I do care about, and fair use images support the goal of Misplaced Pages being an accurate and useful encyclopedia. Did you mean to say the third pillar, the one about GFDL? I think that public domain images should be used as much as possible, but in my humble opinion it is overkill when we delete images which the owner allows to be used by non-profit sites such as this one. That being said, I'd like to once again say that when I have to make a decision, I choose established Misplaced Pages rules over my own opinions. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 04:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

   (Yes, I meant the 3rd, sorry). "...non-profit sites such as this one" - That's the whole point of my concerns: You see Misplaced Pages just as a website. Our policy on unfree content usage reflects our long terms goal as a free content encyclopedia (something that can exist offline) and most of discontentment with this policy comes from users that think they are here just helping to build a useful website.

   "when I have to make a decision, I choose established Misplaced Pages rules over my own opinions" - That wasn't the case when you adventured in doing the admin task of closing an image deletion debate. You decided to keep and unsourced unfree image of a living person that lacked a fair use rationale. --Abu badali 11:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral To quote: "The ability to move, delete, and semi-protect pages would help in my day-to-day editing". Although an active and excellent contributor I can't see any justification for the demotion here. Why do you need the tools? Pedro |  Chat  19:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

   Doesn't the quote give the justification? You need admin tools to perform certain page moves, and to delete and semi-protect pages. I don't understand your question. --Spike Wilbury 21:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

   When I need to do chores like moving a page to conform with standard article names or protecting a page from vandals, the tools would save me the time of asking for an admin's help and would save an admin the time of having to do it for me. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

   Yes, I understand the tools. I can't understand your need for the tools. How often do you have to ask an admin for assistance for example? If you could justify why you need them I would support. But just saying I need the tools so I can do what the tools do doesn't cut it. e.g. I need a hammer. Why? To bang in a nail. So what? because I need to hang a picture - ah! Justification!! As it is your RfA seems to be going well so good luck.Pedro |  Chat  09:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

   Pedro, adminship is supposed to be no big deal. The question is, do we trust that Arctic.gnome will use the mop well if it is given to him? I, among others, think so. Saying that he doesn't "need" the tools isn't much of an argument. Nihiltres 22:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

   With respect, the whole point of being an admin is getting extra tools - As per Jimbo which you have paraphrased - "it's merely a technical thing". Admins need extra tools to do the job - being civil, mediating, welcoming, reverting vandalism, writing articles - any editor can do this. So if you don't need the tools then why be an admin - or is it in fact a "big deal" after all??? You say it isn't and please don't take this as ad hominum, but on your own user page you describe adminship as something to which you aspire. So you aspire to something that isn't a big deal. Hmmmm.... Sorry, your argument here is rather weak, but as I said before Arctic's Rfa is going well, and good luck to him. I am sure he will use the tools wisely. Pedro |  Chat  13:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

   That's fair, though the quote of me should be interpreted socially, not politically - again, adminship is a confirmation of trust. I'll fix that the next time I update my userpage. Ignore my original comment: I was overly zealous, and RfA is being discussed for reform anyway. Sorry for being pushy, Nihiltres 15:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Lucasbfr

Final (58/0/0); Ended 12:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Lucasbfr (talk · contribs) - Co-nomination by Húsönd & Khukri

It is with great pleasure that we present Lucasbfr for your consideration.

Co-nomination by Húsönd: I cannot remember when did Lucas draw my attention for the first time, but after coming upon his name countless times I decided to peruse his contributions and verify if he was an administrator. When I discovered that he was not, I promptly offered to nominate him (I stand against blatant waste of admin potential). That offer was over four months ago, and I'm glad that he finally decided to launch this RFA. :-) Lucas's contributions are laudably diverse. He's not just an efficient and experienced editor, he's also an efficient and experienced wiki-cop who ruthlessly fights vandals, copyvio and sockpuppets. His participation in WP:XFD is also commendable. On top of all this, Lucas is a friendly and trustworthy user who would definitely make an excellent use of the admin tools. I strongly recommend adminship for this user, and ask my fellow Wikipedians to meticulously evaluate his contributions and give him the support he truly deserves.

Co-nomination by Khukri: Lucas first came to my attention around 7 months ago as a very thorough and diligent editor, whilst working on the WikiProject user warnings. I now see him regularly around WP:AIV, WP:XFD and also know about his work with Copyright Violations. Lucas started with the project in September 2005, but didn't start actively contributing until August the following year. Since then he has amassed some 13,000 edits, with 5,000 of those being mainspace edits. Even though he is a self confessed wikignome, he is not adverse to working on articles and has given valuable contributions to the World of Warcraft articles and the very sensitive Accusations of French genocide against Algerians. As my first ever nomination I am proud for that nomination to go to someone such as Lucas. I know him to be a very thoughtful person, whose insightful commentary, self effacing manner and good knowledge of Misplaced Pages policies make him in my opinion an ideal admin candidate and I whole heartedly recommend him to the community.

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination -- lucasbfr 12:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: I will definitely work on the usual backlogs we see on Misplaced Pages. These would include WP:PROD, the pages needing speedy deletion (especially G11 and G12, since I now have a fairly good understanding of the rules behind both of them by my work on suspected copyright violations), WP:AfD (and affiliates) and requested moves. I will also keep an eye on WP:AN and WP:AN/I, assisting users when needed. Being a RFCU clerk, I also plan on ensuring that the users confirmed by checkuser are blocked after the case is closed. And of course I won’t stop what I am already doing, being watching the new pages, the recent changes and CAT:HELP. I also plan to help good faith new users struggling with our policies, and help on CAT:UNBLOCK if that is needed. My aim is to help keeping Misplaced Pages running as smoothly as possible by ensuring that backlogs stay at a minimum. This is of course to get started, Misplaced Pages is big enough to always find something to do somewhere else.

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

A: I think the contribution I am the most proud of is my participation to the WikiProject user warnings. I think that the "new" warning system is a huge improvement from the "old" one, and that we did a fairly comprehensive and simpler system with the exchange of ideas.

Still on the Misplaced Pages namespace side, I am one of the contributors working on Misplaced Pages:Suspected copyright violations, which helps finding and removing some obvious copyright violations that might slip otherwise. I also worked on Category:Misplaced Pages articles with topics of unclear importance to help depopulating the June 2006 part.

I am not a big article writer, English not being my mother tongue. I have more a wikignome attitude, formatting entries, correcting templates, adding or removing links, ... I browse the encyclopedia a lot and tend to correct the articles that cross my path.

Khukri mentioned Classes in World of Warcraft and Accusations of French genocide against Algerians, which appear the articles I worked the most on (as I said, I am more prone to edit all articles than stay on one). I crossed Classes in World of Warcraft during AfD patrol if I am correct. That was a fairly disputed AfD that ended with No Consensus. After the AfD, we tried to address the concerns as much as possible to prevent the article from being deleted.

I have no idea on how I crossed Accusations of French genocide against Algerians. First time I saw it, I was on the edge of bringing it to Deletion. But there was substance, and even if it really needed a huge cleanup, I thought it might be a good exercise to work on my neutrality (being French, I have an obvious bias). I must admit the article is far from perfect, but it is in much better shape now than it was beforehand. And if it was brought for Deletion, well, at least I would have tried doing something with it instead of leaving it abandoned.

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 am someone that feels very bad when I make a mistake, and to prevent this I try to gain consensus as much as possible or often ask fellow editors to double check what I did. For now, beside the usual wiki-stress of vandal patrol, I don't recall having any heated argument that couldn't be sorted by communication and patience on Misplaced Pages. I am prone to admit my errors when I do one (and well, that happens sometimes and won’t probably stop. I have a bellybutton too) and I am much more often thanked than insulted ;).

Optional question from Durova

4. What would you do as an administrator about ideological or profit motive attempts to manipulate Misplaced Pages? Bear in mind this statement from Brad Patrick as well as this news story, this conference summary, this press release, and these blogs. Durova 18:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

A:I think there are two levels of POV pushing and advertising on Misplaced Pages: The well known obvious part is not a big threat it is spotted quite easily by all patrollers, that either {{db-spam}} it or AfD/Prod it. Shadowbot also does a good job reverting it.

I think this SPAM/POV is mainly done in good faith. We need to educate the editors on the spam and copyright issues involved (spam is very often copy pasted from the company website). Of course, assuming good faith does not mean being blind.

But there is a more subtle POV pushing made by certain organized individuals (paid, or not), there is more than one User:MyWikiBiz. This part is much more harmful because it is much harder to detect and can stay a long time without being detected. It is even done sometimes without the "spammer" knowing he is breaking policy by willing to tell "the truth" (In cases of conflicts of interests). I think this will soon be one of the main issues for Misplaced Pages. Our main asset on this case, is the number of people reading the encyclopedia and knowing how to report a non neutral article. We need to educate and help them. 00:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC) (pardon my english it is very late)

Optional question from daveh4h

5. What is your opinion of ignore all rules as a policy? Can you think of a circumstance where it may be appropriate to ignore all rules?

A:First of all, I think IAR is a policy that can be useful: policy can't fit each case (or it would be unreadable) and common sense needs to apply, when we are acting like admins. But IAR is not a free pass or a shield, in my opinion, a more suited name would be "Ignore all rules, and face the consequences". IAR is not a toy, and is not a way to get rid of some annoyance. Personally, if I would invoke IAR, I would report it at WP:ANI at once to ask for feedback. And I know that when you feel like the last defender of the Wiki, there is a high probability that you are the one mistaken.

Now, for the specifics, speedy deletion of a "useless" article that does not fit a speedy deletion criteria is not an option, we have other deletion processes and a "useless" article can stay the 5 days of the prod process without hurting the project. Correct me if I am mistaken, but the desysopping of User:Robdurbar was probably not in accordance with any of our processes, and is a good example of IAR used with common sense. 00:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC) (pardon my english it is very late)

General comments

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

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

Discussion

Support

1. Support as co-nom 12:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
2. Why not? MER-C 13:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
3. Support as co-nom.--Húsönd 13:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
4. Looks good to me. Kafziel 13:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
5. Strong support Excellent user, civil, dedicated, great work in all areas. Should be an incredible asset. – Riana_ऋ 13:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
6. Strong support - Excellent candidate, would make an excellent administrator. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
7. Support worked with him at WP:SCV and this guy clearly is reliable and will make good use of the tools. --W.marsh 13:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
8. Support - Has been working very hard recently and would make an excellent Admin..----Cometstyles 14:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
9. Terence 14:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
10. Support A good hardworker, will be excellent I'm sure. good luck! Majorly (talk | meet) 14:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
11. Support very dedicated, qualified, and excellent user. Give him a mop! —Anas 14:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
12. «Snowolf » supports this candidate for adminship, as he is confident that this user won't do anything stupid with the tools (added on 15:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC))
13. Support seems like a excellent pontential admin Gutworth 15:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
14. Support Hmm, lucky thirteen! This is a hard-working editor with lots of potential to be a good admin too. (aeropagitica) 16:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
15. -- Y not? 17:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
16. Support. Good attitude, dedicated, very helpful at WP:RFCU, a little light on article talk edits (sorry, I hate when people do that), will make good use of the tools. MastCell 18:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
17. Support Excellent candidate; genuine cliche moment for me. Xoloz 18:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
18. Rettetast 19:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
19. Strong Support Lucasbfr definitely deserves the tools. He's done great work all around Misplaced Pages, and he also demonstrates a need for adminship. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
20. Support A hard worker, willing to help. JodyB _talk 20:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
21. Support Great template work. Long overdue. the_undertow 20:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
22. Support I've seen Lucasbfr around before... as I recall, I thought he was an admin at the time (and not because he was bossy). I have no qualms about giving him a mop. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
23. Support--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 22:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
24. Support looks very well qualified. Let's give them the mop! Jmlk17 22:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
25. Support because the first line of his userpage makes me smile every time I read it. And, more importantly, because he's an excellent user and I thought he was already an admin. Will (aka Wimt) 00:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
26. Support: Seen him on RC patrol; could definitely use the mop. ~ Magnus animuM ≈ √∞ 01:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
27. Support Looks good. --Shirahadasha 03:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
28. Good noms, good user - Support Ryan Postlethwaite 12:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
29. Support, looks like a well-balanced candidate that will help out a lot in needed areas. --Spike Wilbury 17:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
30. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 18:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
31. Supporting. – B.hotep /_t• 18:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
32. Support - errr, not one already? The Evil Spartan 19:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
33. Support - First ran into this user at WP:RFCU. I think he's got the experience needed to pull it off. Sean William 20:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
34. Support in agreement with all of the above. Acalamari 20:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
35. Support Solid user and solid answers. Xiner (talk) 22:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
36. Support: Has plenty of experience and edit summary usage is also excellent. Should make a fine administrator.  Orfen  | _Contribs 23:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
37. Support Good mainspace contribs, good answers. Would make good use of the tools. daveh4h 01:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
38. Support. No reservations. I've seen Lucas in several places and invariably found him to be pleasant, sensible and constructive.--Kubigula (talk) 04:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
39. Support. Great editor. utcursch | talk 04:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
40. Support Noteworthy contributor. -- Jreferee 16:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
41. Support. WjBscribe 17:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
42. Support Good person to become an admin. Captain panda 21:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
43. Support Does good work on Misplaced Pages:Suspected copyright violations Garion96 (talk) 22:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
44. Support would be excellent as an admin. Lεmσηflαsh/_(c) 23:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
45. I've been particularily impressed with this users' work in projectspace, from what I've seen over the past couple of months. Daniel 05:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
46. Support. An absolute no-brainer. AmiDaniel (talk) 07:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
47. Support--MONGO 09:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
48. PeaceNT 15:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
49. Strong support The best answer to my question that I've seen yet. I'm glad to see a candidate who understands the issue this well and hope you spend some of your sysop time addressing it. Those of us who work in this area could use the help! Durova 20:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
50. Suport - Good impression, good contributions that I can see, and the noms and a lot of other supporters are convincing. Georgewilliamherbert 23:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
51. Support unreservedly. Valuable contributor who will make a valuable admin. -- Satori Son 04:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
52. Support - per the above comments. Real96 02:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
53. Support per noms and everyone above. Sarah 08:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
54. Support nice set of edits, good pre-admin work.--VS 11:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
55. Default support. —AldeBaer 12:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
56. Cleared for adminship Experienced editor. // Pilotguy hold short 15:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
57. Support Joe I 05:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
58. Unnecessary $upport Read the above. Dfrg.msc 09:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

neutral needs work on more user talk 400 in 13000 edits is too low in my mind sorry cant support right nowOo7565 21:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not 100% sure of what you are talking about to be honest: do you mean 400 non-warnings edits on user talk? Or did you by any chance get mix up with my 380 edits on user space (and 5935 on user talk)? :) -- lucasbfr 22:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Stricken comment by RFA spammer.--Húsönd 23:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)