Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Funnybunny (talk | contribs) at 04:54, 5 April 2006 (added candidate). 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

Add new requests at the top of this section.

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

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

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

The Republican

Final (3/16/1) ended 09:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Closed early as unlikely to reach consensus. Essjay 09:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The Republican (talk · contribs) – The Republican has been here since September of 2005, has about 1000 edits, is a great contributer, and I bet my life that The Republican will absolutely not abuse administrative powers. Funnybunny 00:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept. The Republican 02:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Support, I only had one doubt, and you have proved it is unfounded. i think you'll make a good Admin Vulcanstar6 03:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
2. Support per my nom. Funnybunny 04:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
3. Support Will be a good admin. --Siva1979 07:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I prefer admins who aren't ideologues, and who can spell. Septentrionalis 04:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
2. Strong Oppose, low edit counts, short answers to questions, no portal edits, hardly any use of edit summaries, and basically overall inexperience. Perhaps next time.--TBC 05:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
3. Uhm... STRONG no. Poor answers to questions below do not make me certain you wouldn't misuse admin tools. NSLE _(T+C) at 05:04 UTC (2006-04-05)
4. Strongest possible Oppose - 1000 edits, 300 are to his userpage, only 250 mainspace. " I will also usei it to fight in the war against mass userbox deltion." Admin powers are to do work, they are not for wheel-warring and undeleting userboxes unilaterally against will of the community. Question answers are weak. The nom text is very vague and the candidate hasn't added any more information.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose - more than a quarter of his edits are of his own or someone else's user page, and most of the substantive edits are frivolous. Major problems with the English language too: , , - Richardcavell 05:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose per TBC. Nomination was hasty; it seems to me like the user doesn't understand what adminship entails, so wait a while and get some experience and maybe in the future my vote will change (though I'd like to see an improvement in writing skills as well). GT 05:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose per all above. Only 935 edits since September 21 doesn't satisfy me. (edit conflict) Royboycrashfan 05:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose. - Mailer Diablo 05:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose I'm sorry, but that comment about "fighting the war against mass userbox deletion" is extremely worrying. Combined with very low edit count means I cannot support. Gwernol 05:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
10. Oppose. Not enough edits, poor answers to questions. —Doug Bell 05:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
11. Oppose per Doug Bel Admrb♉ltz (T | C | k) 06:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
12. Oppose per above. --Masssiveego 06:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
13. Oppose 935 edits isn't enough. Also, the edit summary usage isn't good at all Computerjoe's talk 07:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
14. Oppose. Please use the edit summary box. Covington 07:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
15. Oppose because of two things. 1) Not enough edit summaries. There's no reason why you can't use edit summaries at least 90% of the time. 4% is absolutely not acceptable and 2) your answer to question 1, I will also usei it to fight in the war against mass userbox deltion. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 08:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
16. Oppose, poor usage of edit summaries, lack of edits and the answers to the questions. --Terence Ong 08:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral I believe you'll edit in good faith, and 935 edits meets my criteria, but having said that I think you could do with a bit more experience. Get involved in some Wikiprojects or portals, maybe. And use edit summaries (the only part of my criteria you do not meet - I like 90%+ usage). Keep the good edits up and I'll support in a few months. - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 07:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• Edit summary usage: 4% for major edits and 0% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 6 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 05:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• See The Republican's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.
• Content of edit was Ya know why the Ancient Greeks didn't last?

  These guys didn't last cause they made up this stupid religion. God gave them a chance, prosperous times, and then they blew it. Same with the Sumerians and Romans. When you disrespect God, he gets pissed. Remeber, God created you, but you cannot create a God.--The Republican 00:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

  Septentrionalis 05:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

A:I'd use is to stop vandals, more easily revert vandalism they make, and make my stament on talk pages more outstanding. I will also usei it to fight in the war against mass userbox deltion.

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

A:I have created, cleaned up, or expanded several pages on movies and tv shows, especally Austin Powers:International man of mystery and Breaking Out is hard to do (Family Guy Episode that was once nominated for deletion). I also feel I make powerful comments in deltion and other kinds of debates, especially the Userbox redirect.

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

A:Well, there was the time Marksweep made unessacary alterations to my userpage, and BrokenSeuge was pestering me about an image I created. I simply just let the admins (who I suspect are Jimbo's sock puppets, but that's another story)delted the image (called President Peter by the way). As for Mark, I left a quote from Funnybunny on his page, but never responded, as he does on much of his page.

Comment: im worried that you may be slightly bias, this comes from your name being "The republican" (and on your talk page you "think ted kennedy should be in jail, not the US senate") while your entitled to your opinion, for now i make no desicion. im sure your fair, i just have my doubts (i look forward to seeing your answers to the questions) Thank you Vulcanstar6 00:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your concerns about me being to P.O.V for a potential admin. I will try to keep it civil from now on and will use my admin powers for good only. I have never and won't ever go around vandalizing articles about major democrats, and am probably going to remove that userbox. I, as a matter of fact, don't really contibute to contraversial topics like abortion (I'm accually pro-choice), mostly because everything you ever need to know about it is in there. I appreciate you bringing this up, so I can clear up any doubts in peoples minds when they read my afd. The Republican 02:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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.

Dangherous

Final (38/24/4) ended 16:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Dangherous (talk · contribs) – Well, I've been granted admin on Wiktionary, which really helped speed things up for me. I have my finger in a couple of pies: Category:Copy to Wiktionary is the biggest current pie. And I do a bit of translation from German, writing about Cardiff, sorting out a big chunk of Category:Wales, and dabbling in some soccer-related stuff. I'd like the sysop buttons to help speedy delete some obvious vandalism, and I know how to use them, with my Wiktionary sysophood experience. --Dangherous 21:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Added one day later the following: The main reason for the RFA is so that there is someone who has sysophood on both Misplaced Pages and one Wiktionary, apart from User:Uncle G who does a good job in transwiki already, and User:Tawker, who's mainly just a vandal-buster (IMHO) --Dangherous 19:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Added midway through the vote: I've read all about wp:prod now, and I can now tell when to use that and when to use AFD, and when to use {db}. --Dangherous 14:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept. --Dangherous 21:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
This RFA is not going to pass, so I'll resign. --Dangherous 16:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. I'm going to support on two counts, one on moral support, and the other that you've been made admin on Wiktionary, that (at the very least) should tell us (or it tells me) that you won't abuse the tools. NSLE _(T+C) at 00:52 UTC (2006-04-05)
2. Support. I have seen plenty of Dangherous's edits and I've not seen any problems with them. My main reason for supporting though is to aide his excellent work in moving articles to Wiktionary - it is certianly needed. That he is a Wiktionary admin proves to me he can be trusted. Thryduulf 01:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
3. User is clearly unlikely to abuse admin tools; hard to imagine bad outcomes of giving him key to the toolbox. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
4. Support An admin on Wiktionary. Thus proving his capabilities as an admin. --Siva1979 04:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
5. Support - This editcountitis is driving me nuts. He'd make a good admin. - Richardcavell 04:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
6. Support It doesn't matter how many edits you made, or how many months you've been on Misplaced Pages, all it matters is that you make an article that hopefully becomes a featured article someday! I don't know why you people oppose young users with less edits than you, but one thing is certain. Big things come in small packages Funnybunny 05:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

   "Adminship is no big deal." - Mailer Diablo 05:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC) Changed to neutral, sorry. - Mailer Diablo 23:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

7. Support; I trust Wiktionary. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 06:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
8. Support Clearly would not abuse admin tools; he's an admin on Wiktionary, after all. Adminship would benefit him. Meets criteria in other areas too. Good user. - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 07:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
9. Support, since he's an admin on Wiktionary, why not give it to him here? He will not abuse tose tools. --Terence Ong 08:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
10. I'm willing to accept the risk if he's going to clean up Category:Copy to Wiktionary. gren グレン 12:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
11. I don't see any risk involved here (already an admin on Wiktionary) so I'm going to support this request. Alphax  14:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
12. Support. Not much risk of misuse. -- JamesTeterenko 15:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
13. Support. We need more admins willing to deal with huge backlogs like "move to Wiktionary", and this is much more important than meeting people's cookie-cutter criteria. There's also some extremely misguided editcountitis going on: people are opposing Dangherous for his edit count, even though he has over 3800 edits on Wikimedia projects. Don't be blinded by the lack of a single signon. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
14. Support Candidate wants to help with backlogged cleanup tasks -- this is very good. I see editcountitis has reached new lows. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
15. Support Wiktionary The ed17 (talk) 17:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
16. Support Highly useful to have another sysop for both Wikitionary and Misplaced Pages. I would prefer if he had slightly more experience here, but his record on Wikitionary supplements his work here. The potential benefit to both projects of him being an admin on both is very large. JoshuaZ 20:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
17. Back from Wikibreak Support. Would be a great addition to the team.--File Éireann 20:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

    Support per NSLE. Mike _{(T C)} 22:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC) Changed to oppose, sorry! Mike _{(T C)} 22:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

18. Support per nomination. Also dosn't seem like a person likely to abuse power. ---J.Smith 23:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
19. Support per nom. --日本穣 Nihonjoe 23:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
20. Support, in large part because I think the reasons that many people are opposing are poor and I'd like to counteract that a bit. This user seems unlikely to abuse admin commands. kmccoy (talk) 04:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
21. Support. The user has a good record at Wiktionary, and is planning on using adminship in an area that is greatly benefitted by cross-wiki adminship. RfAs are used to determine if we trust users with the mop, and if we're certain that he won't misuse it, there's no reason to oppose. That said, Misplaced Pages and Wiktionary policies are slightly different; please brush up on this wiki's policies before trying something you're not certain how to do (and checking to make sure that what you're certain how to do is indeed correct). Feel free to ask questions liberally too. That said, Tawker isn't an admin here... Titoxd 04:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
22. Support. Does plenty of good work, and seems like a responsible contributor. I think the opposition based on the edit count is misguided, an admin with 200-300 edits a month is actually a fairly active one. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
23. Support Leidiot 07:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
24. Support - Good job on Wiktionary. --{{User:Wonderfool/sig}} 11:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
25. Support What I think is needed for supporting an admin nomination is evidence that suggests the user has the relevant competency to carry out admin tasks. Some good evidence here is the adminship on wiktionary. As that evidence exists, I see no need to have vast amounts of wikipedia edits to find further evidence. This RfA is the best example I've seen to date of why editcountitis can be fatal. MLA 13:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
26. Support StabiloBoss 15:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
27. Support to give him ability to delete transwikied articles himself. Conscious 17:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
28. Support per Conscious: there are aspects to the ways in which the candidate has been serviing the Wiki community that will be easier with admin tools. Bucketsofg 18:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
29. Support Seems responsible and experienced, with plenty of Wikitionary experience. --NormanEinstein 21:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
30. Support -- This user's experience is marginal by my standards, but his overall attitude is very good and I like his responses to Question Time. I see a user who is willing to shovel through a lot of dull work: the ideal person to be given tools. John Reid 02:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
31. Support -- Trying to maintain Transwiki: with only half the needed delete buttons is frustrating, to say the least. It is not a rewarding task to begin with (even User:Uncle G gave up on it a long time ago!) --Connel MacKenzie 04:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC) (See: wikt:Special:Contributions/Connel MacKenzie.)
32. Support. I can trust this user's work at both Misplaced Pages and Wiktionary.--Jusjih 05:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
33. Support as per above. --preschooler.at.heart my talk - contribs 06:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
34. Support A credit to the wiki project. Brisvegas 12:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
35. Support. A Transwiki specialist will help greatly. BD2412 T 13:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
36. Support. Changed neutral vote to support. I agree with BD2412. Misplaced Pages needs specialists like these. Cannot keep my vote neutral or oppose because he doesn't know how to give "politically correct" answers. - Aksi_great (talk) 14:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
37. Support. He's an admin on Wiktionary (see Wiktionary vote here: http://en.wiktionary.org/search/?title=Wiktionary:Administrators&oldid=834120] and has been for 7 weeks now. Has over 2000 edits over there as well, which puts him at over 3500 edits in both projects. And if he does cleanup Category:Copy to Wiktionary, his presence as an admin will be invaluable. Pepsidrinka 14:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
38. Support. Category:Copy to Wiktionary needs all the help it can get. --Dragon's Blood 15:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose certainly enough time, possibly enough edits, but serious neglect of interaction with other users, and very short answers and introduction. Demonstrates inexperience and edit count inflating, KI 21:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose 200-300 edits per month is not even close to active enough to become an administrator. Increase that to 500-600 at least. —Cuiviénen, Tuesday, 4 April 2006 @ 21:39 (UTC)

   Why does an admin need to make 500 edits a month? Is there some quota system? - Richardcavell 04:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

   It seems ridiculous to give admin capabilities to someone who is not particularly active and will not use them. 500 is sort of arbitrary; I really just mean "higher". —Cuiviénen, Wednesday, 5 April 2006 @ 15:37 (UTC)

   500 is sort of absurd. Admins who have a life outside of Misplaced Pages are a good thing, as I think they're more likely to be able to step away from disputes and realize they don't matter that much. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 15:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

   I would be very suprised if there was a majority of current editors who have more than 500 edits a month, particularly if they contribute to more than one project. Thryduulf 16:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

   So 6000 edits a year is your min for being an admin?!?! Misplaced Pages isn't life but rather a part of life. Mike _{(T C)} 22:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

   Call it that if you really want to, but I don't see it as fixed number; using a number was perhaps poor judgment on my part. Dangherous just has to be more active than right now for me to consider him. However, you have to remember that we are not discussing users, but administrators. An admin must have high standards applied, and should certainly be better than the "average user", as said above. Rspeer makes a good point about conflicts, but I don't see a higher number of edits as causing someone to become obsessed with Misplaced Pages. —Cuiviénen, Wednesday, 5 April 2006 @ 22:56 (UTC)

   Adminship is supposed to be "not a big deal" according to Jimbo and policy. I support having way more admins with lives... this user happens to be too new, but 300 edits is just fine. -M 04:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

   My thought exactly, admins are to be held to the same standards as normal users no matter how large the wiki grows, it is no big deal. Mike _{(T C)} 22:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

   Okay, adminship is "no big deal". I know that. However, adminship is also providing a service to the Misplaced Pages community. An "absentee admin" is not providing a service to the community, and an average of ~230 edits per month is absentee, at least for an active, non-Wikibreak user. However, the edit rate was really only a small part of my oppose reasoning; I simply felt that it was a point that would be overlooked and so brough it up. I will not defend my argument further, but it stands. —Cuiviénen, Friday, 7 April 2006 @ 00:41 (UTC)

3. Oppose Inexperience. --Masssiveego 22:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose. Not enough experience. Nephron  T|C 22:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose low User Talk useage. Admrb♉ltz (T | C | k) 00:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose, not active enough. Royboycrashfan 01:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
7. oppose more edits please Merecat 02:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose Twenty-five User talk edits does suggest a lower activity level within the community than I'd like to see. More time is required to build an adequate record from which to judge editor's temperment. Xoloz 03:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose, I strongly oppose nominating yourself. it should be an honor to have someone think you are worthy of being admin. i realize you had that honor with wiktionary, but now you must earn it here. Vulcanstar6 04:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
10. Oppose, doesn't meet my admin standards. —Doug Bell 05:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
11. Oppose. Spend some more time on Misplaced Pages, and I will support you in the future. It's nice to have someone with connections to Wikitionary.Covington 06:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
12. Oppose. While I believe you would be trustworthy, you need to spend more time here. Your user talk edits are much too low. Interact with the community more and become more familiar with Misplaced Pages and try again in 2-3 months.--Dakota ~ ° 08:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
13. Oppose. Prefer admins with more experience--Looper5920 09:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
14. Weak oppose, I'd prefer to see more community interaction. JIP | Talk 10:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
15. Weak oppose, just can't support yet given the relatively low experience and community involvement, despite the good intentions for the tools. A couple of energetic months and I'll support. Deizio 11:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

    Weak oppose. I have supported this user at Wiktionary, but as English Misplaced Pages is structually much more complex, I would like to support some time later. It is getting much harder to administer here than Wiktionary.--Jusjih 16:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC) Changed to neutral.--Jusjih 16:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

16. Oppose the majority of the things the user wishes to do, he can do ATM. Also, this may seem a little pathetic, but Joshua's fifth question is poorly answered at a spelling POV. Substituting u for you isn't exactly what I'd do when I'm trying to convince everyone to vote for be to become an admin. Computerjoe's talk 19:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
17. Oppose: low overall experience, and not enough interaction with other users. Try again in a while! _-M P-_ 22:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
18. Oppose per answers to questions, we have PROD and AfD now, as well there are plans to have one account for all the wikis. Before becoming an admin here you probably need to brush up on some process issues, ESPECIALLY PROD. Mike _{(T C)} 22:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
19. Oppose. We need less admins in order to triumph over this sick dictatorship. When the number is reduced to less than 200, you MIGHT be elected. Von Van 19:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

    This user is most likely a vandal. His only contribution is this oppose vote. - Aksi_great (talk) 19:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

20. Weak Oppose mostly because of his answers, seems to unfamiliar with Misplaced Pages. Eivind 21:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
21. Oppose Too soon. Patience... Moe ε 02:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
22. Oppose --Terence Ong 11:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
23. Oppose agree with Deizio Trödel 12:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
24. Oppose, good Wiktionary admin but Misplaced Pages is a different kettle of fish. Not a lot of interaction, and I am concerned that he may get a bit speedy-happy. You don't need Adminship to transwiki stuff. Stifle (talk) 15:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral - I want to support this candidate, am waiting for answers to questions below. I think this a perfect example of where we should rid ourselves of editcountitis. How can anyone say that he is not experienced when he is already admin on wiktionary and also has been contributing regularly for the past 8 months. So what if he has chosen an obscure corner of wikipedia to work on. Let us give him a mop to help with his area of speciality on wikipedia. - Aksi_great (talk) 01:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't like answers to some of the questions below. I will keep my vote neutral for now. I need more time to decide how to vote. - Aksi_great (talk) 17:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC) Changed to support. - Aksi_great (talk) 14:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

1. Neutral (S). — FireFox • T

   Neutral - I would like to see answers to questions from JoshuaZ below.--Jusjih 16:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC) Changed to support.

2. Neutral per above; inexperience; come back after another two or three months and/or when you double your edit counts/experience, and you'll have my support. — Deckiller 22:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
3. Neutral. I quite like the reason for you wanting to become an admin, and am starting to really dislike editcountis. However I also don't really like some of your answers to questions. So this neutral is a reflection of mixed feelings. Note to closing bureaucrat: This is a 'true' neutral, do not read my reason as an oppose or support if this ends close. Petros471 19:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
4. Neutral, needs more experience. - Mailer Diablo 23:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• See Dangherous's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool and the edit summary usage with Mathbot's tool.
• Could someone please tell me if moving articles to Wiktionary involves admin-specific tasks like article deletion? Conscious 13:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes it does. Certainly at present moving from one project to another is actually invovles starting a new page at the destination, copying the content from source to destination, and then deleting the page at the source. There is more to it than that, but to complete the process access tot he delete button is required. Thryduulf 15:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment in regard to Cuivienen's oppose vote: It is not clear to me why activity level is highly relevant to an RfA. It isn't like we have some limited supply of adminships. JoshuaZ 21:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I would agree, except that I see no reason to bestow admin capabilities on someone who will not use them effectively. Being an effective admin involves being active on Misplaced Pages, and a very low edit rate is highly indicative of inactivity or lack of devotion to the project, neither of which is desireable in an admin. We could, of course, give admin capabilities to anyone with over 1000 edits, but that seems absurd. —Cuiviénen, Wednesday, 5 April 2006 @ 00:42 (UTC)

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

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

A. Category:Copy to Wiktionary. There's so much detritus in there, it hurts. I've been trying to clear out one "letter" at a time, on certain days. Loads of pages in there can be speedy deleted.

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

A. I like The Pop Factory was fun to make. As was Goleo. Cologne carnival and Australian rules football in Nauru were a couple of German translations that I'm pleased with too, as the German was a little tricky, but I asked the help of a couple of users who guided me towards a better translation. And WP:RAOK was good too, although I dunno quite what to do with that yet.

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

A. Yes, User:Cryptic had a go at me for creating some AFD forksHere. I was a bit stressed by the relatively lengthy deletion process here, and dealt with it by agreeing with him (I tend to agree with users who argue good), as it's not worth reshufflin the deletion process.

Questions from JoshuaZ

1 You have a very low edit summary percentage for minor edits. Why?

Well normally, I forget to check the minor edit button. Is it small? What's a good percentage? 65% seems pretty Ok for me. I omit big edit summaries when I do a big bunch of the same stuff, just cos it saves me time, and sometimes the computer doesn't automaticallt give a drop-down menu of previous answers.

2 Please expand on your answer to question 3 above, with specific difs if possible.

There's not much more to say: I made, a little naively, some templates to AFD (which I found in the history of {template:AFD} a page, cos the version of AFD I preferred was loads was loads easier to use, so I copied that template and used it for my own. But I didn't wanna argue, so I let it go.

3 You have only about 1400 edits in total right now. This is low for an admin candidate. Is there any reason that this number is misleading?

Misleading? I can't think of any reason why it is misleading. I've had a little search thru my edits, and there's an odd bit of "hitting the save button twice in quick succession", but a miniscule amount of it. So no, not so misleading

Added a little later, after a "nudge" --Dangherous 19:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC) - misleadingly low..... maybe so, because they'll be a good deal of deleted edits from the pages I AFDed.

4 Are there any admin powers that you would like to give to all users? Why or why not?

No need - I've heard that non-admins can get a rollback button from somewhere like the monobook thing, but I'm not tekky enough for understanding this. So, no.

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

Ideally, there'd be more than one way to AFD an article. But I'm not too fussed about that. I reckon my one thing to change would be if you create one account, it would be a meta-account that u can use on all Wikimedia projects in all languages.

6 Under what circumstances will you indefinitely block a user without any prior direction from Arb Com?

If they're a first-time user doing a batch of vandalism, and show no signs of being helpful, then I'd not hesitate to block them for ever. If they had a hundred or more OK edits, then I'd lessen the block. However, I don't really intend to deal with blocking - there seems to be enough users on RC patrol to deal with that. Just deletion and rollback I'll deal with, for now at least.

7 Please explain in more detail how/why it would be useful to have another person who was an admin for both Misplaced Pages and Wikitionary. JoshuaZ 20:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The main reason I thought of when I wrote that is that ideally I could be some kind of ambassador between the two projects (Misplaced Pages:Wiktionary embassy anyone?). I thought that maybe if I'm deleting something that has been proved as a hoax on Misplaced Pages, then maybe the vandal created it on Wiktionary too, then I could just delete them both on the spot, without having the same arguments on both projects.

Questions from Computerjoe

If this RfA failed what you choose to do? Computerjoe's talk 20:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I'd be a little annoyed that I'd had to answer all these pretty tricky long-winded questions, after that, I've no idea.

Additional questions from Rob Church

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

   Answer I'm generally a stress-free kinda chap. I'm going to do my best to avoid the stressful parts of the wiki, as I've done so far. As for burnout - I'll worry about that when My to-do list has been reduced. If there got a lot of pressure, then in theory I'd take a break - I'm not one of these users who're on here everyday anyway.

2. Why do you want to be an administrator?

   Answer To make my Misplaced Pages life a little easier. I'm not going to lie and say "I want to make the world a better place, and fight off the vandals who try to bring this wonderful project to a crumble."

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

   Answer Err, can you rephrase that question? I've had a think and I've no idea how to answer this question.

4. What do you understand will happen at the end of this seven day discussion process?

   Answer I'll answer this one later, promise

   New answer, after question was rephrased: Seemingly a simple one, here's hoping that it isn't a trick question... Well, a bureaucrat will come along, have a look at the votes for and against, and then if there is a good enough percentage of support, he will click on the "promote user" button, and Bob's your uncle, and I'll have a few more buttons. If it fails, then I'll get notes on my talk page saying "Better like next time", "I can't understand why people didn't support you" etc., and I'll grumble for wasting time on these stupid ;) questions

Thanks. Rob Church (talk) 02:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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.

Dijxtra

Final (66/4/0) ending 18:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Dijxtra (talk · contribs) – This is the second time I nominate Dijxtra for adminship, as he rejected it in December 2005. Now he indicated that he would accept it. He is a true refreshment to the, erm, community of ex-Yu wikipedians since he arrived in June 25, 2005. I'd say he has pretty much filled the gap created by effective withdrawal of all-respected Joy. He has always been respectful for all users, and I have high opinion on his NPOV on sensitive matters. Duja 17:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Strong edit history. 4500+ contributions, 700+ in Project workspace (Contribs, Stats)
• Varied experience. He was engaged, IMO very successfully and NPOVly, on several controversial topics (you betcha there's plenty) on ex-Yu issues (Josip Broz Tito, Mirko Norac, Ante Gotovina)
• User interaction. ,
• Trustability, High quality of articles I can speak only for myself, but I trust his edits and have a high opinion about them.
• Observing policy. Dijxtra currently helps maintenance of WP:AID (having written AIDbot) and is one of initiators of Wikiproject Former Yugoslavia.

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: This time I humbly accept the kind nomination --Dijxtra 18:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nominator. Duja 19:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
2. Uber support solid contributor. Computerjoe's talk 19:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
3. Support with the minor comment to question 5, that this is a Wiki. Everyone is in a position to change things. JoshuaZ 20:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
4. Support Well rounded editor. _-M P-_ 21:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
5. Support as above -- Mkamensek -The LeftOverChef 21:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
6. Support. Looks good. Nephron  T|C 22:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
7. Support. I am impressed with his work on the Article Improvement Drive. Joyous | Talk 00:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
8. Support Merecat 02:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
9. Support A good editor. --Siva1979 04:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
10. Support good candidate --rogerd 04:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
11. Support Joe I 04:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
12. Support Answered the questions perfectly by my taste. T K E 04:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
13. Support - Yes, a good candidate. - Richardcavell 05:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
14. Support per involvement in many projects. Royboycrashfan 05:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
15. "Adminship is no big deal". - Mailer Diablo 05:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
16. Support. I've seen your work here at Misplaced Pages, and I use your bot to maintain the AID. You show great commitment to Misplaced Pages, and you have my vote. Covington 06:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
17. Support. I've seen him around. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 06:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
18. Support per nom. Meets criteria, good user. - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 07:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
19. Support --Terence Ong 08:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
20. Support well deserved--Looper5920 10:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
21. Support, looks OK, although I can't know for certain that all the gibberish on the talk page isn't really discussion about how stupid the Finns are. =) JIP | Talk 10:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
22. Support! --Exir Kamalabadi 10:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
23. Support (S). — FireFox • T
24. Support Looks good. --kingboyk 15:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
25. Support per nomination and solid record of interaction with the community. --Elkman - 15:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
26. Support--Jusjih 16:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
27. Strong Oppose for your orphaned picture (just playing ^_^) Strong Support. Excellent contributor. — Deckiller 22:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
28. Support per nomination. --日本穣 Nihonjoe 23:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
29. Support per "Masssiveego"'s oppose. (oh, and all that good stuff up there:)) ---J.Smith 23:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
30. Da! --VKokielov 00:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
31. Support. Very impressed with the thorough answers. .:.Jareth.:. 04:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
32. Support. Good answers, looks like a solid candidate. ProhibitOnions 08:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
33. Support, excellent user. --Tone 12:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
34. Support StabiloBoss 15:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
35. Support, good candidate. jacoplane 17:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
36. Support per nom. - Aksi_great (talk) 17:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
37. Support per nom. Eivind 22:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
38. Support -- The right stuff. John Reid 02:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
39. Support Moe ε 02:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
40. I see no reason not to Support. Jedi6-(need help?) 03:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
41. Support great canidate, well qualified.--preschooler.at.heart my talk - contribs 06:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
42. Support.  Grue  07:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
43. Strong support. His declination, declension, disinclination, turning down of nomination previously shows that there is also a maturity in "learning the trade before learning the tricks of the trade", which is usually a very good sign. Grutness...wha? 09:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
44. Support - definitely! Proto||type 11:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
45. Support. Recall positive interactions with and observations of this user. —Nightstallion (?) 18:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
46. Suport. Great candidate.--Adam 00:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
47. Suport. Fad (ix) 00:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
48. Support Solid contributor and interacts well with other users. --Arnzy (Talk) 01:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
49. Support --Jay(Reply) 02:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
50. Support can be trusted. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 06:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
51. Support per nom. Meets/surpasses my criteria. - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 07:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
52. Support looks good. Leidiot 12:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
53. Support Inteligent and NPOV comments on talk pages. Jakiša Tomić 17:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
54. Support Rama's Arrow 18:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
55. Strong Support. This is the user who will never abuse his powers.--Exir Kamalabadi 10:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
56. Well, I can't deprive you of your chance! What do you say if I support?--Tdxiang 陈 鼎 翔 Contributions Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 05:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
57. Support. Sarge Baldy 06:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
58. Support Sceptre 11:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
59. Support:--Ahonc (Talk) 15:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
60. Support. Candidate looks good enough to be an admin. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
61. Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 02:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
62. Support. Will make a great admin. DarthVader 07:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
63. SupportßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 08:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
64. Support --Rob from NY 13:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
65. Having discussed the issue I had with Dijxtra at length below, I am satisfied that it was only one of misunderstanding and that Dijxtra will take steps to eliminate the possibility of such misunderstanding in the future. Because Dijxtra is not only willing to admit a mistake but take steps to rectify it and keep the same confusion from happening to other people, I am hereby changing my opposition to Support. --Dragon's Blood 22:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
66. Support, looks good. — Rebelguys2 03:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weak Oppose. Would like to see a little more non-article contributions. Also, you say you want to work with WP:AIV but have only made oneone edit to it as a user, and that was about vandalism on another project. — xaosflux 02:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

   That's not my edit. But, you are right I had only one edit on WP:AIV: (which, though, was concerning this project). But, I posted quite a number of warning "{{subst:testwhatever}}" templates on users talk pages. The fact that I didn't report them to AIV immediately has got to do with my acting in good faith and not biting the newbies, as most vandals I encountered were newbies not understanding what 3RR and NPOV are. And, by the time I posted my third warning, some admin would spot them and deal with them so I wouldn't have to report anything. --Dijxtra 07:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

2. Oppose one orphan picture, inactive. --Masssiveego 06:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

   That would probably be Image:Flag of Zagreb.gif. Regarding that pic, I'd like to state that the image used to be on Zagreb article (it wasn't me who uploaded it), but was then removed because it lacked copyright info. I then contacted the copyright owner, persuaded him to allow Misplaced Pages to use his images, got written permition from him, and then reuploaded the image with proper copyright info and returned it into the article. Why it is orphaned now: I don't know. But I surely did include it in the Zagreb article upon reuploading, which can be verified in article's history. --Dijxtra 07:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

   The flag picture was removed in this edit by User:Mate Balota on February 4. No reason was provided as to why the picture was removed. Regardless, I don't think User:Dijxtra should be penalized for an image that got orphaned because of someone else's edit. --Elkman - 15:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

3. Oppose In the response to JoshuaZ #6, the candidate is indicating that he would indefinitely block for something that is perfectly legitimate. Pagrashtak 03:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

   Well, as the link you quoted states: legitimate sockpuppets need to have a notice stating they are sockpuppets. Therefore, I wouldn't need evidence and a CheckUser check to make sure those are sockpuppets... so I thought it was obvious I was talking about unlegitimate use of sockpuppets (just as the page you quoted in most cases states just "sockpuppet" when reffering to "malicious sockpuppet"). But, you are right, I didn't explicitly use word unlegitimate, so, my appologies... --Dijxtra 06:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

   WP:SOCK does not say that legitimate sockpuppets need to have a notice, it's only a suggestion. A major advantage of a legitimate sock is to avoid connections to the puppet master, possibly to avoid a wiki-stalker or vandal who is taking things personally; having a notice would destroy this. The template to which you refer below is to be used on socks who have committed policy violations only. Being a sock puppet is not a per se violation. The examples you give are socks of an editor who is himself indefinitely blocked. They were not blocked for sockpuppetry alone. Pagrashtak 20:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

   • Oppose Doesn't understand Misplaced Pages policy; says that he will follow his own protocol. For example, he states above that a policy exists that doesn't, and that he will enforce that non-existent policy, not with a warning or a customary 24-hour block, but by effectively banning the user forever. My question to Dijxtra2 is, would you be consistent with your "rule?" If someone proved to your satisfaction that a user was a sockpuppet of Jimbo Wales, would you indefinitely block that account? --Dragon's Blood 16:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC) (Changed to support per my comments below and in the support section.)

   (n.b.: I'm not Dijxtra2 but Dijxtra, Dijxtra2 is a sockpuppet by Squidward vandal to impersonate me and number 2 in my RfA means this is second time I'm nominated for adminship) WP:SOCK says: "Proven sock puppets may be permanently blocked if used to cast double votes.", "In particular, accounts that are used to maliciously impersonate another Wikipedian should be blocked permanently.". Misplaced Pages:Blocking_policy says: "... and Sockpuppets that were created to violate Misplaced Pages policy should be blocked permanently." Also, read this: and note that template says the user is blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry. Also note that this users were permanenty blocked for being socks: User:Gildyshow and User:Goorge (I'm sure those are not solitary instances). HTH --Dijxtra 16:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

   I don't think you answered my question, nor does it seem that you changed your position. If someone proved to your satisfaction that a user was a sockpuppet of Jimbo Wales, would you indefinitely block that account? --Dragon's Blood 18:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

   Hm. OK, I misunderstood your question. As I explained in anwser to Pagrashtak's oppose and, more recently, here: I took for granted that you and Pagrashtak are not asking for legitimate socks. I myself like to "live and let live". I bother to react only if a user is doing something which has negative consequences. And having a sockpuppet does not have negative consequences on the project. Therefore, to answer your question: if someone proved to my satisfaction that a user was a sockpuppet of Jimbo Wales, I would indefinitely block that account if the account was used for evading of 3RR, casting double votes or any other malicious action. If someone proved to my satisfaction that a user was a sockpuppet of Jimbo Wales and if the sockpuppet was not used for misusage of Misplaced Pages, I would advise the user which spent time bothering to provide me with evidence on user which did nothing wrong to go and do something more useful and stop wasting his time on nonsence. For more elaborate explanation of my views see here. I hope I answered your question adequatly now. --Dijxtra 18:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

   It sounds like you define sockpuppetry as "using one account to support the position of another." This is the way the rest of world defines it as well, but it is not Misplaced Pages policy. According to Misplaced Pages, "a sock puppet is an additional username used by a Wikipedian who edits under more than one name." You might argue that an encyclopedia should not redefine words, but the fact is that it does (especially in its WP:SOCK and WP:Consensus policies and guidelines). Standard definitions are more useful and easier to enforce than the ones made up by the writers of these policies, but I'm sure you can appreciate the need for consistency in our organization. A good administrator either knows how Misplaced Pages definitions differ from the rest of the world, or (even better) takes steps to bring Misplaced Pages into consistent usage. For that reason, if you will pledge to help correct the definitions of sockpuppet and consensus in WP:SOCK and WP:Consensus so that they are consistent with common usage (and with the usage that you originally used), I could then consider you to be a major asset to our administration. --Dragon's Blood 19:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

   I must say that I got myself in quite unpleasant situation by supposing that "sockpuppet" means "unlegitimate sockpuppet" and I must concur with you that WP:SOCK and WP:Consensus do need some changes. But, I must stress that I concur with you not because I really want you to like me and remove your opposing vote (as I quite despise people who change their minds so people would like them more) but because I believe that this misunderstanding of ours would be averted if WP:SOCK was more precise. And therefore I can assure you that I'll help fixing WP:SOCK and WP:Consensus so that future unpleasant situations like this one are avoided. --Dijxtra 19:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

4. Oppose due to lack of understanding of blocking policy detailed above. Cynical 21:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

• Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 99% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 18:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• See Dijxtra's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.
• first nomination
• User interaction starts at earliest, not latest, so his last edits really weren't on November 30th. -- Jjjsixsix /_(c) @ 18:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

3RR violations, Intervention against vandalism, deleting NC images, Copyright problems.

Vandalism and edit warring are pretty large problems in parts of Misplaced Pages I tend to edit (ex-Yu topics, mostly). Since history of Balkans was so turbulent, tensions that exist in our region project to Misplaced Pages and you never can help enough in removing vandalism and blocking persistent vandals. Being careful and not mistaking POV dispute for vandalism is of great importance here, and I think my record shows that I'm able to do that.

I like categorising images on Commons and moving free pictures from en to Commons. Thus I leave lost of images marked with {{NC}}. I'd like to delete those.

And, of course, copyright problems. Large parts of well written text often pop up when I surf the Misplaced Pages just for education (which I do often). The only problem I myself had with copyvio was an accident when I merged copyvio text (which I didn't contribute!) into another article. The copyvio part was removed and I myself rewrote the article. It happened a while ago and won't happen again, see here for details. If the comunity decides that I'm capable of being an admin, I'd be pleased to delete the copyvios on sight as I feel confedent in my judgement of what is a clear copyvio which should be speedied, and which copyvio is salvageable and should be marked with {{copyvio}} and just cleared of copyrighted material.

Since I'm highly engaged in WP:FY which has it's own stub sorting, categorising and disambiguating projects, I come across a lot of articles needing this kind of admin attention...

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

To be frank: no. There are no my articles or contributions to Misplaced Pages about which I'm particularly pleased. Because I just don't have enough time on my hands to make things the way I want them to look like. Some of my articles or contributions to Misplaced Pages to which I'm mildly pleased but which could be so much better:

• WP:FY - It's a nice project but could be much better if some actual work was done on it :-)
• references on Munich massacre - this was done before cite.php was introduced, but I'm quite proud of the effort I made to sort out more than 30 references this article has... but this article is a nice FA candidate and I just don't have enough time on my hands to advance it to the status :-(
• User:AIDbot - ah, my python offspring... nice one, but of course - could be better, if they just let me do the rollover with it, it would make management of WP:AID a piece of cake...
• Đorđe Balašević - very nice article, but badly underreferenced - will fix that, ah, you guess, when I get some time and then it'll be a fabulous FA...
• Some articles moderate in size which would be excellent if I knew what I know now when I wrote those (I learned to WP:CITE quite recently which is really sad...): Goran Bregović, Mirko Norac, Mladen Vojičić, Zabranjeno pušenje - all of this badly lack references so I can't say I'm really pleased with them, but if something has to be displayed - I'd display those.
• My small fetish articles: Sevdalinka, Alija Sirotanović - articles I feel mostly connected to and which I'll improve (add the references, ofcourse) as soon as my self-imposed wikibreak expires...

That's about it about things I'm (more or less) pleased in my work on Misplaced Pages.

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

I've had few disputes and solved all of them with (what I consider a) positive outcome:

• Upon some disputable reverts I had a discussion with estavisti (here and bottom of this talk page) ending with his stating "If only all disputes were so easy to solve.".
• Had a dispute with anonymous user (she was putting link to List of Bosnians to every page about Bosnian), which ended up with her apologizing for the mess she made and me giving her advices.
• I think that article about Independent_State_of_Croatia has some serious problems but considering the delicate and controversial topic of the article, I first proposed the change on the talk page. Contrary to my expectations, my proposed change was met with opposition, so I dropped it, although I think my proposal is great an guys objecting the idea are overreacting. But, my side was outnumbered, and I didn't engage in edit warring since I belive in wikipedia guidelines.
• Took part in editing of controversial and disputed article of Ante Gotovina in December last year. Conflicts with non-vandalizing users were resolved fast and easy, users I reverted were reverted by some admins too, no admins complained to my handling of this controversial topic... (see article talk page for lots of examples of my conflict handling)
• Did some edit warring on Franjo Tudjman article before I learned of 3 reverts rule. Never happened again, even if version online was pure vandalism (always waited for 24h). The edit warring in question was legitimate, as it came up later, see next point:
• User:Gildyshow / User:Vesa / User:Projects / User:Goorge conflict. I watched this users closely and gathered evidence (n.b.: not all of this evidence was gathered by me, I started the page and did some initial evidence collecting - it'd be rude and it'd be a lie to say I collected all that evidence) against this guy. Learned a lot about Misplaced Pages policy on sock puppetry and vandalism in general. It took me a week or so of knocking on different doors, but at last user was blocked (and after the admins finally registered him, he flipped or something like that and transformed to Squidward, but I didn't deal with him in that phase since I'm not an admin and I couldn't do much about it). This conflict is the reason why I've decided to take this nomination and why I take this nomination so seriously: I'd save lot of work to some people if I was an admin at that time as no admin seemed to react to our appeals to block this guy.
• Discussed infobox on Nikola Tesla article, proposed some changes that would conform the article to Misplaced Pages customs, encountered strong resistance, edited article once, was reverted and then abandoned the case. This illustrates my ability to conform to decision of majority, even if I think the decision is just ridiculous. details
• I had in interesting... thing which I think is not a conflict, but if I was voting for somebody, I'd like to know of this: AfD on Jeremy Rosenfeld which ended in keep, and then another one 2 days later which was delete and which I consider to be Jimbo's misusage of authority.
• Another situation where I had conflicts with other editors, but in the end everything was done the way I wanted it to be done: , .
• Some more reverting of what I consider to be vandalizm, judge for your self if I was right: , ,
• Maybe few minor disputes, can't remember each and every right now: , . I feel that I linked enough examples of my dealing with stressful situations, making the list even longer makes no sence... If you encounter any conflict in which you think I missbehaved, feel free to point that out, I'm sure we'll conclude that I did my best not to be a dick.

All in all, I think my record shows I'm able to keep my mind sober in conflicts and deal with vandalism in proper way.

Questions from JoshuaZ

1 I'd first like to thank you for your thorough answers to the standard questions. Now, while you have been very involved in articles related to the former Yugoslavia, I don't see much on other topics. Could you briefly discuss what you have done about other topics and why you have the depth and wide variety of article editing to be an admin?

Well, you re right, I do not have much on other topics: that's because I'm a WikiGnome on topic not concerning former Yugoslavia. But, I did do some editing there. I don't say I edited outside ex-Yu topics substantially, just that I did do some editing, but mostly minor. Here are articles which signifficantly benefited from my editing: Islamic Dinar, Munich massacre, Roma people, Music recording sales certification. Here are some of really minor edits I did out of ex-Yu space: , , , , .

Ofcourse, there's no point in naming every edit I made, but I think the few edits I named here prove the point: I rarely edit outside of ex-Yu, but I do.

2 From designing, implementing and maintaining your bot have you gained any experiences that would be useful as an admin?

Well, yes and no. I got familiar with policies concerning bots... but that's about it.

3 Have there been any times where you were insisting on a certain edit and realized later or during the dispute that your version in fact had a POV problem?

Hmmmmmmm... though one. I'm sure there must be some... will Šar mountain do? I reverted the silly double naming of the mountin (check out the history), but then realised that might be POVish and decided to drop the issue and leave the double naming of the mountain. Really can't remember any more... But, to be frank, I usually tend to conform to majority. If majority insists I have POV issues, I just drop the edit and move along.

4 Are there any admin powers that you would like to give to all users? Why or why not?

I really hated the fact that you can't move a page to a name which already exists as a redirect, so you have to bug an admin to do that. But, as I have learned recently, the issue has been adressed and now you can move pages to their own redirects without being an admin. So, the answer to your question is. no. Why? 1) This system works fine. 2) If all users were to obtain certain admin power(s), I think that situations like the one when Jimbo had to intevene few weeks ago (some admin blocked another admin and then got blocked by another admin and so on) would be much more common because RfA procedures seem to filter out the guys which are trigger-happy. 3) By requesting admin nominees to have a certain number of edits you make sure that the nominee "gets the feeling" of how Misplaced Pages works. And, some admin powers just need to be restricted to users which understand how Misplaced Pages works.

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

Hmmmmmmmmm... dunno, I like the way Misplaced Pages is now. Don't feel like anything should be changed. Never really thought about that since I'm not in position to change anything.

6 Under what circumstances will you indefinitely block a user without any prior direction from Arb Com?

Well, sockpuppetry is the obvious one... if I get firm evidence that a user is a sock and a user with CheckUser rights confirm the user is a sock, I'd block it idefinitely. Can't think of any other situation, though.

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.

Folajimi

Final (5/19/4) ended 21:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Closed early as unlikely to achieve consensus. Essjay 21:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Folajimi (talk · contribs) – Self-nomination. Folajimi 12:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. --Folajimi 17:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Assuming good faith here... I hope this process doesn't discourage the candidate. He seems to have positive, productive interactions with people from what I can tell... I think he's on the right track, though perhaps he should withdraw this RfA because it's just not gonna succeed right now. --W.marsh 03:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
2. Support. I've had excellent exchanges with this talented editor. He's obviously devoted to building the encyclopedia and has the right ideas, which counts for a lot as far as I'm concerned. Not sure why he wants to be an admin, but he must have his reasons. -- JJay 03:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
3. Support per all above. --Siva1979 04:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
4. Good faith Support. I've interacted with this friendly user on several occasions, and I like his interest in building this encyclopedia. I do think Folajimi needs to work in the "Misplaced Pages:" space a bit more, but I think given some time, we will have a future RfA candidate we can all support. — TheKMan 04:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
5. Support Meets all my criteria (except edit summaries - keep them up!), which is enough for a support from me. Unlikely to abuse admin tools. - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 07:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose (edit conflict) Sorry, but your malformed RFA leads me to believe that you aren't quite ready for the adminship role. In addition, your answer to question 1 is not specific enough, and the one specific duty you mention in there doesn't require adminship duties. I suggest you read WP:GRFA WP:ARL before nominating yourself (or being nominated) in the future. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose. To be blunt: you've not given me any reason to think you should be an admin. No logical reasoning behind nominating yourself... especially since the admin jobs you have listed can be done without admin abilities. --Darth Revert (talk) 19:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose Among other problems, the candidate's answer to question 8 is in direct contradiction to current policy. Furthermore, I am worried about a defensive tone in a number of the other questions, especially question 6. While lack of knowledge is fine for a general editor, a significant lack of Wikipolicy knowledge is not useful in an Admin. There are a variety of other, smaller problems with this candidate's nomination. I recommend that this candidate try to participate a bit more on WP:AFD and a few similar pages, and never to be afraid to ask a question when one does not know something. I strongly encourage this candidate to come back in about a 1.5 months with a better understanding of policy and a larger scale involvement with the Misplaced Pages community as a whole. At that time, I will enthusiastically support. JoshuaZ 20:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose From an answer below, it appears editor doesn't yet know what project space is. This indicates much learning is needed prior to mophood. Xoloz 20:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose. Your edit history and your questions to the questions indicate no need for adminship tools at this time. Please participate in more areas of wikipedia related to admin responsibilities such as fighting vandalism and increased paticipation in the deletion process and try again in three months and you will make it.--Dakota ~ ° 20:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose - Sorry, but I don't think you are prepared, try to learn more things, exploring the project namespace, after that, you'll be a better candidate. Afonso Silva 22:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose Per above. --Masssiveego 22:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose. As per above-- malformed RfA. Nephron  T|C 23:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose malformed, above comments. Admrb♉ltz (T | C | k) 00:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
10. Oppose: Sorry, I don't see a reason to support. Your edits are mostly adding {{wikify-date}} to articles and over 80% of your edits are in the main namespace. I would like to see more balanced edits and experience from you. Royboycrashfan 00:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
11. Oppose per all of the above. Don't like the answer to most of the questions given below especially Q10 by JoshuaZ. - Aksi_great (talk) 01:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
12. Oppose Not enough project related contributions. — xaosflux 02:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
13. Oppose per all of the above. --Danaman5 03:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
14. Oppose. Spend more time on Misplaced Pages, and I will support your next RfA. Covington 06:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
15. Weak oppose, too few project space contributions. JIP | Talk 07:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
16. Oppose lacks of project space contributions. --Terence Ong 08:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
17. Oppose prefer editors have more experience and all of the above--Looper5920 10:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
18. Oppose, potential admin's knowledge of policy & project-space and need for the tools should jump off the page in a self-RfA. Honestly don't see that here. Deizio 11:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
19. Oppose. - Mailer Diablo 15:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral (S). Meets my standards, but due to answers to questions (etc), neutral. — FireFox • T
2. Neutral - For whatever it's worth, I'm voting neutral. This editor's contributions are good, but they don't seem substantive enough for the editor to be called an admin. - Richardcavell 12:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
3. Neutral Better have more experience and better description why you apply yourself for adminship.--Jusjih 16:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
4. Well meaning, enthusiastic and good natured, with some experience in the right areas will make a great admin. Martin 21:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• Edit summary usage: 78% for major edits and 78% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 17:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• See Folajimi's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.

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

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

A: Mostly chores that most would find tedious, boring, or otherwise avoided — provided that I have a vested interest in the outcome. For example, I was involved with the recent effort to update Articles that need to be wikified. I joined the effort because I found the backlog to be rather irritating, and was willing to do edit all the entries manually, if I had to.

What I hope to get involved with are Requested moves/deletions, especially when the deletion is to accomodate a move.

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

A: While I am unable to pick a favourite, I am pleased with the contributions made by others to the PQCC entry. At the time I created the entry, most of what I could find on the subject was, for lack of a better term, subjective. However, another editor reviewed the content and was able to purge the POV from the entry which was injected during the stub's creation.

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

A: Aarktica is a possible example of how I would handle such a situation. Within minutes of creating the entry, another editor jumped in on me. As annoying as I found that to be, what got under my skin was the editor's arbitrary decision to move the entry without contacting me. Upon contacting the user, I was given a rationale for the action. Although I was upset about the meddling, I elected to drop the matter since it appears that the user meant no harm.

Questions from JoshuaZ

1 I notice that you did not finish formatting the top of your RfA (i.e. ending times, nomination statement, etc.) Is there a reason for this?

A: Thank you for pointing out the omissions. These happened because I had some trouble determining which elements of the template would be automatically modified/wikified by the system. I did notice the error myself, and did intend to correct any mistakes as time passed.

2 Please expand on question 2 above with other examples.

A: Most of my contributions are stubs; sometimes about people, sometimes about terms that I may be curious about. Most of these entries were created a few months ago (the last three are works in progress):

• A. Scott Berg, United States biographer;
• Alexandru Dimitrie Xenopol, Romanian historian who inspired the Iron Guard;
• Meg Beresford, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament's General Secretary;
• Henri-Jean Guillaume Martin, French impressionist painter;
• Leo Stein, art collector (and brother to Gertrude Stein);
• Ambrose Vollard, the John Peel of painters;
• Star Wars Tales, an interpretation of the Star Wars saga from Dark Horse Comics;
• Musical collective, a variation on the idea of musical supergroups;
• Working group, a term used quite often in a variety of circles, yet I could not find a succinct definition;
• Dissimulation, a term I stumbled upon while looking for mechanical animals. Not what I expected, but was enough to pique my interest in the term.

3 Please expand on your answer to question 3 above. Have you ever gotten into a conflict where you have not dropped the matter? If so, please elaborate.

A: This could be tough, considering that the example I was going to cite has been deleted. Nevertheless, I shall recall as best I can what transpired.

Yesterday, I stumbled onto Angela McMahon while working on wikifying articles. Based on its content, the entry on the subject was unqualified for inclusion in the encyclopaedia. As a courtesy, I placed a {{cleanup-date|April 2006}} tag on the entry. An anonymous user removed the tag without addressing the problem. The replacement tag I introduced was {{importance}}, hoping to educate the user on what was wrong with the entry. When that also was removed, I tried to engage the user in dialogue on the subject's talk page, but was ignored. My final action was to tag the entry for deletion, which was summarily carried out by a sysop. Only then did the anonymous user speak up, an action which I thought was pointless.

4 While you have an impressive number of mainspace edits(almost 2500), you have very few talk edits. Summing up all your different talk edits, one obtains about 300 talk edits or so. Can you respond to concern that this does not indicate an involved enough user?

A: Fair question, as I understand how that information can be seen as an indicator of a predisposition to antisocial activity.

Much of my correspondence is done with users offline, via email. It is my opinion that talk pages are for correspondence about content in the article space (after all, that is the face the world sees, right?) I have noticed the counter-productive activities (bickering, name-calling, wikispamming, wikistalking, retaliation etc.) that can occur on talk pages. This is a great demotivator for me, a real drain on my energy level.

The stubs and articles I have created draw a lot of energy out of me; I work at being as deliberate as possible when submitting contributions. This means that I spend a lot of time on diction, spelling and making the entry as coherent as possible. To this end, I have to limit my communication with others to what is constructive. There are users that I have either observed (or encountered) who seem to crave drama; something I am allergic to. I do not begrudge them for how they get their jollies; it is my responsibility to limit my interaction with such characters.

When I do contact other users, it is usually to request collaboration on an ongoing effort, inquire about an edit, or to offer my thanks and appreciation for an important revision which has been contributed.

5 You have almost no edits in project space. Do you have an explanation for this and/or a reason why this is not a strike against your becoming an Admin?

Pardon my ignorance; I have heard very little of this project space you mentioned. Could you explain what this is? Perhaps the person who welcomed me, ElBenevolente, should have informed me of that, as he was a mentor of sorts to me. He answered all of my questions, explained why an entry I created was deleted, and just gave me tips on how to work on articles. Then, a few months ago, the user suddenly "went dark" from Misplaced Pages; no note, no explanation. Attempts to contact by via email and the talk page were not responded to. Since then, I have done what I did best, create stubs, and try to clean up entries.

6 Are there any admin powers that you would like to give to all users? Why or why not?

I am of the opinion that such privileges shoud be reserved for those who have shown themselves to be excellent stewards of that which they have been given. Since I started contribution six months ago, I have encountered users who are, in a word, disagreeable. For me, it is inconceivable to picture a scenario where such "undesirable unmentionables" can constructively collaborate with other users; giving such the capacity to act as an admin would be ill-advised.

7 If you could change any one thing about Misplaced Pages what would it be(note, this question is open-ended, but I prefer interesting answers)?

Having a program to mentor newcomers would be very helpful. I believe that there are mistakes I made when I first came on that could have been prevented if I had someone to show me around. This may not be for everyone (those with a DIY ethos might object), but it may be helpful to have someone there answer questions, address concerns, and otherwise help those like myself who joined the project to help out while having fun at the same time.

Perhaps use of the Welcome tag should be restriction to those who are willing to offer orientation to newcomers?

8 Under what circumstances will you indefinitely block a user without any prior direction from Arb Com?

None.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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.

Tawker

Final (129/35/19) ending 01:21, April 10, 2006 (UTC)

Tawker (talk · contribs) – One of the most diligent users in terms of vandalism fighting, 10,000+ edits in varied namespaces in two months, and who doesn't know about his famous Tawkerbot2 (talk · contribs · count)? One of the "must-be" admins in Misplaced Pages as far as I think. (Previously nominated by Joshbuddy at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Tawker) – WB 21:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: -- Thanks, the people on IRC convinced me to accept -- Tawker 01:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Nominate and support. – WB 01:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
2. Danny 01:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
3. Support. —Guanaco 01:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
4. Strong support. Would make a great admin. — TheKMan 01:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

   Also, please look at JoshuaZ's support comment below. — TheKMan 18:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

5. Support; absolutely. Antandrus (talk) 01:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
6. Support - need to work on major/minor edits as NSLE notes below, but to me that doesn't outweigh positive contributions and strong policy knowledge. (ESkog) 01:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
7. Support. per above. exactly what I was thinking. pschemp | talk 01:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
8. Support. — nathanrdotcom 03:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
9. Support confident he'll make good use of admin tools. --W.marsh 03:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
10. Support. You know what you doing. — Apr. 3, '06 <freakofnur_xture|talk>
11. Support - If successful, it would be one of the most rapid rise to adminship of any user in recent memory. But I think that Tawker has the stuff. He's demonstrated that he'll revert vandalism ad nauseam. What more do I need to see? - Richardcavell 03:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
12. Support. Knowledgeable, friendly, trustworthy, dedicated. Per W.marsh. ~ PseudoSudo 03:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
13. Support good user, takes criticism well and responds carefully and kindly, which is very important in a vandal fighter. Makemi 04:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
14. Support. I'm worried about how early this nomination is, but you're an incredibly hard-core vandal fighter, so as far as I'm concerned you should get the mop and bucket now. Your responses clearly indicate you want the tools for vandal-fighting and not a newfound interest in closing AfDs (or whatever); otherwise I could not support you. -- stillnotelf is invisible 04:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
15. Support. A bit early perhaps, but I think Tawker deserves the mop and bucket. - Tangotango 05:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
16. Support - for the same reason I supported him last time. --Khoikhoi 06:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
17. Super strong support. He's a great vandalwhacker, and that IS what adminship is about (not completely, of course, but moreso than article writing). Everybody has an edit button; only admins have admin rollback and blocks. --Rory096 07:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
18. Strong support per Rory096. - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 10:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
19. Support - Major contributions to Misplaced Pages. Keeps his head in the face of criticism and conflict. --CBDunkerson 10:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
20. Support - If he needs and deserves the tools, why waiting? Afonso Silva 10:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
21. Support per pretty well all above supports (addition: and JoshuaZ's support below, which does an excellent job of detailing my reasoning for this support Petros471 15:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)). I find absolutely no evidence that Tawker will abuse admin powers- supported by the responses to many questions below. There is plenty to suggest that good use will be made of them, and all evidence points to Tawker having the right attitude towards it (well IMHO at least!). I am still slightly puzzled as to why people see article contributions as an important admin criteria. Whilst I have no doubt that article writing is the most important job here (after all Misplaced Pages wouldn't exist without it), admin tools have nothing to do with actual article writing. Petros471 12:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
22. Support On one hand your bot targeted an OLD pic of mine, on the other hand you do a lot of anti-vandal work, and given the amount of obsessed craven vandals on Misplaced Pages lately, we need good admins...so you get my support...congrats!TruthCrusader 12:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
23. Support —Locke Cole • t • c 12:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
24. Support Naconkantari e|t||c|m 12:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
25. Support I don't often give my reasons for voting one way or another in an RfA, but in this case I will due to the importance of the RfA and the unique nature of the candidate. I apologize in advance for the length of this note. I think that we often lose sight over what RfAs should be about. An RfA should determine 3 things: 1) Can the user benefit from admin priveleges? 2) Is the user likely to abuse the admin priveleges? 3) Is the user lacking in knowledge of policy or general competence to an extent that they can do serious accidental damage with admin priveleges? To determine answers to these questions, people have developed a battery of different tests. Common criteria involve edit counts, edit summary percentages, number of articles brought up to "good" or "featured article" status etc. However, we sometimes forget that these criteria are a means to an end, not definite necesseties in and of themselves. The fact is that Tawker is a unique case where we can answer these questions without using standard criteria. Can he benefit from admin abilities? The answer here seems to be unequivocably yes given his various answers. Is he likely to abuse them? The answer should be again obvious, no. Even after spending months combating vandals, he has never once lost his temper with one, and is by everyone's descriptions a reasonable individual who works well enough with the community that he has constructed not one, but two bots, one of which we have let him put on active on an almost completely general basis. Is he incompetent or unaware of policy? I think again, the answer is obviously no. The competence required to construct and maintain his bots indicates a level of technical knowledge exceeding that of many admins and in the process he has learned a large amount about the Misplaced Pages rules and guidelines. Furthermore, his other edits and his general vandal reversions have let him pick up a good understanding of other rules and guidelines. I am also confident that if he does not know the relevant rules/guidelines/past precedents on something, he will ask others for assistance. Given all this, I do not see why he should not be an admin. JoshuaZ 12:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
26. Support Will be a great admin. --Siva1979 13:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
27. would make a great candidate. Pegasus1138 ---- 13:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
28. Support per Joshua. Guettarda 13:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
29. Support after some consideration. TimBentley (talk) 14:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
30. Support I think hes ready eh? Keep up the good work. Mike _{(T C)} 15:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
31. Strongest possible support Go go gadget IRC vandal fighting!!! Tawker has shown me every intention of being a great admin. ⇒ SWATJester Aim _Fire! 15:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
32. Support, after spending a whle reading his answers and thinking about it and then spending even longer working out where the last voter's signature ends. Palmiro | Talk 17:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
33. Strong support based mostly on the TawkerBot2. 13,000 vandalisms reverted in a month convinces me this guy deserves the mop. I doubt most of us here have ever had 13,000 reverts. Tawker accomplishes in a month what most of us couldn't accomplish in a year. Smart, smart, smart. --Firsfron 17:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
34. supportBenon 18:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
35. Support Very good vandal whacker. _-M P-_ 18:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
36. Support (S). — FireFox • T
37. Support. I've given this one quite a bit of thought. Usually, this would be far too new for me to support. However, my experiences with Tawker both on IRC and in Misplaced Pages User talk space have been very positive. I have absolutely no reason to believe that this user would abuse the tools, nor reason to believe that he doesn't understand the policies which use of those tools are governed by. In the end, for me, this user was too good to not support. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 19:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
38. Support Tawker is a solid member of the counter-vandalism effort, operating bots, and helping out at IRC. He'd do just fine with the mop. --Jay(Reply) 21:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
39. Support 'Tawker and the bots' have helped Misplaced Pages greatly, even if not in the conventional way. Prodego 21:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
40. Support A veritable dynamo of awesomeness. --InShaneee 21:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
41. Support Yes it's early but after considering the man, the bot and the answers below I can't see any reason other than "too soon" not to support, yet it's not too soon for Tawker to be a massive help to WP. Deizio 22:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
42. Support absolutely. Perhaps has done more to fight vandalism than any other user, ever. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 22:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
43. Support, no problems here. —BorgHunter (talk) 22:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
44. Support per vandal fighting. -- King of Hearts 23:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
45. Support per JoshuaZ and Tawker's answers below. Impressive. Gwernol 00:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
46. Strong Support Tawker is the author of one of our main vandal-fighting tools and his work would certainly benefit from the access to the tools. What more can be said? abakharev 00:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
47. Support one of the first people I would go to if I needed help with something. He is certainly commited to wikipedia. --Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib 01:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
48. Strong support per JoshuaZ, Makemi, and Rory. Joe 02:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
49. Just came out of IRC arguing vehemently against Tawker unblocking his own bot... saying that it would be wrong for an admin to unblock his own bot! when Tawker pointed out he wasn't an admin! Imagine my surprise. So anyway... this is an odd case, he doesn't fit the numericals of many of us but darnit, he's admin material. Yes, please, do become more well rounded but... STRONG support. PS he wasn't arguing in favour of unblocking his own bot anyway, I was confused two ways there... ++Lar: t/c 02:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
50. Support per JoshuaZ. Mikker 03:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
51. Support per nomination. ~Linuxerist L / T 04:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
52. Support helpful cheerful very positive user. Knows wikipedia's in and outs pretty well, though I'm sure he has more to learn, but then again, so do we all. joshbuddy 06:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

    Sorry, but anons cannot vote in RfAs. You are welcome to get an account and then vote. JoshuaZ 05:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

    Whoops, sorry, I thought I was logged in. joshbuddy 06:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

53. Very very very very strong support. He's been absolutely incredible so far. I was going to nominate him myself but I guess someone already beat me to it. This guy should be given the mop pronto. :) Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 06:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
54. Strong support I can't tell who does a better job, CSCWEM or Tawker. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 06:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
55. Support: Great vandalismfighter!! Go! Go! Go! --Andy123(talk) 07:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
56. Support —Wayward 07:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
57. weak Support. Tawker would do a hell of a lot of good for the CVU with block-powers. Not quite sure about about his non-vandal-revert contributions, I'd expect more encyclopedic involvement from my admins. +Hexagon1 (talk) 08:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
    Support, looking over recent contributions, it appears he has started making more encyclopedic edits, and I'm a little scared at how fast he replied to my vote. I was also convinced by Rory096's vote - after all, admin-ism is just vandalwhacking powers beyond the scope of normal users. +Hexagon1 (talk) 08:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
58. Support. A trustworthy user (and that's the only qualification you need!) Waggers 11:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
59. Support not likely to abuse the tools and hey, might figure out a few new tricks for us while he's at it. .:.Jareth.:. 12:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
60. Support per JoshuaZ. I admire the user a lot. So what if his edits are bot-like? He would make an extremely useful admin. - Aksi_great (talk) 15:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
61. Support, the feedback he has been handling about his bots has already made him well informed and in line with Misplaced Pages policy issues. He is ready. NoSeptember 15:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
62. Martin 16:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
63. SupportStabiloBoss 17:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
64. Support. It's funny, when people mostly work on writing/expanding/copyediting articles, their admin noms are opposed because "admin tools are not essential for that". When they fight vandalism, they get oppose votes because "they are not active in the main space". It's a miracle we have any admins at all.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 17:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
65. Strong support. Several objections below are that the candidate is primarily a vandal fighter. In my opinion, that is exactly why this RfA is in order. The most important thing a vandal fighter can do is to block persistent and incorrigible vandals. Until they have admin status, they can only warn and then wait for an admin to show up to finish the job. In the meantime, more pages are vandalized. Give this guy the ability to block vandals. That is for me a sufficient justification for my vote. Bucketsofg 19:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
66. Support Like many of the opposers, I generally prefer to see a longer membership; but I've had Tawker's bot's talk page on my watchlist for a while and I have seen him put up with and respond considerately to more than enough hasty (read: uncivil) comments for me to feel I know his style well enough to offer wholehearted support. I find his responses below balanced and reassuring too ~ Veledan • Talk 21:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
67. Support Jedi6-(need help?) 22:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
68. Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
69. Support, changing vote, great user, with a good grasp on policy. JohnnyBGood 00:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

    Is there a reason you changed your vote? --SPUI (talk - RFC) 00:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

    Yep, and if you must know, I've reviewed this user's work more indepth and found them more then qualified. JohnnyBGood 00:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

    More qualified due to their actions against me? --SPUI (talk - RFC) 00:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

    Nope, just more qualified all around. I'd dismissed him as too new but he's done alot with his short time here. And your implication would assume bad faith or WP:DICK on my part. JohnnyBGood 00:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

70. Support. Editcountitis need not apply here, good user that needs a mop. T K E 00:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
71. Support Admrb♉ltz (T | C | k) 02:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
72. Support —Quarl 2006-04-05 04:03Z
73. Support Joe I 04:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
74. Support --Connel MacKenzie 04:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
75. Support: excellent vandal fighter whom I have run into on a number of occasions. I have also been impressed by his work with Tawkerbot2 - not only with its ability to revert vandalism, but also with Tawker's willingness to address issues with the both while being upfront and courteous about the problems. Would make a great administrator. --Hetar 05:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
76. Support Normally, I would not support a new editor, but the sheer volume of vandal fighting he's done and helped others do has given editors more time to edit Misplaced Pages. If he weren't a level-headed person of course, that wouldn't matter a hill of beans. But, this isn't the case. —-- That Guy, From That Show! 2006-04-05 06:02Z
77. Support One of those people who works hard behind the scenes with little reward to keep wikipedia vandalism free --Spook 06:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
78. Support --Irpen 07:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
79. Support, great work and no reason to suspect anything bad in the future. --AySz88^-^ 07:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
80. Support. --Carnildo 08:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
81. Support, great vandal fighter but I would like him to have more major edits in the article space. --Terence Ong 08:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
82. Support Grön 11:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC) Vandalfighters of the world, unite and take over
83. Support. Shame on the opposers. --Ghirla 17:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
84. Support. Yeah. — Rebelguys2 19:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
85. Support. Naturally. Agathoclea 22:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
86. Support - Ganeshk (talk) 22:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
87. Support (low risk of misuse) + (significant benefit to Misplaced Pages) = (my support) -- JamesTeterenko 22:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
88. Support, bitch. Screw lack of article-edits or whatever you're whining about. This guy is not going to abuse admin tools, period. Werdna648/_C\ 00:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
89. Strong support Dedicated,level-headed editor who will get a lot of use from the tools and will not abuse them. TigerShark 04:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
90. Support. You don't need a PhD in Armchair Philosophy to revert clearcut vandalism, and it seems appropriate for him to be able to add a little more muscle to his bag of anti-vandalism tricks. Since he'll probably continue to spend most of his time on vandalism issues, he has plenty of time to gradually get acquainted with other administrative tasks and associated policies if he ever finds the time or the inclination. -- Curps 05:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
91. Support per dedication to Misplaced Pages. ˉˉ╞┬╡ 06:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
92. Support he needs power tools to do his job to the best of his ability. I trust him with them. -- Samir (the scope) 07:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
93. Support because Misplaced Pages will be a better place once this person is given the tools necessary to fully clean up after vandals. Silensor 07:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
94. Support. A great wikipedian who will benefit from Adminship. Gflores 17:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
95. Support, for Tawkerbot2, fastest blanking revert in the west! CaptainVindaloo 18:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
96. full support -- so he fights vandals and doesn't contribute to articles so much? The amount of work he put into vandalfighting alone merit my support. Hell, I'd support adminship for his bot too, admins looking after existing articles is exactly the backup needed by editors who prefer to busy themselves with writing articles. dab (ᛏ) 21:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
97. Support. if sysop tools will enhance his abilities to keep this place ticking over, wikipedia can only benefit.--cjllw | TALK 01:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
98. Andre (talk) 02:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
99. Support, going to be a good admin. Vulcanstar6 02:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
100. --Jaranda 02:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
101. Support yes. --a.n.o.n.y.m 02:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
102. Strong Support Tawker, you've created a super-good vandal-fighting bot, Tawkerbot2. I respect you very much. Everytime i'm vandal-fighting, I come across your bot, and I always know that someone is with us to protect Misplaced Pages until the end. Funnybunny 03:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
103. Support. Why on earth not? There's nothing wrong with specialty admins, and this one would certainly be trustworthy. Chick Bowen 04:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
104. Support.-Ravedave 06:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
105. Support. Very good. this guy deserves adminship. if you can do that much in reverts i can see you doing a lot with admin rights. --preschooler.at.heart my talk - contribs 06:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
106. Support. I looked over his edits and am confident that he will be a capable trustworthy admin.--Dakota ~ ° 06:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
107. Mega support. No question.--Adam 10:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
108. I am Tawker, please insert support Sceptre 12:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
109. support Not just supporting Tawker because I wrote on my "manifesto" that he was already an admin. A vandal-cruncher. --Dangherous 14:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
110. Support. Okay, so he doesn't do anything but whack vandals — so what? He whacks them good'n'hard. —Nightstallion (?) 15:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
111. Support. I usually would want an editor to be here longer before becoming and admin but Tawker is amazing. Love the bot. --Alabamaboy 17:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
112. Support. Jon Harald Søby 17:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
113. Support 10,000 is two months??? Keep up the good work pal. The ed17 19:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC) (talk)
114. Strong Support - We need more good programmers to be admins. And I've talked with Tawker (he setup a Misplaced Pages channel on his Ventrilo server) and he's great. A lot of the oppose votes below are based on "not enough time". We need to examine what that really means ... they're basically saying, "Not enough days have elapsed since the account was created". In actuality, Tawker has put in a lot more of his time than most RfA candidates have. Number of months is relative. We've seen enough of him in these past two months to know he's going to be a great admin. We don't unnecessarily need to wait any extra time before we hand him the mop. --Cyde Weys 19:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
115. Support -- Psy guy 22:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
116. Support per nom. I'm sure Tawker will make a great admin. --Arnzy (Talk) 01:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
117. Support --Count Chocula 02:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
118. Support per JoshuaZ and the idea that adminship should be no big deal. — TKD::Talk 04:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
119. Support Edits to project space can quickly and easily be inflated in someone is attempting to become an admin. On the other hand fighting vandalism is becoming a full time job and if someone wants to do that then provide them with the tools to help. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
120. Support —Xezbeth 11:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
121. Strong Support Leidiot 12:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
122. Support per JoshuaZ. —Ruud 18:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
123. Support. Based upon my own personal interactions with Tawker, I believe him to be a trustworthy individual who, as an administrator, will only improve the Misplaced Pages experience for visitors and editors alike. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
124. Support. Misplaced Pages will benefit from having Tawker as an administrator. While there are valid concerns in the oppose votes, I believe Tawker can address them by going slow on the non-vandal related admin functions at the beginning, and gain more experience in these areas on the job. Kusma (討論) 21:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
125. Support. A fine administrator on Wiktionary, and certainly has shown general good judgment from all I can see. --Dvortygirl 08:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
126. Support. Adapted himself quickly to wiki practice and standards and shows ability to cooperate and communicate. Vildricianus 10:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
127. Support. I totally support him to become an admin. The RFA is getting weired every day. I mean: Too much Vandal revert? No contribution to articles? C'mon, thats what admins are for. Counteracting vandalism! Now only people making supposedly good contributions to articles are allowed as admins and vandal fighters are shunned? Come on! --Exir Kamalabadi 10:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
128. Quite unlikely to abuse the tools, and I think we have seen enough of Tawker to make a fairly reasonable judgment. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
129. Support. After reading this page and doing a random check of Tawker's edit history, his relative youth is a non-issue for me; he gets it. Besides, if somehow he (or any other SysOp) was somehow possessed of demons after receiving the tools, well, it's as easy for the community to taketh away, is it not? RadioKirk talk to me 19:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I really hate to be a dampener, and hope you understand there's nothing personal in this (not even your bot going wacky and targetting me), but how many of your article edits have been to improve and expand? They've mostly been vandal reverts, no? High usertalk edits are warnings? Project space contribution is low. I recognise your contribution of Tawkerbot2, but I think that for now, the only thing you need is godmode-light. Reluctant but strong and firm oppose. (I've included my optional questions below, a good answer could cause me to sway to neutral or support...) NSLE _(T+C) at 01:26 UTC (2006-04-03)

   Addendum, now that MathBot has finally provided the stats - only 51 major edits? I'm sorry, that counts against you in my book. NSLE _(T+C) at 01:33 UTC (2006-04-03)

2. Oppose. Definitely on the right track. Keep this up for a few more months, and I will be happy to support your RfA. Covington 01:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Two months is too new. Previous RfA failed because of too-newness, but the editor hasn't waited graciously for the (imo fairly-bright) line of three months. Makes me feel that he is too eager. Also, does essentially only vandal fighting for which admin powers are a help but not a necessity. Thus, little participation in other areas of the project (and essential experience in them), including the writing of, wait for it, the encyclopedia. Needs longer, broader and more general experience. Lots of hours being entertaining on IRC has little to nothing to do with what is needed in an admin, imo. Also, no particular evidence of policy knowledge beyond WP:VAND and WP:CSD — has the editor participated in such discussions, and can that be usefully guaged in 8 weeks anyway? (Not that I think him ignorant, but it seems like a strange assertion that needs challenging.) And I want to be absolutely clear that, should this succeed, it does not mandate Tawker giving any of his bots admin access. -Splash 02:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

   I've left a note on Splash's talk page about most of the other concerns but I want to make this one fact boldly clear under no situations whatsoever will Tawkerbot2 touch my "Tawker" account. If a supermajority of users (95% or so) wants the bot to have sysop, sure, I'll think about it, but that would be a clearly marked as bot account being promoted not mine -- Tawker 02:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

4. Oppose. Too few major edits in the article namespace indeed. An administrator should have more experience in that area. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose per NSLE and Splash. 51 major edits + only two months active editing + second nomination already = a very uneasy feeling about this candidate for now. I look forward to supporting someday, but please do spend some time do content editing, and wait a tad for adminship. Some content editing is a very important prerequisite to mophood. Xoloz 03:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

   I'm going to admit my one big WikiSin here (and I'm sure I'm going to get hammered for it.) I have the option for "auto mark all edits as minor" enabled and I am horrible at turning it off. I've worked on fair number more articles than my major edits count. Feel free to attack me for this terrible crime :) -- Tawker 03:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

   Hmm, one major example of this seems to be Canadian federal election 2006 with 8 contributions. From a glance it looks like Tawker has about another 50 or so major edits, many of them significant. JoshuaZ 03:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

6. Oppose Per all the above really, not much else I could say. Great at whack-a-vandal, but I'd like to see more contribs to article writing and/or improving. KnowledgeOfSelf 04:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose - as above. Keep up the good work though. Tawkerbot is the win. - Hahnchen 08:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose per above. Weatherman90 14:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
9. Weak oppose. Has done a lot of good work, but have to oppose per NSLE and others. Aucaman 17:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
10. Oppose Seems like a good guy, but some experience only comes with time. --NormanEinstein 18:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
11. Oppose. My reason for opposing is simply one of time. It is my firm belief that an Admin nominee must demonstrate a reasonable amount of contribution to the Wiki, quantitatively judged by edit distribution and quanity, and qualitatively judged by, well, examining edits. I also believe that a nominee must also demonstrate commitment to the Wiki in terms of time. I believe that three months is the absolute minimum, and my personal preference is for four to five. This is not a statement about the quality of a candidate...a candidate that has what it takes to be a good Administrator has those qualities from their very first day on the Wiki, and a candidate that does not posess those qualities will not aquire them even in months of contribution to the Wiki. I believe that requiring a certain time commitment serves both as an opportunity for the candidate to observe and digest the various elements of the community, but also allows the community time to evaluate the candidate. Trust, but verify. Verification requires time. That is why I am Opposing. I would also like to comment on some elements of your answers that I noted. These are my opinions, and do not neccessarily reflect the viewpoints of the community as a whole. I happen to dislike NSLE's question #3, as I don't neccesarily agree that blocking abusive vandals who have targeted you is a conflict of interest, so to me the question itself is problematic. My feeling is that if users are vandalising and being uncivil, that is problematic, no matter if they are attacking you or someone else. If you would block them if their actions were directed at another user, I have no issue with you blocking them yourself. However, it's perfectly alright to get a second opinion, I just don't feel it's an absolute neccessity. Also, your answer to NSLE's question #1 seems to discuss taking steps to confirm whether the established editor is really using a sockpuppet or not. This is just me being picky about semantics, but in my mind the phrasing of the question you find out that an editor, ... has been using sockpuppets abusively. Implies the editor is a sockpuppet...in other words, you are informed as as established fact that an editor is abusing sockpuppets. I'd be interested to see what your response was, with that interpretation. I do however like your answers to a lot of the other questions, and I thank you for your work with Tawkerbot2...the more tools we have to fight vandalism with, the better. I think you are on the right path, but I feel you need some more time to experience Misplaced Pages, and learn more about the subleties of the culture here. Best regards, Ëvilphoenix 23:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
12. Oppose. After visiting this page three times to think it over. I definitely appreciate how useful the bots are and Tawker has always been friendly when I've looked over his talk. However, two months of solid contributions is just too little. I simply do not think there are enough examples of how Tawker works with others, outside of bot-related activity, to make an informed decision. The two RFAs in just short of a month make me uneasy as well. This is definitely a case where the "come back later" is for my benefit rather than the nominee's. - BanyanTree 01:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
13. Oppose Inexperience, too quick on the draw. --Masssiveego 06:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

    Comment There is further discussion of this comment, which may help to clarify Masssiveego's statement, on Tawker's talk page here (Masssiveego's comments/replies) and on Masssiveego's talk page here (Tawker's initial request for clarification and replies). Hbackman 05:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

14. Oppose Too new, too low on major edits and major edit summaries, and as I state in my admin standards, vandal whacking alone doesn't provide the proper perspective for dispute resolution and making decisions on deletions. —Doug Bell 07:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
15. Oppose I share the concerns of NSLE and others above. And two months just isn't enough time. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 12:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

    These quick requests for admin mean I must reluctantly Oppose, even though I am grateful for the efforts and the vandal fighting. Just feel that an admin should have a longer exposure to the community to help guide thier admin decisions Trödel 12:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC) See Neutral below

16. Oppose really only active for 2 months. As others have said before, some experience only comes with time. --Mmounties (Talk) 13:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
17. Oppose: not really long enough experience, sorry. Thumbelina 17:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
18. Oppose, but try again in a few months. Please use edit summaries more and turn off the minor edit default. Jonathunder 20:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
19. Oppose. Revert wars over {{unblock}} templates, calling their restoration "disruptive". --SPUI (talk - RFC) 23:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
20. Oppose try again in 6 months Merecat 02:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
21. Weak oppose, has only been really active for two months. JIP | Talk 06:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
22. Oppose the tawkerbot is reverting good faith edits which is rather worrying. Tim (meep) 16:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

    Just a little note about the bot, if its malfunctioning please let me know, RfA pages are not exactly the best place for bot bug reports. If anyone has any questions at all about the bot, positive negative or just saying hi, please do leave me a message and I'll do my best to address your issue -- Tawker 23:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

    Adminship is about responsibility, and you must take responsibility for the actions of your bot. I'm assuming that long-time editors will complain to you directly if they have been agrieved, but when I see that during your RFA it gives a bad impression. Tim (meep) 16:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

    I'm a little puzzled about your comment of how I have not taken responsibility for the bots actions. As soon as I found out about the error I took steps to correct it, once I found out about the bug the bot was fixed within an hour and an explanation was provided to the user who the bot reverted . Bots are complex and are bound to have some bugs, when I find the bugs I take steps to correct them, I don't know how you can see that as not taking responsibility -- Tawker 17:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

23. Oppose - Sorry, two months is just to soon to really know where you're going with this. I have no further advice beyond what others have said, but between the bot and AWB, 10,000 edits isn't what it used to be. -- nae'blis _(talk) 17:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
24. Oppose. Don't get me wrong, I like behind the scenes guys and vandalfighters, but he is still too new for now.Voice-of-All 17:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
25. Oppose. Being an admin is more than vandalfighting. It requires familiarity with the ins-n-outs of Misplaced Pages, Misplaced Pages policy, and Misplaced Pages culture. Two months of super vandal fighting is a great vote of confidence. Waiting another four months won't kill you, and I have few doubts that your nomination then will be overwhelmingly successful.—thames 20:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
26. Oppose per NSLE, Splash, Ëvilphoenix and BanyanTree. --日本穣 Nihonjoe 23:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
27. Oppose Tough one, because I think Tawker is a great contributor to Misplaced Pages. Other editors I respect disagree, but I don't think a concentration on vandal-fighting is a negative. However, I do strongly believe that two months as an active editor, no matter how great I think that editor is, is not enough time. Even if such a new user is completely familiar with our policies and guidelines, has a firm grasp on how Things Are Done - some more time is needed to fully process meta-themes and memes that float below (sometimes far below) the surface here. It requires not just knowledge and understanding, not just large and valuable contributions - but a longer-term feel for the community, how it reacts and how it doesn't. Personally, three months of active and meaningful contributions is the *absolute* minimum for my support, even for such a top-notch contributor as Tawker. For contributors without his Herculian contributions, 4-6 months of active and substantial editing is needed in my opinion. If this RfA fails, I would cast a support vote for him a month or two from now, barring any unlikely negatives between now and then. --Krich (talk) 21:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
28. Oppose. Not enough experience. Sorry. SushiGeek 01:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
29. Oppose per above.  Grue  07:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
30. Oppose for distribution of power reasons. Tawker's programs and bots do so much for Misplaced Pages that Tawker definitely "deserves" to be an administrator, but he has said that he will start enforcing the same areas that his programs control for information, giving him God-powers over Misplaced Pages with no oversight. The people who take action against others based on specific information should never be same people who generate the information. --Dragon's Blood 16:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

    Curious note: User does not appear on Interiot's tool due to replication lag, because the account was created only yesterday. What brings you to this RFA, sir? — Apr. 7, '06 <freakofnur_xture|talk>

    This account being a clear sock made me think of something. This comment is like saying that checkusers shouldn't be admins because they shouldn't have the power to block off the information they gain while doing a checkuser. Would we ever do that? I doubt it, and it's a pretty stupid idea, too, if you ask me. --Rory096 00:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

    This account does indeed appear to be a sock puppet account. I get suspicious when I see people already voting for WP adminship after just registering an account a few hours earlier. There's "assuming good faith", and there's "assume we're all idiots". After an apparently accidental double-vote for 'oppose', I start seeing red flags go off. I just want us to be careful; the voting should be fair, and now in two instances, it appears possibly rigged. I want to assume good faith, but this seems suspicious to me.--Firsfron 20:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

31. Oppose on time. Probably the great user the 100+ people above say, but given that it's extremely difficult and time-consuming to de-op unsuitable admins (and effectively impossible to de-op the marginal ones who'd there'd be no consensus to promote on the basis of "what we know now") a modicum of precaution is indicated, and two months isn't a sensible interval to assess this. I note that it very much tends to be the vandal-fighting specialists that are nominated on such bases, by and supported by others, and call upon them to apply a bit of self-correction in their community standards, and a bit less haste. Alai 17:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
32. Weak oppose Great user, on the right track, but now is just not the time. --Pilot|guy 02:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
33. Too soon after last nomination. That with some of the other thing mentioned (time, etc.) leads me to oppose for now. Sorry. --LV 01:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

    oppose - wait 3 more months. Merecat 07:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC) (duplicate votes are not allowed)

34. oppose - too new and apparently too young. (Not even young enough to drink.)--Primetime 08:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

    See and comment below.--Dvortygirl 09:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

    I don't want to appear to be interfering with a vote but please see this diff and this diff for Primetime deleting Dvortygirl's note as to the context that this vote came in as well as this vote change. This occured within 5 minutes of my deletion of what was agreed on to be deleted (in fact, it was a speedy as a recreate of deleted content) -- Tawker 09:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

35. Oppose, with sorrow, per above. Excellent contributor, but Splash and EvilPhoenix make good points. Hiding talk 16:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral per NSLE, needs more experince, may change vote if it's close --Jaranda 01:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutral. I'm torn here. On the one hand, he's only been active for two months. On the other hand, he's been very active with vandal-fighting for those two months. --Carnildo 01:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

1. Neutral, perhaps later. - Mailer Diablo 02:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

   Neutral: Only two months and 51 major edits to main namespace (plus some more that should have been major), but I don't really foresee problems if he had the admin tools. TimBentley (talk) 04:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC) changed to support

   Neutral, maybe next time as per NSLE oppose. Needs more major edits to the article mainspace. --Terence Ong 09:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

2. Neutral - as all above. This is a very close one; good vandle fighter (and Twakerbot 2 keeps getting better, it would seem), honest and intelligent user, but its the fact that this is a second RfA so soon after the other. For me, a set length isn't perhaps necessary, but some sort of regularity is required. The whole accidental minor edits things if the sort of the we newbies tend to do, it needs some time to iron that sort of thing out. if I were you I would take heed of the User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me debacle. A significant number of Wikipedians will reject all admin nominees for people who have been contributing regulalry for under about 6 months, for perfectly understandable - if a little inflexible - reasons. Set a date - say the end of June - reject all nominations before then, and if your contributions are hlaf as good and as useful as they are at the moment then you'll sail through. Robdurbar 10:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
3. Neutral - won't oppose, as I don't think he'd do anything dumb given the tools, and will be a benefit to the Pedia, but I can't bring myself to support Tawker; he's had very little experience of anything other than vandal-whacking and AWB. And just disable the 'mark all edits as minor' thing. Proto||type 11:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
4. Neutral, As per Proto I must plead the Swiss. But in another month or so if Tawker continues will have my unreserved support.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 13:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
5. Neutral, I've come across the user on many occasions, but put simply: 2 months is too new. I, for one, now have 3-4 months of experience and have failed 2 RfAs, and I only plan another one in mid-May. Great vandal fighter, many edits, but too new! Computerjoe's talk 17:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
6. Neutral. I suggest taking 2 months to focus on building articles and train others to fight vandalism. Would give a better perspective of Misplaced Pages. GChriss 19:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
7. Neutral No reason to oppose, but he's a little too new. Moe ε 21:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
8. Neutral because I'm not a regular RfA commenter or reader, otherwise moderate support because I agree with Moe that 2 months normally isn't enough, even for intensely active editors (in fact I'm afraid of editors like that burning out or going berserk over something). However, Tawker apparently brings experience from maintaining other wikis that would apply here, given that I'd think of him as a "specialist" admin whose main activities would involve technical tools. The usual admin candidate qualities I'd look for (basically, lots of on-wiki time with understanding of WP editing and admin culture, good dispute-handling experience and thick skin; candidates who say they've never been in a stressful wikidispute probably are not experienced enough) apply to Tawker somewhat less. I also wonder if he'd like to contribute to server side coding (or maybe already has contributed) and I'd think such back-end contributions are also relevant to RfA's wrt examining the candidate's participation level. Phr 10:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
9. Neutral Though all of that in two months is impressive, two months just isn't enough time to decide whether one is a trustworthy member. JaredW! 11:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
10. Neutral Good contribution especially in such a short period of time, but I would feel more comfortable supporting the RfA after a few more months. --BenjaminTsai 11:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
11. Neutral. Please use edit summaries more often as I do not consider 67% for major edits high enough. Deleting pages after your success will even require reasons.--Jusjih 15:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
12. Neutral. Impressive number of edits, but not enough editing/writing of articles for me to support. Nephron  T|C 23:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
13. Neutral needs 1-2 more months of such power editing. After all, time is key, not necessarily edits. Great user though. — Deckiller 22:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
14. Neutral Great guy and great programmer, but two months and not much interaction in the Wilkipedia namespace is not enough. WHat is the rush? Give it a couple of months, get involved in the community and I will surely support. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
15. Neutral while i don't think that tawker should be denied a mop and broom because he spends all his time fighting vandals- rather, i think ardent vandal fighters benefit greatly from admin tools- only 51 major edits is a bit concerning. will probably change to support if needed . . . --He:ah? 06:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
16. Oppose Moved to Neutral Your bots are doing some productive work, but you don't quite meet my usual thresholds, most of your edits seem robotic in nautre themselves (many via AWB's). I'd suggest moving all of your automated editing to one of your bot accounts. — xaosflux 03:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

    I did have about 500 AWB assisted subst's in there, everything bot'ish has now been moved to Tawkerbot and the vandal fighting on Tawkerbot2 -- Tawker 03:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

    After further research I don't see a good reason to keep this at oppose. — xaosflux 18:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

17. Neutral (Change from oppose) Have had some interactions with this user since my vote above and also reviewed more of his edits. I can't underestimate the value of his and Joshbuddy's contributions to Misplaced Pages through the Tawkerbot. I would vote full support, but just can't bring myself to do it because of the short time on wikipedia. But I think he will be a great admin, whether now - or in a couple months when I will definitely support. Trödel 11:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
18. After a lot of consideration, I'm placing an opinion here, rather than in the section above. I like the user; I think the user has the right stuff needed in a competent, sensible, head-screwed-on admin. I think, given time, that stuff will manifest. I don't see quite enough of the sort of editing I'd hope for in someone who is going to find, very quickly, that they'll be at the front line of a lot of disputes; your first month of adminship is rather comparable to being tied up in stocks while shit is thrown from all directions. This alone would drop me to a neutral here. Then I see the responses to the questions I placed below. I'm not too keen on two of them, which don't, to me, quite grasp what I was after. I'm still not opposing, because, as I said, I think the user should be an admin. Just, I don't think it should happen yet. Rob Church (talk) 01:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
19. Neutral - I don't think Tawker deserves an oppose, and I don't go in for arbitrary time periods/numbers of edits, but I'm concerned that his amount of time editing is relatively short and the evidence above suggests more experience of major edits would be useful before becoming an admin. I'd probably support in the near future once these criteria are met. —Whouk (talk) 12:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• Edit summary usage: 67% for major edits and 97% for minor edits. Based on the last 51 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 01:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  Edit summary usage for Tawker: 80% for major edits and 97% for minor edits. Based on the last 95 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace. (an updated one just go give people a little perspective) -- Tawker 20:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• See Tawker's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.
• I suspect Primetime's oppose vote this evening was a direct attack based on Tawker's deletion of IP edits by the still-blocked Primetime, adding mischief to Wiktionary. Primetime resists adminships because admins might make xyr copyvio and other questionable edits harder. Besides, Misplaced Pages has plenty of admins not *old* enough to drink but still doing great things.--Dvortygirl 08:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

   I would be using it to deal with blocked proxies (see WP:OP) either blocking or unblocking depending on scans (the proxycheck script on the OP page is hosted by myself). I do RC patrol a fair bit and if I'm not mistaken admin rollback is faster and more efficient (both time and server resources wise) than the godmodelight script I am presently using. I also do image patrol and I have had users request that I delete images that I have tagged. While it is not a massive annoyance for another admin to click on a delete link, it does take up time. I also have Tawkerbot2 give me a nice little poke whenever someone triggers it multiple times, being able to respond to those might be a bit of an asset.

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

   My pet project this month has been Queen of the North - I started the article as a stub, a bunch of editors beat me to making it into a real article whilst I was away at work but I've been updating the page a lot finding images (and gosh they're hard to find) etc as well as providing information broadcast via the local media. I think I like this article as it was one of my "I managed to beat other editors" (for once) and that made me happy :)

Update: Having just spent the last day rewriting West Vancouver I think my most pleasing edit has changed. This one was a little difficult to find information on, it was 2 hours at the library just to find the information I added though I really am pleased at the result. With West Vancouver likely to become a fairly well hit article with the 2010 games being hosted in part in the District, an excellent Misplaced Pages page is fairly important. I've also started steps to obtain copyright clearances (aka gfdl licensing) for various historical photos which will improve the visual aspects of the article bringing the history hopefully more "to life"

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

   I wouldn't say I have been in any conflicts in the sense of the word with a good faith editor. A vandal decided to attack me publicly (as well as several other editors) but as the editor refused to talk, it ended up in other admins just blocking for legal threats. Tawkerbot2 has brought up a little controversy (as I would expect it to do), I've always responded to every suggestion / comment about the bot, and I think I've satisfied everyone, though if anyone has any questions, I'm usually on IRC and my talk page is always open.

Any more questions are welcome here, I'll do my best to get back to you within an hour (though I'm afraid I will never be as fast as Tawkerbot2 :)

Questions from NSLE:
The following are hypothetical situations you might find yourself in. I'd like to know how you'd react, as this may sway my vote. There is no need to answer these questions if you don't feel like it, that's fine with me, (especially if I've already supported you ;)).

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

   I would make a note on the "original" editors talk page and see if it is actually them. One question that comes up is how do I know that they are using the socks without a checkuser. If they don't reply I'd post on WP:AN and ask on IRC and see what people think, we never want to annoy one of our valued editors.

2. While speedying articles/clearing a backlog at CAT:CSD, you come across an article that many users agree is patent nonsense. A small minority, of, say, three or four disagree. Upon looking the article over, you side with the minority and feel that the article is salvagable. Another admin then speedies it while you are making your decision. What would you do?

   Misplaced Pages is by consensus, if I felt that some concerns were not addressed I'd leave a talk page message but I wouldn't undelete, thats wheel warring and that is not a good thing.

3. You speedy a few articles. An anon keeps recreating them, and you re-speedy them. After dropping a note on their talk page, they vandalise your user page and make incivil comments. You realise they've been blocked before. What would you do? Would you block them, or respect that you have a conflict of interest?

   Ask another admin to take a look, conflict of interest scenarios are lose-lose normally and its best to avoid them

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

   I obviously wouldn't undo another admin's actions without talking to them first. I would likely make a statement of what happened and my attemps to get both sides talking on WP:RFAR but apart from that, ArbCom's consensus would know better than me. If ArbCom decides to reject the case, I would ask someone else to try and mediate, maybe a new party might start the needed dialogue.

Questions from JoshuaZ:

1. How would you respond to users who argue that your work has been almost exclusively in vandal fighting(even the article which you are most proud of you only have 14 edits, most of which are adding pictures) and that this lack of constructive (rather than anti-destructive) edits gives them reservations about making you an admin?

   Well, I admit I am one to use talk pages more to propose a change than to be BOLD. I've done a fair bit of work on creating stubs on Vancouver related articles, I've created some Canadian Scouting related articles, though in a sense they didn't get on the front page, hence I'm a little biased :). As for the people who will argue that this is not constructive to Misplaced Pages, if Misplaced Pages is corrupted by vandalism, Misplaced Pages doesn't work. I've run other Wiki's that have essentially nosedived due to the blatant amounts of vandalism that occur on them, its not likely to happen on Misplaced Pages but it does show the value of vandalism fighting.

2. (This question is the sort one gets in the US Senate when one is a presidential appointee in a comfirmation hearing and the President's party enjoys a majority in the senate). Given how helpful tawkerbot and tawkerbot2 have been, how would you respond to worries that if you are given admin tools you will spend too much time doing normal admin stuff and not as much time making the unique, useful sorts of major labor savers that you have previously made?

   I can't read WB's mind as to why he nominated me but I think he nominated me mostly so I can deal with the odd time the bot starts pestering me with lots and lots of messages (a mass vandalbot attack). I've sort of fallen in love with Tawkerbot2 (no offense to Tawkerbot(1) and unless it’s perfect it’s not going to be left alone. One of the other points that has come up is the odd revert where someone has asked a question about why the bot reverted. With the entries deleted, I'm in the dark as to what the content was, and leaving a "I really can't tell you" is not something I like to do

   Can't the bot archive its diffs off-wiki as it makes them? I'm not trying to doubt your candidacy, I think most of your answers are excellent and I'm just scratching my head a bit about this one. Phr 10:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

3. (Sort of a follow up of 2) Is there any aspect of your bot programing/similar work that would benefit from you having Admin abilities. If yes, please explain how.

   First of all, the bot will not have admin under any situation under my personal account. The example I've pointed out in the previous question is the biggest advantage it would have in bot delevopment would be the ability to review deleted edits. One could argue that the ability to unblock the bot once it's fixed would be nice (I haven't seen a block in there that isn't "feel free to unblock when its fixed" and it would save someone else's time but to me its a non-concern. The only "close to admin" feature that would be nice is the rollback button and if Request for Rollback passed that would solve that problem. Mostly it would just ease strain a little, both on the bots side and the servers side, and that would be nice IMHO.

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

   I think most aspects in the concept of Misplaced Pages work very well considering the scope of the project. The one little gripe I have right now is the current (technical) limitations that prevent some "good" editors from contributing due to the fact that ISP's and locations force them to use sharedip's which have been (rightfully) blocked for repeat vandalism. Obviously adminship won't solve that problem and I know it will be solved eventually (having discussed strategies on IRC to solve it, I know its very very possible) and is the biggest gripe I have with the site as is.

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

   Open proxies and extremely obvious sockpuppets (for example the impostors of Tawkerbot2 that seem to sprout up). The former because its a written in stone policy, the latter because impostors can easily wreck the reputation of an valued editor and its a threat to Misplaced Pages.

6. If you were constructing a level of editor between user and admin, how would they be choosen and what privileges would this new class have?

   This would be the rollback button only usergroup which would give access to the rollback button and the rollback button alone. This would basically go with the proposal already out there, the request wait a few days and if no objections be granted permissions.

   Of course, another possibly group could be the "trusted to bypass IP blocks" group but that might be better as an auto group and doesn't really mean any additional access.

7. If you could give any normally non-admin ability to all users what would it be?

   I'm not in favour of granting any ability to all users

8. What do you think of WP:BEANS?

   WP:BEANS is a necessary evil. As I interpret BEANS it means don't feed vandals information they could use to vandalize Misplaced Pages. While I rather the code for Tawkerbot2 be out in the open for everyone (as opposed to its current state of being open to "trusted" users), the BEANS idea of don't give vandals code that could cause a lot of harm to Misplaced Pages. In short, I would prefer that BEANS wouldn't have to exist but it exists for a good reason.

9. How do you draw the line between extreme POV pushing and vandalism?

   There is a massive grey area between the two and in a lot of cases people cannot say which an edit is. The rule of thumb I think of is "If I can explain why it's POV pushing it's POV pushing" otherwise its probably vandalism (or neither.) POV disputes are always something you want to have multiple people discussing, I don't think its the greatest idea for a single admin to impose anything based on their determination of a grey POV push.

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

    I would error on the side of caution and request a second opinion on the matter, possibly leaving it longer on the AfD and/or asking people to check it out, either on IRC or on a noticeboard. The only exception might be if all of the sockpuppet's are simply voting the exact same way.

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

    Well, sadly a lot of AfD's do not get the attention they probally should get. I think at a very very minimum 5 votes should be required (in ArbCom style, a no vote cancels out a yes vote). If that has not been reached, I would leave it open and possibly put it on an "votes not reaching consensus" page (if it doesn't already exist, I've been searching and haven't found it yet but it might be hidden). Misplaced Pages:Consensus amd Misplaced Pages:Supermajority do not give any exact figures with respect to minimum votes, only 2/3 (66%) for AFD.

Question from Naconkantari e|t||c|m (because you asked me to):

1. Why did you decide to join Misplaced Pages?

I did edit as an ip for a while and I think I had another account a fair amount of time ago, but bringing me into serious editing I was brought in by a friend. I think the fact that I used it a lot for projects and such, its my primary source of information and I just became a wikiholic. (I like questions, more more more :)

Follow up question I figure someone will ask: Why did you start major vandal fighting / working on Tawkerbot2?

Well, it ties into the info I was grabbing from Misplaced Pages and I ran across a vandal. It bugged me. I first was going crazy doing it manually it wasn't work, it was fun, almost a game. After that, I realized editing articles is more fun and that vandal fighting is a pretty good task for bots and Joshbuddy and I started work on the bot. I had the server so I guess it was named after me but it really is a join effort.

Follow-up question from — xaosflux

1. Would unblocking other accounts of yours be your primary remedy for their unblocking?

   Re: "One could argue that the ability to unblock the bot once it's fixed would be nice". If another admin blocked anyof your accounts when do you think it is approriate for you to lift the blocks yourself and why? — xaosflux 04:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

It does depend on the block summary summary. Most admins have either stated that the block is to be lifted as soon as the bot is fixed, some admins have said that they use the block button as a means of controlling the bot, stopping it so I can fix it. Take a look at the block log and you'll see most of them fit in the category. In those cases I think it's appropiate just to unblock when the bot is fixed. If the block is for something other than a "bot has a bug please fix and feel free to unblock" then it’s the judgment of someone else -- Tawker 04:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

On a second read of the question with another shot of espresso, I should point out that the only account in question is Tawkerbot2 and only for cases where its clearly marked that the big red (block) button is to control the bot due to a bug. -- Tawker 14:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I just took an actual detailed look through the votes and I think I should point out the fact that Tawkerbot2 was a joint effort between Joshbuddy and myself. I guess the main reason its named the way it is was the fact that originally it was a fork on Tawkerbot(1) to detect a couple mass vandals and then we got the idea of expanding it and well, it went from there. It's probably 50/50, the bot is a lot more work than just the code, it’s the other bot related stuff. The monitoring of the bot (oh yes, its monitored most of the time, I have a monitor (no pun intended) with its status screen going pretty much whenever I'm in the office has been mostly handled by myself (with the odd IM to Joshbuddy whenever I think we can improve something (false positive, missed obvious edit etc.) - Oh, and then there's the server (and the whatever it is a month I'm paying for it (though I admit, it doesn't just run WP bots, I've got some toys on it). In short, please oh gosh don't think this bot is my work and my work alone, its not. Joshbuddy and I spend the most time on it but lots of other editors help out too, way too many names to mention here (this page is already pretty long, don’t want to make it even longer) -- Tawker 21:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Just as a delineation of work, Tawker handles the user complains, monitors the bot and hosts the bot and pays for hosting costs. I programmed the bot and I monitor it, add feature requests and generally make sure its running in good health. Many others have contributed ideas and time to make to all run as smoothly as possible. I wrote the bot so I could get back to actually writing content, but maintaining the bot has become a rather full-time job. joshbuddy 21:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Questions from —Locke Cole • t • c

1. Can you explain your actions in these diffs– (all fairly recent)? Is this the type of conduct you would engage in as a sysop? If not, what did you learn from this experience, and how would you handle such a situation as a sysop? —Locke Cole • t • c 04:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

   Looking back at the situation, I do feel I reverted a few times too many and would not revert that many times in the future. I was on #wikipedia at the time and the general view was to disallow the unblock requests though I feel the best course of action now would have been to revert once and leave it at that (and/or ask someone else if I am already involved.) -- Tawker 05:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

   OK, and to be clear for those reading this, I asked for clarification on IRC–

   <LockeCole> Just so we're on the same page; you mean you'd remove the {{unblock}} once and not revert?

   <Tawker> correct

   This answer is (to me) perfect and I'll be keeping my support vote in place. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

   If I can butt in here, and ask the obvious dumb question: as you're not (currently) an admin, why are you reviewing and denying unblock requests at all? Or were you re-stating that the previous admin who looked at this has denied it? If so, this is from clear. Alai 22:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

   No, its not really a dumb question at all, all of them were already denied by previous users, I was just restating what had happened, you were correct -- Tawker 22:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

   Fair enough, thanks for the clarification. Alai 22:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Additional questions from Rob Church

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

   Answer Stress in some type of situation is something that every person has to deal with. In the past I've dealt in high stress situations, both in the real world managing various events during my years apast as the "go to" guy on various councils and committees. I have been told that I have been able to effectively and efficiently manage these situations, and I haven't felt burnt out though I did enjoy sleeping in the next day on a few occasions. Every now and then, everyone feels a little more stressed than they normally should be, it is at these times that it is often appropriate to take a short Wikibreak and go on vacation (and imagine, taking more photos). In short, if external or internal situations caused a little more pressure on me than necessary I might take a short Wikibreak, (and a break from the other things) and relax.

2. Why do you want to be an administrator?

   Answer While going through Misplaced Pages, finding interesting information, sharing information and more there things on occasion that are not right and require what is commonly referred to as "the mop" to fix. On occasion I have come across material that doesn't fit on Misplaced Pages, gibberish pages which serve no purpose but to attack another user, the (relatively rare in terms of the number of editors) user who refuses to stop causing harm to Misplaced Pages. Most of the time, I've just sent a request to an admin, either on instant messaging applications or on the freenode network, some of the admins (especially Water Bottle, the nominator who is often my first target due to his nice prominent MSN username that puts him at the top of my list) have simply said it would be better use of everyone's time if I simple preformed the actions myself. As several users have pointed out above in the votes, I won't be your "typical" admin in the sense of "typical" (as if we can define admins as being "typical"), I may use the sysop if I reach consensus to help stop the odd user who has chosen not to be constructive to the role of this site (Tawkerbot2 so nicely points out such users to me in big bold text for review) as well as look at the rare deleted edit where someone has asked a question about Tawkerbot2's actions and the edit in question has been deleted.

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

   Answer Mostly a technical position, administrators (by themselves or in groups) do not have the power to override the consensus of all editors. Administrators are somewhat like the police force, they enforce the guidelines and policies (laws) but they do not enforce policy that has not reached consensus.

4. What do you understand will happen at the end of this seven day discussion process?

   Answer If I may quote the Guide to Adminship "Sometime after the seven days for the RfA have elapsed, a bureaucrat will review the RfA and close it. A bureaucrat will close the RfA as soon as this is feasible, which may be hours or even a day or two after the formal closing date." In short, a bureaucrat will take a look at all of the votes all 3 ways and will determine if Misplaced Pages:Consensus has been reached. I will then be notified by talk page message of the decision. Pending the closure of this, I will probally make a note on my user / user talk page thanking everyone for voting (regardless of how they voted, some of the oppose votes have been just as insightful as the support votes), though having another look at the Guide to Adminship, I don't think I will be using up a lot of disk space posting ""thanks for voting" messages to the voters' talk pages. (As) this is unneeded and a waste of resources"

Thanks. Rob Church (talk) 02:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Optional Question (stolen from Clown's RfA): Which tie do you think goes best with a black shirt and a black dress jacket, a red one or a pearly white one? JIP | Talk 18:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I would say it depends on the situation and the impression someone was going to make :)

Optional Question (stolen from Clown's RfA): Got milk? —BorgHunter (talk) 02:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I do support local dairy farmers, Milk is good for you (though I prefer mine in the form of Ice cream :)

Even More Questions (well one) from Robdurbar

1. Although still high, your number of edits in March were less than half the of those that you completed in Februrary. Is there any reason for this and what level do you - roughly - expect to to be contributing at in the future? Also, what caused your sudden interest in editing Misplaced Pages, after a slow start? Robdurbar 11:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

   I had an account for a while (and my edits were editing mostly election data, that sort of thing; then a friend got me addicted) to the site. My edits will drop mostly because there's a lot less direct vandalism fighting, its more monitoring the bot and that sort of thing. It's giving me time to actually edit articles (and go to a Libary and find out how happy people are to find information especially if you say you want to improve Misplaced Pages). Editcountis can be fatal, a few extensive edits can be a lot better (and use a lot less disk space) than many many many small ones.

Unanswerable question from Carnildo & Onthost

1. Have you stopped beating your wife? --Carnildo 01:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

   I'm not shoving beans up my nose by providing an answer to that question. Actually, I'm single :) -- Tawker 06:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

2. How much wood could a wood chuck chuck if a wood chuck could chuck wood? The amount of questions in this RFA is ridiclious just like these questions. Mike _{(T C)} 04:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

   Well, assuming the wood chuck would chuck wood its output would be factored on various conditions including hardness of the wood, muscular mass of the wood chuck, water content of the wood. It is a formula, not a fixed number :) -- Tawker 06:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Very important question from Buchanan-Hermit

1. If a tree falls in a forest and nobody's around to hear it, does it make a stink? --Buchanan-Hermit™..SCREAM!!!.... 18:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think you typoed the question and meant to say sound, which Misplaced Pages defines as "a disturbance of mechanical energy that propagates through matter as a wave. Humans perceive sound by the sense of hearing." The falling of the tree would most certainly cause the majority of its potential energy to be converted into other forms of energy so yes, it does make a sound although nobody would be in the area to hear / record it. The fact that a sound is not heard does not make it a sound -- Tawker 18:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, he meant "raise a stink", and the correct answer is, it depends on the forest and previous activity therein. Illegal logging, for example, would raise a stink, while a natural collapse could raise the concern of public and private officials immediately descending upon the area to determine if it was simple tree rot or something far more serious, like Sudden Oak Death Syndrome. You fail. (With tongue planted firmly in cheek, RadioKirk talk to me 18:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC))

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

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

Fang Aili

Final (91/3/5) ended 01:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Fang Aili (talk · contribs) – Fang Aili, or Erica, is a person I see often on RC patrol, and I find her to be a very valuable line of defense against vandalism. In addition, her contributions to the encyclopedia and articles are very respectable, and she has a good grasp of policy. I think she would be a most worthy addition to the administrator roster. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. --Fang Aili 01:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
2. Strong premature support! ;) —Nightstallion (?) 17:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
3. "No big deal" support! --Misza13 18:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

   NSLE _(T+C) at 01:18 UTC (2006-04-03) Moved to neutral

4. Support a kind editor who would benefit from a mop and bucket Where 01:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
5. Support. of course. pschemp | talk 01:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
6. Support JoshuaZ 02:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC).
7. Support. Great user, friendly too! Gflores 02:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
8. "Adminship is no big deal." - Mailer Diablo 02:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
9. Support - this is one user I welcomed! :) Renata 02:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
10. Support Excellent, trustworthy, level-headed user. Xoloz 03:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
11. Support An excellent user who will continue to find vandalism. We need more admins like this. - Richardcavell 03:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
12. Support Easy choice for me. KnowledgeOfSelf 04:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
13. Support. Always friendly on IRC and good editor. - Tangotango 05:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
14. Support Per all of the above. Banez 05:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
15. Of course. If Sjakkalle thinks you "have a good amount of contributions to articles, a good record of fighting vandalism, and a good record of being sensible", little more need be said. Good luck.;-) —Encephalon 06:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
16. Support I'm sure this user would be a great admin.  Grue  08:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
17. Support, she's good. --Terence Ong 09:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
18. Support (so many good noms lately). Meets criteria, great editor. - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 10:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
19. Support, looks like another good'un. ProhibitOnions 10:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
20. Support - Seen her around doing lots of good things. --CBDunkerson 10:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
21. Support On the fence a bit...but, can't find any reason to oppose so you get my vote...good luck! TruthCrusader 12:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
22. Support this is another one of the good ones, for sure.--Deville (Talk) 12:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
23. Support A good editor. --Siva1979 13:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
24. Support - an obvious choice. Weatherman90 14:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
25. Support friendly and civil, a good grasp of policy and very dedicated to the project. We need more admins like this. --JoanneB 16:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
26. Support changed from neutral...hope to see you in #vandalism-en-wp. ⇒ SWATJester Aim _Fire! 16:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
27. Support. --Rory096 17:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
28. Support. Good editor, friendly person; will make a good, level-headed administrator. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 17:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
29. Support, seen her around; never have had real communication, but from what I've seen, no problems here. -- Jjjsixsix /_(c) @ 18:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
30. Support (S). — FireFox • T
31. Support --Jay(Reply) 20:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
32. Support Moe ε 21:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
33. Extreme "What an Esperanzian!" support - kind, civil, exciting, invigorating, knowledgeable and all-round nice. Keep it up! --Celestianpower 22:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
34. Support. We seem to run in similar circles, and we have cooperated in dealing with vandals (although we've never spoken before - hi, Erica). We can always use more admins like her, and I wish I could always stay as civil as she does. Kafziel 00:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
35. Support, this mop's for you Deizio 00:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
36. Support. I've looked though her talk and user talk edits; she's a good communicator and will do a great job. ×Meegs 02:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
37. Support Rc patroller, good amount of edits, lots of experience, why not? -- Patman2648 19:48 3 April 2006 (UTC)
38. Enthusiastic Support! I was about to nominate her myself :) -- SonicAD (talk) 05:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
39. Support, very friendly user. -- King of Hearts 05:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
40. Support. Looks good, as far I can tell. Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 06:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
41. Support, good user. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 06:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
42. Die die must support!--Tdxiang 陈 鼎 翔 (Talk)ContributionsContributions Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 07:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
43. Support - no issues here. Proto||type 08:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
44. Support- I was a little unsure about how to vote for this nomination, until a read all of the other support votes. JaredW! 11:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
45. Support- Good contributions, experienced, will be a good addition to the rank of admins. --BenjaminTsai 11:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
46. Support You don't need thousands of edits per month to be a valuable and trustworthy contributor. Waggers 11:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
47. Support, looks good. Kirill Lokshin 12:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
48. Support will make excellent use of the tools and we could really use a few (million) more good people over at Copyright problems. .:.Jareth.:. 12:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
49. Support A nice person. Karmafist 12:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
50. Support--Jusjih 15:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
51. Support--StabiloBoss 17:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
52. Support Jedi6-(need help?) 22:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
53. Support good editor. --a.n.o.n.y.m 01:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
54. Support The 2 oppose votes look like socks... Merecat 02:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
55. Support, I am always impressed by her contributions and feel she should certainly be an admin. -- Natalya 03:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
56. Support good candidate --rogerd 04:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
57. --Jaranda 04:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
58. Support--PaddyM 04:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
59. Support -- Strong RC patroller. Good editor. Level headed. Work well with the mop! -- Samir (the scope) 04:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
60. Support good editor, will be a good admin. Gwernol 05:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
61. Support Need I say more? Covington 06:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
62. Support Good editor. Promotion well deserved--Looper5920 10:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
63. Support. Good editor, good level of activity (whatever the oppose voters say), and quite enough good quality edits edits over variety of namespaces.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 16:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
64. Support. Has some real contributions to encyclopedia in addition to vandal fighting; good answers to questions. —Doug Bell 17:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
65. Support. Could do great things with the mop. haz (user talk) 17:54, 5 April 2006
66. Support I'm fer her. T K E 18:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
67. Support. Looks good. — Rebelguys2 19:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
68. Support. Upon closer examination, I actually know this person in real life. Scary. Mackensen (talk) 20:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
69. support ILovEPlankton 21:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
70. Support - Ganeshk (talk) 22:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
71. Support per nom. --日本穣 Nihonjoe 23:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
72. Strong Support This user has been valuable to wikipedia. Will be even more so after adminship. ---J.Smith 23:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
73. Support. Looks like a good choice. Nephron  T|C 01:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
74. Support. Keep it this way, it's great. --Tone 12:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
75. Strong Support. She will make an excellent admin.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 19:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
76. Yes please! A superb vandalwhacker who I'm often to be found trailing behind, Speedying and Blocking what she leaves in her wake. Now you can do your own dirty work, Erica! :o) ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 21:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
77. Support Fad (ix) 00:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
78. Support seen this person around, very good user.--Alhutch 17:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
79. Support joshbuddy 17:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
80. Support. She can be trusted with the golden mop.--Adam 00:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
81. I've seen this editor around, and what I've seen, I liked. Seems to have a good, level headed approach to things and I see no reason to oppose. Support ++Lar: t/c 03:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
82. Support per answer's to Masssiveego's uh... questioning... --W.marsh 03:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
83. Support Good editor. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
84. Support Mike1024 (t/c) 16:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
85. Support —Ruud 18:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
86. Support Rama's Arrow 20:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
87. Support Solid candidate. --Andy123(talk) 20:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
88. Support. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 04:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
89. Support. A worthy selection. Sarge Baldy 06:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
90. Strong Support --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
91. Strong support, answers to Masssiveego's questions were, to my mind, exemplary. Hiding talk 16:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. No way! Boooo!!Buckeye80 02:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

   User has two edits, the other was obscene userpage vandalism.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

   Note this user has been indefinatley blocked for proclaiming sockpuppetry/vandalism 1(dif avail to admins/'crats only) — xaosflux 04:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

2. Are you kidding me, this guys a joke! Alabamaslamma 02:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

   Only edit by the user.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

3. Oppose Unresponsive to my questions after 24 hours. --Masssiveego 07:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

   Not being on Misplaced Pages at the time and being unresponsive to a question within 24 hours is not a valid reason for opposing someone. Moe ε 19:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

   Actually it proves that the User in question was irresponsible, careless, and fails to pay attention, and typically unavaliable. If Fang Aili job was to become an Admin, she could have demonstrated the actions of one, and answered the questions within 24 hours. The failure to answer the questions in a timely manner in my mind, casts doubt on the RC patrol experience, and skills of this user. Fang Aili either takes the admin role too lightly, still does not understand how to use Wikipedias resources, or is too careless. Anyway put, not qualified to be given Admin tools. --Masssiveego 03:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

   I have not expressed an opinion on this nomination, nor will I, but I find this comment to be rude, totally unhelpful, and to be blunt, absurd. I urge the bureaucrat who closes this nomination to ignore this comment, as the rationalte expressed therein is beyond ridiculous and completely incoherent. This sort of strained reasoning is what makes people think that this user is determined to oppose virtually any and all nominations simply because he can.--Sean Black 03:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

   Please define absurb. I have given my reasons as clear as possible. The completely missing the questions for 24 hours despite with an obvious log entry of the user in question being on Misplaced Pages during the time period in which the user may have answered the question. It is irresponsible of the user to ignore users duty to monitor the users own RFA. If the user will not monitor a simple RFA for questions, the user cannot be trusted to monitor other more important aspects of the Admin duties. It makes me wonder what if she is even paying attention during her RC patrols or merely using a bot after that. I have no confidence in the comptency of this user, hence my oppose vote.

   Further attempts to urge the bureaucrat to ignore my vote, in this manner will be treated as a WP:personalattack in the future. As you have in no way countered the primary reason, and are only using the call to the bureaucrat as a means to attack my reputation. In a way calling other users to ignore my vote.

   I have taken it as a serious insult to my reputation that you even called for such a measure from the bureaucrat, when it's clear beyond reasonable doubt of the irresponsibility of this user. I urge others to oppose this canidate as unqualified. --Masssiveego 05:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

   What reputation? pschemp | talk 20:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

1. Each user name builds up a reputation, apparently mine is oppose all votes when casting votes. This is clearly wrong, as I have supported some votes in the past. Such wrongful smears only make voting in these events emotionally difficult, thus intolerateable, that this user damage my reputation in this manner. As to wrongly call upon the bureaucrat to discount my vote over such a wrong reason. --Masssiveego 04:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the bureaucrat will be able to decide whether or not your comments are absurd and should be considered with ease. They're usually fair on these sort of things. Banez 22:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention they have their own (unshared)brains and are required to use them. pschemp | talk 22:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a CITE for that requirement? I've observed they DO use them but was NOT aware it was a REQUIREMENT! (sorry for the Zippy the Pinhead capitalization) No change in my thinking on this one. ++Lar: t/c 13:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. NSLE _(T+C) at 01:28 UTC (2006-04-03) - from support; didn't look into edit patterns, activity has only really increased recently. No reason to oppose though. NSLE _(T+C) at 01:28 UTC (2006-04-03)

   Neutral leaning support as per NSLE, no real reason to oppose. I'm all for vandal fighters, but I've yet to run into you in my vandal fighting (though to be honest my hours are sort of random). Adminship is no big deal, so I lean towards support, but I'd like to see more coordination with other counter-vandalism editors, perhaps through more frequent IRC usage and communication. If I'm way off base here, I'm more than happy to change my vote. ⇒ SWATJester Aim _Fire! 16:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC) Changing to support based on communication with nominee. ⇒ SWATJester Aim _Fire! 16:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

2. Neutral low edits in the main space and most of them in the last month. No reasons to oppose abakharev 00:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
3. Neutral per User:Alex Bakharev. JIP | Talk 07:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
4. Neutral as per NSLE and Alex and also feel there is no real reason to oppose. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 12:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
5. Neutral Not always right, but her willingness to work with others for consensus makes up for that. Sometimes she is too quick on the trigger and could assume a little more good faith. This may come with more experience, so I am reserving my vote until then. --Dragon's Blood 16:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

   Curious note: User does not appear on Interiot's tool due to replication lag, because the account was created only yesterday. What brings you to this RFA, sir? — Apr. 7, '06 <freakofnur_xture|talk>

   In my twenty years of administering websites and bulletin boards, I've found judging the character of other people to be my strongest suit. I told Fang Aili, on my user discussion page, that I have great faith in her. I realize that she is on the path to enlightenment, but she isn't quite there yet. Fang Aili is different from the other administrators I have voted for; she will use her position for more than mop and bucket work. She claims, and has shown, that she will use her powers to control vandals. In doing so, it is important that her definition of a vandal be consistent with that of the entire community. Her definition is not consistent with mine because mine is always based on an assumption of good faith. It is my experience that new editors follow examples much more than they follow policies. If administrators do not demonstrate an assumption of good faith in the newbies, how can they expect the newbies to adopt an assumption of good faith in them? --Dragon's Blood 20:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 01:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• See Fang Aili's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.

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

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

A: I would like to help clear the backlog at Copyright problems. I'll continue doing recent change patrol, and admin tools will make that a bit easier. I'd also like to help at AfD, and keep an eye on Category:Candidates for speedy deletion and AIV.

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

A: I'll be particularly pleased with Milwaukee, Wisconsin when it becomes a Good Article (and hopefully, eventually, a Featured Article). I've added a lot to it, but it's gotten to the point where I have to start reading more books, and I haven't done that yet. I created the "to do" list for the article and have also created some other Milwaukee-related articles, the most substantial of which is Pabst Theater. I'm also pleased with my figure skating articles, especially Yao Bin. But basically, I get a thrill out of contributing to Misplaced Pages, period. It's the idea that I'm contributing to world knowledge, and that I can write something that other people will read and build upon. It's marvelous to see, for example, how Maxim Marinin has evolved. Misplaced Pages also calls to my inner editor--when I see "it's" instead of "its", I can just fix it!

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

A: I was somewhat involved in the userbox debates of the past, but I have lost track of that topic now. I wish the Userbox policy had passed, because I think it was an excellent compromise. Other than that, I have not been invovled in anything particularly stressful. The disagreements I've been a part of were usually the result of good faith screw-ups, and were easily resolved. I don't usually contribute to controversial articles, and that helps keep my personal stress level down.

Questions from JoshuaZ

1 You are a member of both the Kindness Campaign and WP:Esperanza. Will your experience with those projects help/influence how you behave as an admin? If so, please explain how.

I usually hang out in Esperanza IRC channel when I'm editing. When I have questions, someone there is usually able to help me. Celestianpower and JoanneB are two experienced admins (among others) who are there a lot, and I imagine I'll be asking them all sorts of questions. I really like Esperanza; its purpose is to make Misplaced Pages a better place to be, and to help others. It has made me feel welcome and has definitely aided in my advancement of Wiki knowledge. The Kindness Campaign is a little different; I haven't done much with it specifically, other than award a few barnstars. To me, being a member means just trying to be kind and civil at all times, and recognize good efforts. I will continue to strive towards these ideals as an admin.

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

Fewer vandals! The constant stream of vandalism can be quite daunting. Or how about this: no vandals!

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

That is a difficult question to answer at this point. If I was considering it, I would first ask a few admins about the situation first. Sockpuppets regularly get indefinite blocks, so I would probably go ahead with that if I was sure it was a sockpuppet. A username with curses in it or something equally inappropriate would get an indefinite ban.

Questions from --Masssiveego 06:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

1. Under who and what policy does "deleted... no assertion of notability" follow under?

CSD A7 - non-notable biography / vanity about a person or persons that does not assert the notability of the subject.

Comment Left out "who", and a straw poll of wikipedians, this was defined by Jimbo Wales. Where, and how a policy was made is just as important as the policy itself to check the intregrity of the policy, as anybody can edit the policy page. The check on the policy is to know when and where a policy was made.

Given the user logged in on April 5, it demonstrates lapse of monitoring by the user the RFA. Responsibility and completion is important. If a user fails to monitor a simple RFA, chances are they will fail to monitor the vandal logs. It is part of the admin duties to notice, and monitor pages. That is what a watchlist is for. --Masssiveego 17:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello Massiveego, I would have appreciated a message that you had left questions here (they were at the bottom and I was unaware of them for a time; multiple edits to this page masked your questions edit). Your first question was a bit confusing because it is grammatically malformed. If I may rephrase the "who" part of your question, then "Under who policy does "deleted... no assertion of notability" follow under?" makes little sense. As far as I know, CSD A7 has been in place for some time, and there is little debate about it. Of course, you are entitled to your opinion, but I believe I do a good job of watching pages and following up. Thank you for your input. --Fang Aili 18:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

It is already in the RFA rules, that there would be comments and questions for any RFA. Taking a moment to examine the recent change logs would have quickly shown these questions appearing, or examing the "my watchlist". A timely response would have been courtious, and responsible. Dealing with difficult written in english questions, is part of the admin duties. Details are important, as to what the context of a writing in determining vandalism. Smugness set aside, anyone who is skilled at RC patrol would know the difference. --Masssiveego 01:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Masssive, you waited two minutes beyond 24 hours and then immediately voted oppose. Almost as soon as your questions were placed a multitude of other people pushed the questions down in the log, meaning it would be unlikely for Fang to have noticed. That is why when I add questions I put a note on the user's talk page that I have done so. And no, dealing with bad English is not a fundamental duty of adminships. Considering RfAs is about more than just searching for reasons to oppose. JoshuaZ 01:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment. The RC logs? Have you EVER seen the recent changes page? There are hundreds of edits per minute, how could Fang possibly see one edit out of thousands? --Rory096 08:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

It is the responsibility of the RFA canidate to monitor their own RFA vote. A skilled RC patroller would have preset highlighters recent changes on pages the wanted to notice with the right software. Again there is both the "my watchlist", and rc logs with javascript "watch for" highlighters, the very same the bots use to highlight vandalism, either would have shown my questions. The lack of page checking skills, and attention to detail, and irresponsibility takes away this candiate qualifications to perform as an admin. Still I admit even I make mistakes, I should have only given an active canidate only one minute after 24 hours to respond.

I can only oppose if the candidate gives me a reason to oppose them, they either meet my standards or get opposed.

Any further questions about my personal standards can be brought up on the request for adminship talk page. --Masssiveego 23:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

If I wrote what I'm questioning about you based on your activity on this RfA, I'd likely violate WP:NPA, so I won't; let me just state that I find your behaviour here highly questionable. —Nightstallion (?) 09:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Well within Wikipedian policy to ensure quality error correcting Admin will help all users when called upon. Actually it is WP:personal attack, not WP:NPA. Please raise all questions about my behaviour in the RFA talk page. As users will be happy to hear your allegations. --Masssiveego 23:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

2. Can semi protect be used on articles where there are many edit conflicts?

WP:SEMI is pretty clear in that semiprotect should not be used for edit conflicts, but to prevent vandalism only.

3. What policy covers "blacken the memory of one who is dead"?

That phrase is used to describe slander and libel; WP:LIBEL covers that subject.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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.

Royboycrashfan

Final (51/11/10) ended 23:25, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Royboycrashfan (talk · contribs) – As of now, Royboycrashfan has been active for five months (not including April), four of which he was heavily active. During this time, Royboy has amassed over 6400 edits, with high edit counts throughout talk pages, project pages, and in articles. He is extremely active in RC patrolling, stub sorting, and in AfD, with a solid grasp of Misplaced Pages's policies. From what I have seen, Royboy is a more than qualified editor who is dedicated in improving Misplaced Pages, unlikely to ever abuse admin powers.TBC 23:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination. Royboycrashfan 23:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Strong Support All these good nominations lately --Jaranda 23:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
2. Support, I actually thought that he was already an admin, however cliché that is. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 23:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

   Support meets a lot of my criteria. I'd like to see a little bit more talkpage edits, but that's no big deal. — Deckiller 23:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

3. Strong Support, obviously --TBC 23:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
4. Support does a lot of good work on AfD --Deville (Talk) 23:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
5. Support, does good work and I have no reason not to support. —Cuiviénen, Sunday, 2 April 2006 @ 23:59 (UTC)

   Weak support Everything looks in order, but I would prefer longer answers to both my and the standard questions. JoshuaZ 00:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC) changing to neutral.

6. Mild hot. Mike H. That's hot 01:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
7. Support - How can I oppose a guy that corrects my spelling (Even if it was an intentional typo :P) --lightdarkness 01:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
8. Support. Great work. Covington 02:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
9. Support. Great editor that needs a browser edit if possible. :p No j/k. Excellent editor, could do good with a mop! ~Linuxerist L / T 02:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
10. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 02:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
11. Support - His work on articles for deletion is notable. - Richardcavell 04:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
12. Support. Seen good work, lots of involvement in things like afd, too. Grutness...wha? 06:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
13. Support - Hahnchen 08:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
14. Support, I've met him at AFDs almost every day, definitely. --Terence Ong 09:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
15. Support, good contributor to many areas of Misplaced Pages, meets my standards. Would be strong support if not for the short question answers, btu I'm still happy to support this user without any reservation. - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 09:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
16. Support A great user. --Siva1979 13:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
17. Support - looks like a fine editor. Weatherman90 14:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
18. Support - Admin is no big deal. ⇒ SWATJester Aim _Fire! 15:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
19. Support - I've seen him on AfD too, and he does good work there. Sandstein 17:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
20. Support™. --Rory096 17:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
21. Support (S). — FireFox • T
22. Support. Good editor, will make good admin. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 19:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
23. Support he's an all-round good editor that would make a smashing admin. --Jay(Reply) 20:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
24. Support _-M P-_ 21:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
25. Support, although the answers do leave a lot to be desired. However, Roy is dedicated and will grow into the post. Will be interesting to see your switch from AfD voter to AfD closer. Deizio 22:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
26. Support. I see this guy around, he'd be a great admin. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 22:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
27. Weak Support - satisfies my criteria, the answer on Q2 worries me abakharev 00:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
28. Support. Would make good use of the mop. Mikker 02:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
29. Support Experience, edits and enthusiasm, perfect. -- Patman2648 19:50 3 April 2006 (UTC)
30. Weak support - good vandal fighter but rather terse answers to questions 2 and 3. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 06:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
31. Support--Jusjih 15:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
32. Support--StabiloBoss 17:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
33. Support Jedi6-(need help?) 22:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
34. Support Answers to questions could be better, but I have no real concerns TigerShark 23:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
35. Support; Very involved, very intelligent editor, no major concerns. Grandmasterka 23:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
36. Support Seems to have taken some heat for answers to standard RfA questions, but I find honesty such as "I see myself as more of a good editor rather than great." quite refreshing. I also liked what I've seen in his contribution history. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
37. Support. As far as I can tell, he knows his way around the project, and seems level-headed. --Elkman - 02:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
38. Support Joe I 04:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
39. Strong support, fabulous editor, strong vandal fighter, active in the community, helps with scut like stub sorting, and a Degrassi fan to boot! I think he'll make a terrific admin. -- Samir (the scope) 04:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
40. Support - good editor. --Khoikhoi 05:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
41. Support he is a valuable and cool-headed contributor over at AfD, would make a great admin. --Hetar 05:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
42. Support good work on AfD, seems level-headed enough for adminship MLA 16:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
43. Weak-support would realy like to see further expantion of the questions... but no reason to oppose. Seems like he could be a good admin. ---J.Smith 23:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
44. Weak support have good observations of Royboy, especially having been vandalized 40 times, but the answers to the questions are cringeworthy.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
45. Support from what I have seen, will make good admin. --blue520 11:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
46. Support good user. Eivind 22:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
47. Support, very active user. -- King of Hearts 15:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
48. Support very good user. While I would like to see more detailed answers to the questions, they are no reason to deny adminship to a worthy candidate.--Alhutch 21:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
49. Support though as others have said the answers to questions could be better. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
50. Support --Exir Kamalabadi 10:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
51. Support will make good use of the mop. --Alf 17:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weak Oppose As pointed out in comments section, answers are quite brief. I like to see a bit more thought go into an RfA response. Xoloz 03:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose. It looks to me that the only thing this editor has other over candidates is a reasonably high edit count, but it seems to be all "quickies" like RC patrol and AfD debates. Edit count isn't everything, and if you must have numbers, the participation in zero WikiProjects would seem to be relevant. His answers to questions are terse and unsatisfying. I want to know what Royboycrashfan has done for the encyclopedia, not the meta-encyclopedia. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 02:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
3. Weak oppose. Citing WP:WINAD as a reason for "speedy" deletion on an AfD, after all the AfD work the candidate has done, seems to indicate a lack of familarity with policy, or rashness of judgment (). Lukas 05:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose Per above, no images. --Masssiveego 07:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

   It doesn't matter if a user has uploaded any images or not. No uploads does not equal bad person. Moe ε 18:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

5. Oppose after looking over answers to the standard questions, I decided to oppose. I would like to see a little spark than that. Basically a good editor, I would possibly support next time.--MONGO 07:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose sorry but I just can't support someone who puts so little thought into their RfA answers. Take it more seriously and I'd consider supporting next time. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 12:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose. Very low (only 65) talk namespace edits. Aucaman 16:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose with a heavy heart because of the terse and unsatisfactory answers to the questions below. If you make them longer, I would be glad to reconsider. —BorgHunter (talk) 22:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose because he doesn't need the position to do what he wants to do. Royboycrashfan is a good editor and helps with many cleanup chores that do not require an administrator position. I'm not convinced, from Royboycrashfan's answers, that he will use an administrator position to do any major sysop chores. This nom seems to be more of a status symbol than a mop and bucket. I vote to rename the position of "administrator" to "janitor" to make it clear to everyone that this is not a privilege, but an added responsibility. --Dragon's Blood 20:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

   Not necessarily true. I work on RC Patrol and AfD, in which some tasks involve admin work. Royboycrashfan 07:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

10. Oppose. Hasn't been here terribly long and answers are weak. — Laura Scudder ☎ 22:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
11. Unfortunate oppose, but a lot of good points have been brought up above. NSLE _(T+C) at 01:20 UTC (2006-04-08)

Neutral

1. Neutral Answers to questions are on the short side, I'd like to see what else Royboycrashfan has to say. Might change vote depending on answers. Solid editor all around though. KnowledgeOfSelf 04:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
2. Neutral per lack of detail in questions. JoshuaZ 17:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
3. Neutral Can't support, can't oppose. Moe ε 21:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
4. Neutral, needs a bit more experience. JIP | Talk 06:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
5. Neutral. If he reanswers the questions then I'll change to support, because he's a good editor and will make a good administrator, but some semblance of effort would be nice. Proto||type 08:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
6. Neutral Not swayed either way. Good editor but adminship request hasn't convinced me. --kingboyk 17:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
7. Neutral. This guy has everything going for him, except for the questions... — Rebelguys2 19:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
8. Neutral per Lukas above (under oppose). Pepsidrinka 14:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
9. Neutral. Borg makes a great point. PLEASE answer the questions with more thought so we voters don't have to hold back...— Deckiller 19:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
10. Neutral as per Rspeer and Dragon's Blood. While I have seen RBCF around and he seems like a good guy and a good editor I see little reason for him to be an admin. He is active and does make valuable contribution but I do not see them going up with him being an administrator. SorryGuy

Comments

• Edit summary usage: 91% for major edits and 92% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 23:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• See Royboycrashfan's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.
• Answers are the weakest that I seen in a long time though and will give you plenty of opposes, rewrite them. You are still a good editor Thanks --Jaranda 23:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• I don't think they'll give him "plenty of opposes," but I do agree that they're vague and need a fair bit of elaboration. Mike H. That's hot 23:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

A: I would take interest in vandalism by rollbacking vandal edits and watching WP:AIV (as well as related pages), deletion mostly by closing debates, and backlogged processes such as stubs and other janitorial work involving categorization or wikification. I have already had much experience in these fields and I would be interested in making some changes for the better if necessary. I see myself as more of a good editor rather than great.

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

A: None in particular; I enjoy doing what I do. The last statement for my answer in question one pretty much sums up my answer for this one.

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

A: I haven't wound up in any major conflicts, but if I do, I would remember my personal motto: Strive for reasonability.

Questions from JoshuaZ

1 Given your answer to question 3, could you give us some examples of minor conflicts and how you handled them?

I have questioned the quality of a few things and talked them over, but they have almost always stayed.

2 You have only about 60 general talk edits (and over 1400 user talk edits). Could you please discuss this extreme ratio? I haven't been very involved in many WikiProjects which explains the low main talk edits, but my user talk edits are mostly related to RC Patrol. Like I said, I hardly wind up in conflicts.

3 If you could change any one thing about Misplaced Pages what would it be? If I could, I would improve the search system to make is much easier for somebody looking for a specific article, template, image, et cetera. New users would be more encouraged to join if we increased the helpfulness of the features we already have.

4 Under what circumstances will you indefinitely block a user without any prior direction from Arb Com? I would not do something potentially controversial without consent. I don't want to make a bad impression on anyone and I'd like to be cautious without being too careful.

Question from Blnguyen

1 - Can you give some examples of articles where you have put in substantial effort in creating or improving?

I have made major improvements to Mario Party 7. Awhile ago, I made several helpful changes including cleanup, tone, etc. I was also somewhat involved in adding context and expanding it beyond a stub. I have not visited this article in a long time (haven't played the game in a long time either), but I would say I began a series of major edits.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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.

Jedi6

Final (60/10/8) ending 0:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Jedi6 (talk · contribs) – User who has made over 3000 edits (with over 1/3 in the main namespace), helps to solve disputes, has been a member for eight months. --acfan-Talk to me 19:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Note by Xolatron: His current edit status has over 4000 edits, over 1700 of them in main namespace. See here.

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept this nomination. Jedi6-(need help?) 23:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• Bureaucrat's Note: Due to the close nature of this RfA, and the fact that the last few hours of the nomination occurred during a server outage, I have extended the closing of this nomination until 0:00 UTC on 12 April 2006. Essjay 01:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• More than two full days for a nine hour outage? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• Why not? The RfA was massively disrupted by socks as well. Why not let the community have a little more time? I see no problem here. Just zis Guy you know? 14:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Strong Support. Meets my criteria. My comrade-in-arms with Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Star Wars and a solid editor all around. We could always use an extra janitor in the Star Wars department, not to mention a good vandalfighter. — Deckiller 23:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
2. Strong Support Looking at his edits he is not only kind but he seems to know what he's doing, he is the type of administrator we could really use! Mahogany-wanna chat?
3. Support JoshuaZ 00:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
4. Support - Richardcavell 04:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
5. Support meets my criteria. - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 09:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
6. Support per Doom127. --Siva1979 13:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
7. Support - Not so long ago 3000 edits was considered huge, and many of these are considered edits rather than small things which only take a few seconds each. Good contributions and no negatives. —This unsigned comment was added by CBDunkerson (talk • contribs) . Yup, forgot to sign. Sorry. --CBDunkerson 11:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
8. Support- He has done an excellent job with the Star Wars wikiproject. Griz 17:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
9. Support. Has been around since August 2005 and has done a lot on the SW wikiproject. Gflores 18:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
10. Support I am the nominator--acfan-Talk to me 18:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
11. Support Good contributor, and also a Jedi. _-M P-_ 18:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
12. Support (S). — FireFox • T
13. Support --Jay(Reply) 20:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
14. Support, no problems here. —BorgHunter (talk) 22:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
15. Support, per his work on the SW wikiproject. BryanG 02:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
16. Support to counter extreme editcountitis. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 02:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
17. Support Has experience and diversified enough edits.-- Patman2648 19:54 3 April 2006 (UTC)
18. Support Limited but good interaction with him. I saw him when he first dealt with Doom127 and the User:Brazil4Linux sockpuppet invasion. I thought he was an admin at the time because of the tactful way he mediated the situation (before it became clear that any resonable discourse with B4L was impossible). On a side note, Rick Browser is B4L, for anyone who didn't bother to check NSLE's link. Go figure, eh? -- Hinotori 03:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
19. *Support. Good editor. -—This unsigned comment was added by Tdxiang (talk • contribs) .
20. *Support--Jusjih 15:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
21. Support I am a pretty new user, but he seems like he would be a very good admin. But who cares if he only edits in two sections?? If he only edits those, they will be taken care of very well while the other admins will be able to edit other articles. Oh, but I'm not an admin myself, just in case only other admins can vote... The ed17 (talk)19:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

    Don't worry, any user can add their opinions or make comments to Requests for Adminship. Jedi6-(need help?) 21:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

22. Support - Worked with him in the Star Wars WikiProject—Good editor and vandalfighter. Why not? —Mirlen 01:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
23. Support Admrb♉ltz (T | C | k) 20:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
24. Support ILovEPlankton 21:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
25. Mild support I wish that he would have waited a while before going up for RFA, but I don't think he should be denied the mop. We need more admins, after all. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 00:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
26. *Strong Support*. While I agree that he is on the early side of admins, one must remember that he didn't nominate himself. I am entirely confident that he will be a very responsible admin, as his previous contributions show. He has now made nearly 1700 edits to main namespace, and will be a quite capable and responsible adminin. About the distribution of his edits: he has made very good edits to the sections he contributes in, and he can imrove those areas greatly rather than helping very mildly in many areas. It is better to know evrything about one thing than one thing (or a little) about everything. -Xol 02:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
27. *Strong Support* As mentioned above, his Star Wars expertise alone makes him worthy of RFA. I also admired his attempts and patience to reason with User:Brazil4Linux during a long edit war. GoldDragon 03:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
28. Support. Good user.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 08:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
29. Support, looks good. --Terence Ong 13:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
30. Support. (See why). Petros471 18:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
31. Support.  Grue  07:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
32. Weak support. The answer I was looking for in my hypothetical, below, was "I would find an uninvolved administrator to help out," since it is can be a problem if you use your administrative buttons to resolve editing disputes. With the request to keep this in mind, provisional support. Nandesuka 13:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

    If you only will accept one answer, you will no doubt find a "wrong" answer most of the time. The first think Jedi6 said he would do before taking any visible action that wouldn't be used towards any ordinary vandal would be to seek the opinions of other admins. However, he said he would even wait a little while before that so as to make sure that he himself had enough suspicion of sockpuppetry. -Xol 16:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

33. Support I trust this user will be a fine admin. jacoplane 02:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
34. Support good contributor, would not abuse the mop.  ALKIVAR™ 07:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
35. Support even though he mainly edits in one area it's no reason to deny. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
36. Support - looks OK to me. —Whouk (talk) 12:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
37. Support. Kusma (討論) 13:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
38. Support will make good use of the mop. --Alf 17:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
39. Support and damn the editcountis. --Aquillion 05:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
40. Strong support, inasmuch as his work against vandalism and toward consensus will translate well as he partakes of admin activities; notwithstanding that this editor hasn't been as involved as other prospective admins with certain namespaces, there appears to be nothing to militate against his being sysopped, and much to suggest that he will be an excellent admin. Joe 06:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
41. Support adminship is no big deal and editcountis is fatal. I see nothing that would cause me to sway though slightly more detailed question answers would be nice -- Tawker 06:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
42. Support, I'm satisfied he will perform well, so why wait? NoSeptember 06:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
43. Support - Why not? Sceptre 11:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
44. Support Jedi6 seems inclined to use the tools correctly - shows understanding of policy, and all admins should not be required to be wikiholics Trödel 11:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
45. Support - I like his answer to questions, especially the fact that he admits his limitation of knowledge in regions outside his area of expertise (star wars+video games). As per above, he also shows a good understanding of policy. - Aksi_great (talk) 12:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
46. Support another potential member of the rouge admin cabal. I'm a bit disappointed that Jedi is not a flammer, we could do with more of those on Misplaced Pages to counteract all the flimmers. Probably. Just zis Guy you know? 14:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
47. Strong support. Jedi6 has been instrumental in the Star Wars WikiProject and elsewhere. I feel he can make a valuable contribution if he is given the mop. Firestorm 16:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
48. Based on Jedi6’s answers to my questions below, I pledge my support for him. He has mastered much of the wisdom of an effective administrator. I remind him that terms like “vandalism” and “protecting” are the same type used by Chancellor Palpatine to manipulate Jar Jar Binks, convincing him to propose an end to democracy in the Senate. These terms drip with hatred, pride and fear. In choosing the best path for Misplaced Pages, always remember the big picture. Don’t ever let yourself become a Jar Jar. --Dragon's Blood 17:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
49. Support. Jedi6 has what it takes. He has a lot of experience. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikipeedio (talk • contribs) .
50. Support. — Apr. 12, '06 <freakofnur_xture|talk>
51. Support, seems qualified enough, though he is a bit timid. The answers to my questions numbered 2 and 3 were "block" and "block", respectively. And by the way, I'm really sorry about that whole sockpuppet incident that almost threw your RfA into jeopardy. --Cyde Weys 05:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
52. Support, staying generally within his area of knowledge should be commended, not given as a reason to opppose, in my opinion. -- DS1953 06:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
53. Support. Keep up the good work. (^'-')^ Covington 06:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
54. Support, give that boy the admin's lightsaber. Angr (talk • contribs) 07:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
55. Support. Fantastic editor! DarthVader 08:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
56. Support, per all above. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 12:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
57. Support --Rob from NY 13:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
58. Support - Looks like the Force is with you. ProhibitOnions 14:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
59. Support T-Shirts for everyone! Daniel Davis 20:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
60. After the deadline ... closing 'crat please feel free to discount this support if you feel it's appropriate to do so. I've been agonising over this candidate but decided to come down on the side of support. Although I have some experience and narrowness of focus concerns, on balance I think this editor will make a good admin. More activity would be better, but I've seen enough to decide and the question answers show thoughtfulness, which swayed me (I think Cyde's #5 question dichotomy is false, there are other sorts of admins besides rouge and timid)... Support ++Lar: t/c 16:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose relative inactivity until last month, cannot be certain that policies are well-versed to this user, given low project edits. NSLE _(T+C) at 00:53 UTC (2006-04-03)

   Oppose. A budding admin. Diversify your edits, and I will be happy to vote for you in a few months. Covington 02:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC) Changed to Support. (see above) (^'-')^ Covington 17:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

   Oppose Flammer, troll, Doom127's friend. Will be a disaster as Administrator rulling their friends desires. --Rick Browser 05:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

   Please don't personal attack me on my own RfA. I am not a flammer or troll. There is no evidence that I will be controlled by my friend's desires. Jedi6-(need help?) 05:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

   No need to worry, he's a proven sockpuppet. NSLE _(T+C) at 07:34 UTC (2006-04-03)

2. Oppose. Not very active, especially in namespaces other than the main one. Royboycrashfan 02:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose - Sorry, but I would like to see some more edits from you. Weatherman90 14:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose Per above Moe ε 20:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose Per above. Inactivity with wikipedia community. --Masssiveego 06:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

   Oppose Per above. --Phair 01:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC) - user was determined a sockpuppet of B4L.

   This user has edits similar to that of B4L. Might want to look into this user (checkuser) just in case. I have to go to bed, so I won't be around for twelve or so hours. — Deckiller 03:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

   User was confirmed as a B4L sock. see here Daniel Davis 05:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

6. Oppose - I don't see enough experience with Misplaced Pages processes, I'm afraid. It's not just AfD clearing and rollback you need to be familiar with. Sorry - if this doesn't passes, in a few months, you'd definitely get my vote. The advice I was given was to look at WP:DRV, because it really does throw you in at the deep end with policy being cited left, right and centre. It was good advice. Proto||type 08:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose Agree with NSLE. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 12:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose: not ready yet. Jonathunder 15:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

   Oppose: this user does not seem to know the true definition of vandalism. If you want to know more of what I mean then post on my talk page and Ill give you the full details. He protects pages with no good reason. I would not feel comfortable with him as an administrator. Wikipeedio 18:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

   The reason those edits were reverted and the page was protect was because a series of IP sockpuppets of User:Brazil4Linux was attacking Jedi6, several other users, and a series of other pages. WP:SOCK states this as circumventing blocks (hence, deserving a block of the sockpuppet); therefore, Jedi6 did the right thing. Now, if Jedi6 went in and reverted YOUR recent edit and claimed it to be "vandalism", then I cound see your point. — Deckiller 19:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

9. Oppose. I'd like to see a few more active months here or more project namespace involvement. — Laura Scudder ☎ 21:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
10. Oppose would like to see a longer history of active contributions. Derex 21:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

    Oppose I was support, but... well, I'm sorry but I think the way you handled that situation was really quite inappropriate. I can't put down a support vote at this time, and I d think that oppose it the right way to go. -- Jean Luc Picard

    You said you opposed me because I blocked Doom127. But I can't block or unblock users since I'm not an admin. Jedi6-(need help?) 08:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

    Discussion moved to User talk:Jean-Luc Picard#Jedi6 RfA. Jedi6-(need help?) 08:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

    Opposes and Stares Down This guy's behavior is outta this world! I spy with mah little eye someone who will abuse their admin in the future. Ohhhhh no. Not gonna give ma support to THAT. The Eye 09:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

    Note: Please disregard the above three oppose votes, those were all made by the same confirmed sockpuppeteer (who is not related to Jedi6 in anyway). --Cyde Weys 10:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral Candidate has nice edit distribution, and some time under his belt. Mild concerns about process familiarity prevent support now, but I like his wiki-record so far. Xoloz 03:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
2. Neutral, looks OK so far, but I'd prefer a little more experience. JIP | Talk 11:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
3. Neutral, to low on edits, no reasons to Oppose abakharev 00:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
4. Neutral per NSLE, but seems like a good editor otherwise. --Rory096 02:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

   Doom127

   The percentage display is not allowed on RfAs or is never seen on them, so Jedi6 was just trying to make sure the RfA didn't go out of form. Nice work on the display, but we can't use it. — Deckiller 19:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

   There isn't any wikipedia policy concerning the display. "Not allowed". Harumph- If you want to discuss this, you are free to do it on my talk page.

   Uh, what? --Rory096 03:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

   Don't worry its not about you, Rory096. Jedi6-(need help?) 03:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

5. Neutral. Editor is on the way, but only has a recent spike in edits. — Rebelguys2 19:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
6. Rob Church (talk) 02:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
7. Neutral leaning support. Neutral mostly because of the extremely narrow focus of subject matter for edits; leaning support because everything else looks fine. —Doug Bell 16:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
8. Neutral. I'm going to sit on the fence here. The doubts regarding process perhaps need to be addressed. Hiding talk 16:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
9. Neutral. Could be more active within the wikipedia community, but keep up the good work. --Arnzy (Talk) 14:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Would Phair's vote count in oppose? As he is a suspected sockpuppet. _-M P-_ 02:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

According to Misplaced Pages:Requests for CheckUser a checkuser can be done only if the possible sockpuppet's vote makes a difference in the vote. So if it makes a difference I'll request a checkuser. Jedi6-(need help?) 02:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Phair has been stricken from this RFA, as his CheckUser returned positive. _-M P-_ 05:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 97% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 104 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 23:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• See Jedi6's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.

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

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

A: I have 500 pages on my watchlist, which many usually get vandalized daily. Sysop abilities would allow me to warn and possibly preceed to block the users who vandalize. I also would be able to protect badly vandalize pages, see IGN's history. I would also be able to directly deal with move vandalism. I would be able to use the rollback feature to deal with vandalism quicker, especially since my computer is already never slow. Also I have nominated many articles for deletion and sysop abilities would allow me to further help the process and delete the pages based on consensus. Since I edit so many video game and Star Wars articles I also encounter many articles which need to be speedy deleted.

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

A: I am most proud of my contributions to the Star Wars WikiProject. I created the Star Wars Collaboration of the Week which has been a success in improving the quality of the Star Wars articles. I also redesigned the Star Wars Portal to be more editor friendly and have more information . While doing that I also created Portal:Star Wars/Vote to chose selected articles for the Star Wars Portal and slowly determine what articles are good and what still nead help. I'm also proud of my work on the List of Star Wars books. While the list is still incomplete (there are alot of Star Wars books), I'm proud of how I redesigned the list when I was a new user.

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

A: I was involved in the Brazil4Linux controversy. I first encountered Brazil4Linus here where he was arguing with User:GoldDragon about NPOV problems in the Nintendo GameCube article. I created a compromise that stopped the edit war on the GameCube page but the controversy soon went to other pages. Brazil4Linus over time stated that both User:Doom127 and myself were sockpuppets of Golddragon. After further controversy on the Ken Kutaragi page, see here, Brazil4Linux began using sockpuppets to support his own version of articles, see Category:Misplaced Pages:Suspected sockpuppets of Brazil4Linux for the list of sockpuppets. Having not been in the argument with Brazil4Linux for a while I next encountered his sockpuppet, User:Quackshot on the Nintendo Virtual Boy page. Quackshot was reverting to a previous version by Brazil4Linux that added back mistakes and removed information for no reason. Quackshot tried to engage me in an edit war but I instead stopped and reported him for violating the 3RR rule. Brazil4Linux continued to use several sockpuppets to avoid his ban until I reported him and User:Alkivar indefintly banned him. Brazil4Linux has come back to vandalize and attack me on 15 March 2006 where he vandalized my talk page and began using several sockpuppets, see here, to revert all my recent contributions until a combination of User:Deckiller, User:Naconkantari, User:JiFish, User:RexNL, User:Garglebutt and myself protected, blocked and reverted the changes made to the articles. I pride myself on never getting stressed, angry or violating any Misplaced Pages policies through the whole controversy. I believe I kept a cool head the whole time.

Questions by JoshuaZ

1 Almost all your edits have been on Star Wars or video game related topics. Using Interiot's vice, in your mainspace edits, one needs to go about a fourth of the way down the page until one even comes to an article that is not related to these two narrow areas, when one comes to 5 edits for Mundelein, Illinois. We then don't get any of any other subject until the the beginning of the last 5th of the page with one edit to Bloodlines (comics). We then have about 5 or 6 other non-Star Wars, non-video game edits. Almost all your articles for deletion have also been on these two topics, as has all of your (impressive) work with templates. Given this narrow editing focus, can you explain how you have the depth and variety of experience necessary for you to be an admin?

A Thats not entirely true, I have 7 edits for Mundelein High School, but I get what you mean. The thing is Video Games and Star Wars are two topics I know a lot about. They are both very large and wide in range topics. I had to deal with all the Misplaced Pages policies before through my edits in these areas. Like Misplaced Pages:Image use policy through the images I have downloaded, Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view through fan opinion in the Video game articles, Misplaced Pages:No original research through fancruft in Star Wars articles and Misplaced Pages:Vandalism through dealing with vandals. I have been able to edit in all the Misplaced Pages areas from images to templates to project namespace. While I may have edited only in those two areas, the areas have been broad enough to allow me to gain the experience necessary.

2 Are there any admin powers that you would like to give to all users? Why or why not?

A Well I like what powers are admin. only the way they are right now. If I could give one power to regular users it would be the rollback feature since it would allow regular users to more effectively fight vandalism. I would like this ability to be given to only trusted users like the popups feature or have a required amount of edits before users could use the rollback features (more than 100).

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

A I would make moving pages an admin. only ability. My reasoning for this is that I have encountered several times when users would move pages in vandalism only. But I could not immediatly fix this problem since I couldn't move the page back since it existed as a redirect. If the ability was admin. only then this vandalism would be stopped completely.

4 Under what circumstances will you indefinitely block a user without any prior direction from Arb Com?

A When the user's username is inappropriate or just copying someone else I would indef. block them though I would offer them the chance to choose a new username. I would also indef. block known sockpuppets who are trying to overcome bans or are creating extra votes. I might also indef. ban the user who created the sockpuppets if they have a history of creating sockpuppets and only until the opinion of more editors is determined. I will not decide to indef. users by myself. I will find other users opinions and if needed will go to the Arb committee.

Questions by Nandesuka

1. Please address this hypothetical situation. Assume that you are an administrator. A new-ish user shows up at the Ken Kutaragi article and begins making edits. Those edits make you think, in good faith, that he's a sockpuppet of Brazil4Linux. What do you do? Nandesuka 11:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

A Well first I would keep an eye on the user to see if they do anything suspicious. If they start vandalizing or attack users I would give the appropiate warnings on their talk page and block them if they continue. If the user produces several pieces of evidence that makes them seem like Brazil4Linux and continues disobeying the rules I will get the opinion of other administrators. If the user's edits involve Vote fraud or severe vandalism I will request for a checkuser on the new user to see if they are indeed Brazil4Linux. If the user turns out to be Brazil4Linux then I will ban the sockpuppet and warn Brazil4Linux to stop avoiding his block. If the user isn't Brazil4Linux then I will apoligize to the user. If the user never creates anymore evidence or breaks Misplaced Pages's rules then I will leave the user alone believing they are trying to contribute honestly. (Wow that was a lot of ifs) Jedi6-(need help?) 23:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Questions by Wikipeedio

1. What do you define as vandalism?

A Vandalism is any edit made in bad faith. Edits made in good faith though, even if incorrect, are not vandalism but a contribution to Misplaced Pages. Jedi6-(need help?) 00:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

See User talk:Wikipeedio. Jedi6-(need help?) 03:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

2. Will you use your administrative powers for helping Misplaced Pages, or for your own convenience?

I will always use my administrative powers to help Misplaced Pages. The added functions of adminship is not an award or a position of higher rank but is instead a responsibily to help clean and maintain Misplaced Pages as janitors. Jedi6-(need help?) 00:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Question by Dragon's Blood

1. What did Yoda mean when he said, "Remember your failure at the cave?" (Your words please, not someone elses.)

   A Yoda was refering to the fact that Luke failed his test at the cave in Dagobah and was going to fail again by going to save Han and Leia. Like at the cave Luke was being impatient and was not having faith in the force. At the cave Luke didn't trust the force and brought weapons, thus failing his test. When Leia and Han were in trouble Luke was impatient to save his friends so he left his training with Yoda. Even though they were making sacrifices to stop the empire which could only be stopped with Luke being a full jedi. Jedi6-(need help?) 21:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

   Very good. I was looking specifically for how Luke's failure in the cave relates to the responsibility of adminship. Let me rephrase.

2. How did Luke's preconceptions and fear lead to his failure in the cave and later to his near sublimation by the emperor? In the end, what action did Luke take to show that his Jedi wisdom finally caught up to his Jedi power? --Dragon's Blood 02:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

   A Luke feared for Leia when Darth Vader threatened to turn her instead. This promoted Luke to attack Vader violently with the dark side. But in the end Luke realized that he could not defeat evil using evil so he refused to kill Vader. By taking the light side Luke showed his faith in the force and was able to bring his father back to the light side. In Misplaced Pages an administrator can't stop vandalism always by blocking and protecting but must try to resolve issues through diplomacy. Jedi6-(need help?) 08:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

   I disagree that faith had anything to do with it. In fact, blind faith is what turned the republic into an empire. Nevertheless, I am supporting your nomination and I have made more comments above. --Dragon's Blood 17:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Question by Cyde Weys:

1. I'm really on the edge here. I don't know which way to vote. I have fears that you are too focused on Star Wars stuff and not enough on the big picture. Additionally, your definition of vandalism is kind of off. Can you allay these fears and address these concerns? I'd really like to vote support, but I don't know yet.

   A Well I contribute mostly to Star Wars and Video game articles because that is what I know. Other topics I know well like science are already completed past my knowledge to help. In editing Star Wars articles I am trying to make them complete at the same time as remove fancruft, misinformation and personal opinions in the articles. Because isn't Misplaced Pages in the most basic sense an encyclopedia? And isn't Star Wars and video games a subject people search for? I could try to edit more rapidly to articles I know little about but how much could I add to a subject like Citroën Fukang? As for my definition of vandalism "Vandalism is any edit made in bad faith." Isn't that what Misplaced Pages:Vandalism states also? I hope I have answered these concerns. Jedi6-(need help?) 06:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

2. I have some follow-up questions ... let's say a user that has a short history of editing pages suddenly starts being an ass, attacking others, and reverting willy-nilly on pages (but not to the point of WP:3RR). What do you do?

   I'd explain to the user that they need to be more mature on Misplaced Pages and that they can't attack other users. I will also warn them that repeated reverts even if they don't exceed 3RR are still frowned upon. If the user continues I will refer to Misplaced Pages:Resolving disputes and explain it to them. If they continue to start disputes I'll will help the users involved start the negotiation step. If the user still causes disputes and continues causing problems I will suggest mediation and if that doesn't work arbitration (but only if it is very severe). Jedi6-(need help?) 04:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

3. You are made aware of a user whose contribution history pretty much entirely consists of disruptiveness, but not outright vandalism. He has been repeatedly blocked for violations of WP:3RR and WP:NPA, and in his latest edits, he's continued with more of the same. What do you do?

   I will warn the user that that kind of behavior is not good for Misplaced Pages and ask them to stop. If they violating 3RR and NPA I will block and warn them as I must. If they continue and ignore advice to stop I will go through the steps of Misplaced Pages:Resolving disputes like mentioned in question #2. Jedi6-(need help?) 04:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

4. When should blocks be reported to WP:ANI? What is your threshhold for reporting blocks to WP:ANI?

   Well I wouldn't report it if it was simple and obvivious vandalism. If I had blocked a user who had repeated offenses I would report it. Also if the user was blocked for a controversial or major issue (like using sockpuppets to mess with an RfA :-( ) I would report it. Finally I would report issues that were complex and if I needed the advice of other admins. Jedi6-(need help?) 04:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

5. Would you be more of a rouge admin, kicking ass and taking names, or would you be a timid admin, referring everything to other admins first and taking action only after consensus is reached?

   It matters on the subject. If Misplaced Pages policy supports me or if it was like obvivous vandalism I would take care of it myself. But if it was a complex issue that Misplaced Pages's policy was vague or could be interpeted several ways I would get the advice of other admins. Most of the time I probably would lean toward being a rouge admin. Jedi6-(need help?) 04:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Question by Angr:

1. Do you see the role of administrator as being more comparable to that of policeman or that of janitor? Angr (talk • contribs) 10:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

   A I see the role of administrator as a janitor. Administrators are supposed to use their new tools to help with maintence on Misplaced Pages. Helping other users and watching out for vandalism is something all users can do and is not necessarily part of being an admin. (though as a Misplaced Pages user you should be able to help anytime!) Jedi6-(need help?) 03:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Pschemp

Final (84/4/1), ended 22:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Pschemp (talk · contribs) – Pschemp is one of the most levelheaded and well rounded editors that I've come across. She's been with us since September 2004 and has since made over 8000 contributions in various namespaces. She has created and expanded various articles, but has also proven to be able to handle conflicts and mediate between other users involved in a dispute. As she does quite a lot of tasks for which the admin buttons would be more than welcome, I'd like to nominate her for adminship. JoanneB 21:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I join JoanneB in nominating pschemp for adminship. This understated editor contributes over a vast area of the wiki from copyediting articles found by using the 'random article feature', participating in debates on talk and featured articles, the list goes on, enough already, it's time for the mop. --Alf 21:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:I humbly accept. pschemp | talk 22:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Strong support, of course! --JoanneB 21:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
2. Strong support, naturally! --Alf 22:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
3. Strong support As one of her admin coaches, I think I should be supporting eh? This user has a firm grasp on understanding policy, and she knows when to apply it. That is a major plus for all admins. I know from experience that she is incredibly patient when dealing with situations that get heated. Also she is one of those users who contributes to the encyclopedia, which is what this is all about. KnowledgeOfSelf 22:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
4. Strong support Per all of the above. --Shanel 22:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
5. Extreme "Absolutely green wellie wollies fantasmogorical" support - so there Pschemp! Take that! Pow! --Celestianpower 22:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
6. Support. I was actually thinking about nominating as soon as I got a nap in. That could have been a while, judging by my edit patterns. — Apr. 2, '06 <freakofnur_xture|talk>
7. That's hot. Mike H. That's hot 23:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
8. --Jaranda 23:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
9. Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
10. Support - hardworking editor abakharev 23:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
11. Strong Support. Of course. One of our elite so far this year. Her February activity level is easily in the top twenty of all time. She's been around for a long time (edit count does NOT reflect reading and learning counts). Support all the way. — Deckiller 23:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
12. Support Her conduct thus far does seem indicative of a potentially good admin. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
13. Support. JoshuaZ 00:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
14. Strongest support possible.--Sean Black 00:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
15. Support, makes sense. Flowerparty■ 00:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
16. I seriously thought she was one already. Seriously. Extremely strong Support... she's going to rock. ++Lar: t/c 00:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
17. NSLE _(T+C) at 00:52 UTC (2006-04-03)
18. Strong Oppose...I mean Strongest support possible >:) Without giving a long litany of reasons why I think she deserves it, she deserves it. She has all the people skills I wish I had. — natha(?)nrdotcom 01:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
19. Support. Friendly, helpful, good editor. --Fang Aili 01:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
20. Support. Was thinking of nominating her myself—because she's a dedicated editor with her head screwed on right, and not just because the pictures of her with the "vandal-whacking stick" and the kitty in the sink make me smile. :-) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
21. Support would benefit from admin tools Where 01:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
22. Support, of course! ;) Jude (talk,contribs,email) 02:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
23. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 02:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
24. Support Trustworthy editor. Xoloz 03:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
25. Support in spite of silly oppose votes. Alphax  03:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

    I don't agree with them but I also don't agree they are "silly". IMHO anyway, people support or oppose for what they consider to be good and valid reasons and as long as bad faith is not blindingly evident we should cherish and respect that... ++Lar: t/c 04:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

26. Support Strong character, trustworthy, personable. —Pengo 03:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
27. Support Ditto. I like what I see here. --Mmounties (Talk) 04:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
28. I broke my Wikibreak just so I could support a user of the highest caliber who will be an excellent administrator. There's no doubt in my mind about that. Support. Titoxd 05:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
29. Support Without reservation, great candidate. Banez 06:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
30. Support When you see and a user with great skills, a high number of edits and experience all with a smile, it is a challenge to not support. --Ali K 07:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
31. Support Excellent contributor, meets and surpasses my criteria easily. - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 09:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
32. Support, great user. --Terence Ong 09:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
33. Weak support, I don't have experience with this user myself, and she appears to have only a short period of real activity, but the amount of recent contributions is impressive, and if she's nominated by JoanneB, she has to be doing something right. JIP | Talk 11:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
34. Support - Strong candidate doing alot of good. --CBDunkerson 13:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
35. Support Don't see why not. --kingboyk 13:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
36. Support per all above. --Siva1979 13:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
37. Support per above, admin is no big deal. ⇒ SWATJester Aim _Fire! 16:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
38. Support. All experiences have been positive; will make a good admin. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 17:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
39. Strong support. I would, however, like to see more deleted edits. --Rory096 17:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

    Since I'm mainly an article editor and information organizer, I'd actually be quite horrified to have a large number of deleted edits, as that would mean that the bulk of the editing I did was to questionable and un-encyclopedic articles. I prefer to participate in afd type discussions by commenting and closing (rather than tagging). I understand your concern though.pschemp | talk 18:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

    I think that Rory means that he would like you to tag speedy items and unencyclopedic content. That's where the deleted edits come from, not incompetency on your part!Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

    I know that's what he meant, hence my, "I understand your concern" comment. Its just that I prefer to contribute to WP in other ways, and this project being the massive thing it is, I don't see an issue with that. There is a niche for everyone, sorry if I wasn't clear above.pschemp | talk 01:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

40. Support (S). — FireFox • T
41. Support per nom. What more is there to say? --Jay(Reply) 20:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
42. Support Moe ε 20:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
43. Support Fad (ix) 21:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
44. Definate Support — Ilyanep (Talk) 21:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
45. Support Very experienced and wise contributor. _-M P-_ 21:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
46. Support, slight concerns over relatively recent burst of power-editing, but more than satisfied she knows what it's all about. Deizio 22:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
47. Support, a good mediator, too. --日本穣 Nihonjoe 22:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
48. Support —Quarl 2006-04-04 01:04Z
49. Support for good record, good recommendations. --Fire Star 01:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
50. Support, solid editor. Involved in many out of the way articles. Kuru 02:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
51. Support such high quality in such a short time Jedi6-(need help?) 04:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
52. Support does a fine job, will make a great admin. -- SonicAD (talk) 05:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
53. Strong support - will make a great admin. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 07:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
54. Rob Church (talk) 07:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
55. Support —Wayward 07:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
56. Superwomanvandalplusgoodeditor! Supporrrttt!--Tdxiang 陈 鼎 翔 (Talk)ContributionsContributions Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 09:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
57. Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 12:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
58. Support. I've seen her make good edits, and she seems very trustworthy.--ragesoss 14:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
59. Support. We need more sexy, sexy, Esperanzian admins. Karmafist 14:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
60. Support--Jusjih 15:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
61. Speedy Green Support! --Misza13 19:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
62. Support looks good. --a.n.o.n.y.m 00:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
63. Support - Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
64. Support, is well suited to be an admin. -- Natalya 03:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
65. Support Joe I 04:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
66. Support Excellent contributor, no hesitation. Doesn't need the full mop though, just an attachment for the end of her hockey stick :-) --Cactus.man ✍ 09:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
67. I support her, but really, I hope she gets enough sleep. -- Hoary 10:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
68. Support - Definitely. Sango123 (e) 11:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
69. Support. I'd add some witty words of support, but I'm supposed to be on a wikibreak, so I've got to stay quiet and keep my head down. haz (user talk) 17:52, 5 April 2006
70. Support. Cliché, cliché. Cliché? Cliché! — Rebelguys2 19:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
71. Support ILovEPlankton 21:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
72. Support - Ganeshk (talk) 22:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
73. Strong support An exemplary Wikipedian in numerous ways; great article contributions, friendly and supportive of fellow editors, good work ethic and excellent judgement. OhNoitsJamie 22:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
74. Support, of course. Thought I had done so already. Sic your cats on the vandals. ProhibitOnions 09:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
75. Support Helpful, kind, dedicated. Ideal admin material. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 21:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
76. Support --Connel MacKenzie 04:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC) Mainly because she was the first woman on IRC to show me her panties.
77. Strong Support great active user, can be trusted with the tools.--Adam 00:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
78. Support seen this person around, very good user.--Alhutch 04:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
79. Support looks good. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
80. Support, extemely friendly editor - will make a good admin. Henrik 13:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
81. Support - very good editor. H2O 19:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
82. Support Rama's Arrow 20:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
83. Support good editor. Computerjoe's talk 12:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
84. Support, no issues strike me here as reasons to oppose. Hiding talk 16:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Reluctant oppose. Despite a phenomenal level of activity in recent months, she has only been participating seriously in Misplaced Pages for three months, which does not seem like enough time to become an administrator, high edit quality or not. Furthermore, her Misplaced Pages space edits are low for such a prolific editor. I would be willing to support in a month or two. —Cuiviénen, Sunday, 2 April 2006 @ 23:04 (UTC)
2. Oppose. Excellent candidate. Keep this up for a few more months, and I will be happy to support your RfA. Covington 23:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Too new. Lou franklin 01:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

   Sept 2004 (18 months?) is too new? Or is it the period of low activity? My concern if any would be burnout, not experience. Heck, I hope she'll be willing to mentor me when the time comes. YMMV of course. ++Lar: t/c 01:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

   That's why I throttled back from 5000+ edits in Feb. Didn't want to burnout the Wikimedia servers. ;) pschemp | talk 01:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

   18 months is deceptive. As an active member of the community she's only been around for three. —Cuiviénen, Monday, 3 April 2006 @ 02:51 (UTC)

   I've addressed that in my answer to JoshuaZ's question down below. If you chose not to accept my answer that's fine, its your right. pschemp | talk 03:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

   see also Misplaced Pages:Requests for bureaucratship/Essjay oppose vote #7. It may be possible that Lou feels Pschemp's comment was out of place. ++Lar: t/c 11:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

   So, if I'm not allowed to call oppose votes "silly", how come you're allowed to speculate on the reasons people are opposing? Alphax  23:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

   Er, I wasn't saying you weren't allowed to call them silly, you of course should feel free to comment as you see fit (and I promise to cherish the comments!), I was saying I didn't agree they were silly even if I too didn't agree with the comments themselves. We both commented support, after all... I'm open to a reword here, what do you suggest? It's verifiable that Lou has been saying oppose on at least some of the people that participated in his RfAr, and verifiable that Pschemp pointed it out in Essjay's RfB. I think it is pretty mild to say "it may be possible Lou feels the comment was out of place" rather than flat out saying "Looks like a retaliatory vote for Pschemp calling Lou on his tactic", which is what at least some of us might conclude from the evidence available... but which I will not say because I prefer to assume good faith. Hope that helps. (And I fear I may have overexplained... Sigh... but that's what I do sometimes, it seems.) ++Lar: t/c 01:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

   If that is assuming good faith then I am Tom Cruise. I explained the reason for my vote. I am entitled to cast my own vote without being harassed about it. Don't try to affect the vote count by pestering people who vote to oppose. Lou franklin 02:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

   That's not in fact the case. So long as it's civil, discussion and challenging of votes is encouraged. It's meant to be a discussion anyway. --Celestianpower 16:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

   Please post a link to the Misplaced Pages policy that says "challenging of votes is encouraged". Lou franklin 04:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

   This is not a vote. It is a consensus-gathering excersize. As such, discussion is encouraged. It's common sense. --Celestianpower 12:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

   Ah, "common sense". You said that "challenging of votes is encouraged". Encouraged by whom? I am still waiting for that link. Lou franklin 15:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

   Encouraged by dint of the fact that it's a discussion, not a vote. When discussing, you have opposing views and then you each make those clear and banter back and forth, replying to each others comments. That's how discussion works. There's no policy page I can cite - we assume that people understand the term, "discussion". --Celestianpower 15:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

4. Oppose 5 orphan pictures, edit conflict, Inexperience as per above. --Masssiveego 06:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

   Er, pardon? 5 pictures that are licensed under the GFDL, so it makes rather no difference if they're orphaned, and I don't understand what you mean by "edit conflict", nor how that could be a cogent reason to oppose this excellent candidate.--Sean Black 00:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

   I can only assume he meant "edit war" or ""conflict with other editors over the content of an article" (as described below). Also, from WP:CSD: "Unused copyrighted images. Images that are not under a free license or in the public domain that are not used in any article" may be speedied. This means then that free liscence ones (like hers) can be orphanned on Misplaced Pages, it doesn't matter. --Celestianpower 10:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Would really like to support, but I'm not sure about the activity level and some rather biting comments I've seen made. So for now, Neutral. .:.Jareth.:. 12:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 23:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• See Pschemp's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.

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

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

A: I've already been closing keep afd's under the tuteledge of KnowledgeOfSelf and look forward to expanding my involvement there. Additionally, I do a lot of organizing of categories and renaming of articles where admin options would make the work I do infinitely easier. I don't want to leave one thing done in a list of 400, so currently; I go and annoy other admins. I'm also working as a mediator, and would like to join the Medcom full time, however they also prefer admins for members. Titoxd has also been my admin coach and I am eager to help with any backlogged area. I particularly enjoy being a neutral voice in disputes, working towards solutions and the tools would again be helpful there. Certainly I also fight vandalism when I run across it, but it is not my main focus. I suspect that would increase should my array of available tools increase.

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

A: I am particularly proud of Fiberglass which is a Good Article. I am working on moving that to a Featured Article currently. I have a number of other articles I have written listed on my userpage. The next one I am the most proud of is Permanent wave because it is in an area (girl stuff) not favoured or heavily edited by the average Misplaced Pages demographic. This was a poor little stub that I've expanded and referenced extensively and I also often contribute in areas that involve women and arts and crafts in my own effort to counter systemic bias on Misplaced Pages. Third, I am proud of my work on the case where I am the mediator, it is moving along to a civilized conclusion and I feel it will have a positive outcome.

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

A:When I first came to Misplaced Pages, I got involved in a very nasty discussion. It wasn't an edit war as we didn't mess with the article, but it was certainly uncivil on the part of all involved. Eventually, we all came to an agreement, and now I count this as one of the most important experiences I have had. This is because I learned that many conflicts are the result of mis-communication rather than ill will. It taught me how to remain calm and to understand the points of views of others involved in such a thing and to use the good traits in people to come to a solution. Since then, I've changed from disagreeing to facilitating consensus and am using those very lessons in the mediation case I'm doing right now.

Questions from JoshuaZ

1. In your answer to question 3, you mention an article where at the beginning of your time on Misplaced Pages you were involved in a "very nasty discussion." Could you tell us what the article was and/or provide specific difs that might be relevant?

Thank you, however I really hate to dredge up old nastiness, and in fact, I feel if I did it would be doing a disservice to all involved as we came to an agreement and have moved on. No one was blocked, no 3RR was invoked, we worked the issue out in a human manner. The entire point is that it was solved, the editors involved agreed to disagree and I learned a lot from it. The personal lessons and insight I gained can't be shown by any diff, that's why I elaborated above. I'm not trying to hide anything, which is why I mentioned the issue in my original answers, but I truly believe that resolved conflicts should be left. Re-opening old wounds is rarely productive and not generally conducive to the collaborative environment I am trying to foster.

2. You seem to have been an intermittent editor in 2004 and 2005 and then at the start at 2006 drastically increased your edits per a month. Could you explain this and if possible, give a brief narrative relating your general experiences with Misplaced Pages to your change in editing levels.

Indeed. I contributed a lot when I first started. However, at that time the project was beset with vandalism, the Arbcom didn't have the power it has now and while it wasn't anarchy, a lot of disruptive things were going on. I have logged in and read articles and maintained the ones I started every day since I first signed up and watched as the project has evolved into what it is today. (Turkish Van has been a stable article since 2004 and that's because I've stayed involved, although not always visible.) I've seen some really wonderful things happen, the vandalism come under control etc... and decided that I would make a decision to be a more visible contributor. I believe in watching and learning and I often lurk in the forgotten corners of the project, but I feel in the neglected areas I can make the greatest contributions.

3. Are there any admin powers that you would like to give to all users? Why or why not?

Are you referring to the rollback issue here? At this time I don't see a need for any admin powers to be given to the all users, and as far as rollback, a decent script will do the same thing, making that not really needed. As far as why, I think that adminship powers should be reserved for those who have demonstrated by their actions that they won't abuse them.

4. Are there any experiences or abilities that you have that make you more noteworthy as an admin candidate or more capable of carrying out any admin duties?

I think my willingness to be a mediator (I volunteered for that), my coaching by KnowledgeOfSelf and Titoxd, and my long observation of the culture and issues surrounding Misplaced Pages do. I've elaborated on all of these in my original answers and answers previous to this question.

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

If they are using open proxies, inappropriate usernames, imposter usernames, or variations of known vandals (i.e. Willy, Squidward) I would. However, my policy is, if I don't know, or am not sure, I would ask a more experienced admin. I feel it is always better to be safe.

6. Chocolate, vanilla or strawberry (ice cream)? --Celestianpower 20:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Neapolitan of course. pschemp | talk 20:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

If this RFA succeeds, you'll be eating rocky road I'm afraid. — Apr. 4, '06 <freakofnur_xture|talk>

I'm afraid you're both wrong. I'll be feeding her chocolate chip cookie dough ice cream. — nathanrdotcom 08:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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.

ProhibitOnions

Final (59/2/0) ended 20:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

ProhibitOnions (talk · contribs) – I have had contact with ProhibitOnions and his good and calm editing style stuck in my memory - thus when I saw him as being interested in administration on the list of non-admins with high edit counts, I thought 'Why Not?'. He has been completing non-admin 'janitorial tasks' such as welcoming users and fulfilling page requests already. He's bilingual and has been very active on Misplaced Pages for a while now, registering over a year ago in January 2005. His contributions are wide ranging and he is a more than competent editor who would benefit the community if given admin tools Robdurbar 14:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. ProhibitOnions 19:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Stütze, o ja, ich bin alles dafür! JIP | Talk 20:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
2. Support, just about. A little short of my usual standards but from my interactions with him, I would be confident he will be a good admin. Stifle 20:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
3. Support Well rounded contributions, has been here for a while, a good editor, seems like a polite and calm guy, etc. Should make a good janitor. Also more bilingual admins is a good thing. --W.marsh 21:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
4. Support meets most, if not all, of my criteria; fairly well diverisified, solid answers, polite, and the above reasons. — Deckiller 21:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
5. Support you mean you're not an admin already? I'd have nominated you myself if I'd realised this. Thryduulf 21:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
6. Support Excellent editor, well-rounded wiki-career. Xoloz 22:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
7. Support Haven't had a great deal of conduct with him, but the question answers impressed me Cynical 22:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC) Changed to oppose on the basis of John Reid's comments Cynical 22:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC) Happy to change back to ‘’’Support’’’ per answers to JayZ’s questions below Cynical 22:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
8. Support Good number of mainspace edits. --Andy123(talk) 22:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose anti-onion POV warrior Support, wonderful editor. Has a keen mind for policy, has a solid history of interaction, general neat guy. Lord Bob 22:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
10. Support Seems like a decent candidate, and I don't buy the oppose arguments. If the user is trustworthy it follows he can be trusted to close AFDs. It's not even as if an AFD result is secret or absolutely final. --kingboyk 00:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
11. Support JoshuaZ 00:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC).
12. Support because Sarah says so. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 00:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
13. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 02:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
14. Was leaning toward neutral but I looked around this page a bit more and decided strong support. Also the name is catchy... blocking those legions of Tor IPs would be a most fitting task. — Apr. 3, '06 <freakofnur_xture|talk>
15. Support - I'm not fussed about 'deletionist bias'. He clearly is already operating as a good admin should. - Richardcavell 04:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
16. Support as nominator Robdurbar 09:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
17. Support meets criteria, good user. - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 09:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
18. Support, looks good. --Terence Ong 09:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
19. Totally biased fellow English-speaking Berliner support. Even if he does have peculiar views about vegetables, he will make a fine admin. Angr (talk • contribs) 10:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
20. Support - so what if he's a deletionist by nature? Many admins are. What's important is whether the user happens to be trustworthy, sensible, and comprehends the nature of consensus. ProhibitOnions seems sensible, good-natured, and seems to understand consensus; ergo supporto, as they say in Latin. Proto||type 11:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
21. Support No problems here. --Siva1979 13:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
22. Support as a fellow Berliner (that will raise the number of Berlin en-admins to a glorious 3) Lectonar 14:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
23. Support, even though I vehemently disagree with his viewpoint towards onions. -- JamesTeterenko 15:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
24. Support cause adminship is no big deal, and bias against deletionists is not an acceptable reason for opposing in my opinion. ⇒ SWATJester Aim _Fire! 16:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
25. Support. Believing in something does not mean that you can't follow consensus. I would like to see more deleted edits, though. --Rory096 17:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
26. Support (S). — FireFox • T
27. Support everything looks good. --Jay(Reply) 20:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
28. Support OK in my book. _-M P-_ 22:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
29. Support despite anti-onion bias. —BorgHunter (talk) 22:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
30. Support, satisfied PO is ready for the mop. Surprised by the deletionist label, if anything I've seen inclusionism in recent AfD activities. Deizio 22:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
31. Support, random sampling of AfD was pretty balanced - and consistent with personal observations. Well spoken when defending his opinons. Kuru 02:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
32. Support Calm headed and experienced are what sold me. -- Patman2648 19:58 3 April 2006 (UTC)
33. Support a calm and cool user in heater arguments. Jedi6-(need help?) 04:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
34. Support--Jusjih 15:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
35. Support even though you don't like onions. :) Kafziel 15:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
36. Martin 16:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
37. Support per nom, Kuru, and RichardCav. Joe 19:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
38. Support Has shown the ability to remain calm on contentious AfD issues. In response to opposition, I just don't anticipate ProhibitOnions ignoring consensus at closing and deleting out of process. That would be very out of character from what I've seen.--Isotope23 20:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
39. Support. I saw him on the list of high edit counts and saw him on several AfDs, and thought he was worth nominating. And now I see he's up for nomination. --Elkman - 02:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
40. Support for so many reasons. Royboycrashfan 05:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
41. Support. Excellent. Covington 06:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
42. Support Even though onion prohibition is a bad thing. Good well balanced editor. --Cactus.man ✍ 09:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
43. Support. --Ligulem 09:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
44. Support good work on AfD, seems like an appropriately reasonable person, would make a good onion MLA 16:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
45. Support . Good work. pschemp | talk 17:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
46. Support. "Strong deletionist bias" != inability to determine consensus. — Rebelguys2 19:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
47. Support. I've seen your work, and your votes to save some pretty good articles from deletion.  NikoSilver  15:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
48. Keep. No, wait: Support. Well, honestly. Has all the skills an admin needs, so let's give him the keys to the cupboard. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 22:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
49. Support. Great editor, and good answers to questions below. --Allen 23:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
50. The heart of the fooshkoot is bitter. (this is not an oppose vote) DS 20:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
51. Can'tProhibit Admrb♉ltz (T | C | k) 00:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
52. Support--Adam 00:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
53. Support. Ick unterstütz Balina. Kusma (討論) 02:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
54. Support Good user. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
55. Support Rama's Arrow 20:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
56. Support - Aksi_great (talk) 09:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
57. Support. Seems to have generated goodwill in the community. Hiding talk 16:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
58. Support though I tend to side with JIP's comments - we gotta watch those pesky tomatoes. --Alf 17:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
59. Weak Support ProhibitOnions has shown to be an inclusionist recently, but I don't know him all that well. Jonathan235 18:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose -- Strong deletionist bias displayed on AfD. While I find this acceptable in an editor and participant in AfD, I do not want this user to be closing. John Reid 22:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

   Oppose per John Reid Cynical 22:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC) Changed to support as a result of the answers to JayZ's questions Cynical 22:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

2. Oppose Per above, not active enough with the Misplaced Pages community. --Masssiveego 06:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral I am the world's biggest inclusionist, so I can't vote Support. I can't oppose because he deals with the n00bs and is very active iwthin the Misplaced Pages community. Jonathan235 16:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• I don't really see what (allegedly) being a deletionist has to do with closing AfDs. You can close AfDs fairly regardless of your personal opinions about deletion, because a good closing of an AfD is all about determining consensus and not at all about your personal opinions. Does anyone have evidence that the candidate would do things against consensus? That's the only thing that should really be relevent here. --W.marsh 23:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• Exactly. Opposing based on someone's views with no evidence they will close unfairly is assuming bad faith. - Taxman 12:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Onions are nice. Onions are your friends. Prohibit tomatoes! Tomatoes taste horrible! Tomatoes have a secret plan to conquer the world and enslave mankind! JIP | Talk 11:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Onions taste good, but they're not likely to endear others to you. Mmm, onion breath. And besides, he could be Jain and it could be religious. Tread lightly! - Taxman 12:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 20:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• See ProhibitOnions's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.

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

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

A. There are several things I can see myself doing with gusto, including contributing to and monitoring the Main Page, working on speedy deletions, determining consensus on articles for deletion, protecting and unprotecting pages, and helping with persistent vandalism (see my third answer). As I am not yet an admin, I can't predict which activity, if any, will become my "specialty"; I intend to play things a little safe at the beginning, deferring to experienced admins as appropriate, while gaining admin experience in all areas.

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

A. Yes, there are several articles I am pleased with. I'm slowly adding articles about the day-to-day culture of East Germany, such as Ein Kessel Buntes or the article I am probably most happy with, Puhdys; I was given a barnstar by TexasDex for Silly (band). In other instances, I'm happy that by creating an article I have helped rescue something important from being near-forgotten; The Music for UNICEF Concert and The Edsel Show are two examples. I've also created short articles or stubs for subjects that were far more obscure than they deserved, such as Mass games, the GRiD Compass (probably the first laptop), and Ryszard Siwiec, the first person to self-immolate in protest at the 1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia. But I'm just as happy to have added smaller details to numerous other articles (did you know that the sound at the beginning of the Sugababes' "Freak Like Me" is the sound made by the video game Frogger when a coin is inserted?).

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

A. I'm glad to say that most of my time on Misplaced Pages has been a pleasant experience. I was one of the users who documented the abuses of the infamous Shran, after he repeatedly vandalized Ich bin ein Berliner (at one point using the username "Prohibit0nions" with a zero). It's always a shame to see this happen, as his vandalism evinced a certain amount of intelligence and persistence that might have been put to really good use here (and perhaps he has indeed "gone straight" under a new username, as the vandalism seemed to have stopped). The way I dealt with him was to discuss the vandalism, first on the article and user talk pages, and then elsewhere, and by so doing other users and I were able to compile a list of Shran's sockpuppets, putting a stop to his naughtiness. I've also occasionally encountered POV warriors but have avoided getting entangled in revert wars, usually leaving the page alone for a few days by which time the problem is often solved.

Questions from JoshuaZ

1 Some users have expressed concern that you are too much of a deletionist to be a good closer for AfDs. Do you have a response to this?

To be honest, I'm a little surprised to be called a deletionist. I've often found myself voting to keep articles (such as G10 (Canadian universities), tough love, Yes (word), Meredith Jung-En Woo, K200AA, and Denvilles railway station), sometimes again

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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.

A Link to the Past

Final (33/32/11) ended 05:53, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

A Link to the Past (talk · contribs) – I first met A Link to the Past when he made some edits to the Disgaea article way back in late 2004, and his passion for the project has always struck me as amazing. He's had a previous RFA, and we've discussed it and I think that ALTTP has seriously made an effort to address the objections previously brought up. His emphasis on improving articles to featured status also shows his dedication to Misplaced Pages. - RedWordSmith 05:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

• Accept FTW (or L). - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Support - first post (even while on a Wikibreak). BD2412 T 06:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

   Restating support in light of oppose votes cast subsequent to my initial post. This editor has contributed enough to gain my confidence that he will not abuse the tools - wikibreaks and occasional sarcasm do not dissuade me. BD2412 T 21:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

2. Support, good editor, not likely to abuse admin powers --TBC 06:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

   Support Would definitely make a good administrator and is a great editor especially on video game related topics. Pegasus1138 ---- 06:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

   Withdrawn due to attitude concerns both on wiki and especially towards voters who criticized him while voting either neutral or oppose. I think he'll eventually make a great admin and I'd even be willing to nominate him after a few months but I think he should work on his attitude before becoming an admin. Due to the fact that he's a great contributor and I don't want to pile on I am going to leave this as a no vote by me and not change it to oppose. Pegasus1138 ---- 02:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

3. That's hot. Mike H. That's hot 06:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
4. Support This is a good editor, and would make a top-notch admin. His additions to game articles have been well-done indeed. Daniel Davis 06:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
5. Just to be completely explicit, Support, of course. - RedWordSmith 06:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
6. Support, great editor. jacoplane 07:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
7. Support I've seen ALttP around before, and I've found him to be a good editor.--Toffile 07:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
8. Support meets my criteria fine! - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 08:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
9. Extreme Adrian Mole support, he should have been promoted the first time. JIP | Talk 09:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
10. Support per above.  Grue  11:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
11. Support. Why are so many people opposing? It is as if the revert and block vandal button should only go to people who talk a lot on talk pages--Exir Kamalabadi 12:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
12. Support. What do have declining edits with adminship? We have lots of admins that contribute once a month, like User:Joy --HolyRomanEmperor 13:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
13. Support Looks good Leidiot 13:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
14. Support A good editor. --Siva1979 14:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
15. Support --Terence Ong 14:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
16. Strong Support. — Deckiller 14:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
17. --Jaranda 15:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
18. Support.—The ikiroid (talk/parler/hablar/paroli/说/話) 15:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
19. Support per above. Weatherman90 16:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

    Support. Ral315 (talk) 17:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

20. Support --Jay(Reply) 18:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
21. Support. Great editor. Gflores 18:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
22. Support. Good user. SushiGeek 18:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
23. Support. I think that the more questionable edits of A Link to the Past show that he is outgoing and headstrong. I realize that some people may not like that, but but we need more punctual admins on Misplaced Pages. --Clyde Miller 18:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
24. Conditional Support: after speaking with you on IRC, based on you continuing to help out in the video-game articles, that you be a little more open and willing to change your ways, that you do a little more vandal fighting, and that for god sakes you play some PSP instead of that silly DS!!!! I think you'll be a good admin, and unlikely to abuse the priveliges, so as admin is no big deal, I'm giving my support, but understand that it's a little weak, and taking some of my suggestions would be a good way to shore up my vote for sure. ⇒ SWATJester Aim _Fire! 15:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

    FTW! --Rory096 17:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)Changed to neutral

25. Support (S). — FireFox • T
26. I am going to support this time. I believe LTTP when he says that the issues of temperment are behind him. Besides, Adamwankenobi and Copperchair were stubborn enough to drive many people to the brink of insanity. Coffee 20:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
27. Support; good, solid editor. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 22:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
28. Support--Jusjih 15:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
29. Support The JPS 16:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
30. Support. Productive editor. I see no major problems with temperament and have worked with this contributor. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 21:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
31. Moral Support Better luck next time. But you definetly deserve more supports than objects. Jedi6-(need help?) 03:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
32. Moral Support Per the above, you should not get this much opposition, IMHO. Best of luck for next time. Banez 22:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
33. Support A Link to the Past would be a good admin --Adam1213 Talk + 05:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)