Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Taxman (talk | contribs) at 19:56, 9 November 2004 (nominate Jeronimo). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 19:56, 9 November 2004 by Taxman (talk | contribs) (nominate Jeronimo)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Purge the cache to refresh this page

Shortcut

]

Requests for adminship (not to be confused with requests for arbitration at WP:RFAr) is a page to nominate yourself or others to become a Misplaced Pages administrator, also known as "sysop". Admins have access to a few technical features that help with Misplaced Pages maintenance. Please see the reading list and how-to guide before applying here.

For current admins, see the list of administrators; for users who were recently made administrators, see recently created admins. Boilerplate questions for candidates can be inserted using {{subst:Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Candidate questions}}.

Rules

Administrator status is granted to known and trusted members of the community who are familiar with Misplaced Pages policies. Administrators have no special authority on Misplaced Pages, but are held to higher standards, because they are perceived by many, particularly new, users as the official face of Misplaced Pages. Therefore they should take care to be courteous, and exercise good judgment and patience in dealing with other users. Nominees should have been on Misplaced Pages long enough for people to see whether they have these qualities. Most new administrators have over three months of participation and over 1000 edits. You may nominate yourself, but it is advisable to exceed usual expectations before doing so. You may look at the minimum standards for adminship expected by some users at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Standards.

Nominations remain for seven days so the community can vote and comment on the nomination. Bureaucrats may extend this when consensus is unclear (because consensus is subjective, bureaucrats have some discretion, but the threshold on this page is roughly 80% support). Nominations which are clearly not going to gain sufficient support may be removed earlier to prevent discussions that generate ill will; however, as most editors don't visit Misplaced Pages daily, a reasonable amount of time should be allowed. Some people oppose early removal under any circumstances. If your nomination is rejected, please wait a reasonable period of time before applying again.

To add your vote, edit the section for that candidate. You may add a short comment to your vote, but discussion and responses to other comments belong in the Comments section below every nomination. When voting, please update the vote tally of the nomination that you are voting in. The vote tally format is as follows: (Support/Oppose/Neutral).

Anonymous users cannot be nominated, nominate others, or vote. They are allowed to comment.

Template:RfAInstructions

Nomination Moratorium

Please respect a moratorium on new nominations until we get the current list
down to a half-dozen or so. This is not a matter of too much work for bureaucrats.
Candidates (and Misplaced Pages) deserve an opportunity for editors to explore and consider
each nomination and this is difficult by the dozen. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 19:48, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC).

Current nominations

Note: Nominations have to be accepted by the user in question. If you nominate a user, please also leave a message on their talk page and ask them to reply here if they accept the nomination.

Please add new requests at the top of this section (and update the headers when voting)

Current time is 17:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Jeronimo

Final (24/0/1) extened to 22:36, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC), but may be concluded earlier if candidate accepts or rejects before then.

This is a bit of an obvious one. Clearly a conscientious and responsible editor. I learned he was an admin in the distant past, but did not maintain it in order to focus on article writing. He has mentioned he would not mind helping with admin tasks again. - Taxman 22:37, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

Candidate Jeronimo has not accepted this nomination. I will leave this up for another 24 hours to give him/her an opportunity to accept or reject. If no acceptance, the user cannot be promoted and this nomination must be terminated. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 21:26, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I will accept my nomination. I had no idea I had to accept this here; Taxman asked me if I could nominate me on his/mine talk page and I answered there. But here it is. Jeronimo 10:57, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to the old nomination? Andre (talk) 22:52, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

Support

Taxman (presumably - Andre (talk) )
uc 22:59, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Absolutely support - he's a great editor who absolutely deserves to be an admin. →Raul654 23:24, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
There should hardly be a need for a vote to reinstate an adminship that has been voluntarily dropped, especially not when the editor has remained up-to-date with policies. David Remahl 23:35, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Right. -- Grun t 🇪🇺 00:27, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)
Lst27 (talk) 01:22, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
] 02:07, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
Paul August 03:46, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
Andre (talk) 12:40, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
Rubber stamp this one in. Shane King 12:56, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
Sietse 13:48, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Strong support. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:05, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Support. ugen64 16:11, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Fire Star 16:54, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
~~Slam dunk and all that. :)~~ func (talk) 20:34, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Strong support ] 01:27, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Mark 05:10, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Support Tuf-Kat 11:28, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
Support. Hard to find a lower-risk nomination than a former admin. Antandrus 03:05, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Support. 172 05:06, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Support. Does great work around WP:FAC Filiocht 10:05, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
JFW | T@lk 15:06, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Support. Great work on explaining is view on WP:FAC. ] 21:00, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
Jeronimo! --Slowking Man 02:28, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
I while ago, I nominated B-29 Superfortress on the FAC. Several users gave brief statements of support, but Jeronimo gave me 25-line list of nine items he thought should be fixed. I was impressed. •→Iñgólemo ←• 03:39, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Um... Jeronimo has made no comments or statements on this vote whatsoever. This concerns me somewhat. I will re-add my support if Jeronimo will address Geogre's question below.

Comments

Arrived in January 2002 and has made over 7000 edits. uc

This user voluntarily dropped his sysop status. Is there a need for a vote? →Raul654 07:19, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

I would say it's a good idea just to make sure that opinion is still supportive. After all, there is always a reason why they dropped out in the first place. There's no apparent need to let this nomo run it's full course, though, and I support calling this one early. --BesigedB 07:45, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have a question: Jeronimo, in your own words, can you explain why you lapsed out of admin status? I ask because one can write articles while being an admin, so there is something that just seems insufficient about that rationale, which was offered by Taxman. You do fantastic work, and this isn't meant to be a tripping or hostile question, but I had thought you'd have addressed the subject in you responses or comments somewhere. It's just kind of the elephant in the room: someone's got to ask, and it might as well be me. Geogre 16:01, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

My characterization of it is certainly not necessarily his. You can check my talk page for the more accurate version. - Taxman 00:31, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Taxman, I'll do that. I just thought it would be a good thing for consideration, and I was only wondering. Lapsing admin rare enough, at least these days, that it seems interesting. Geogre 15:50, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As Taxman pointed out, you can read my comment on his talk page. I think that is sufficient, but if you'd like more info, let me know. Jeronimo 11:06, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Pumpie

Final (1/29/0 - last checked: Schnee 18:57, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)) Ends 19:43, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Per his request, nominatining him again... seems like he could be useful Chuck F 19:43, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would like to become an administrator since I've been here almost a year at Misplaced Pages, so please vote. - 20:46, September 17, 2004 (UTC)

Support

Chuck F

Oppose

No, no, no, for obvious reasons: look at his talk page and contributions. I believe that Pumpie is enthusiastic and sincere about contributing to Misplaced Pages, but it's readily apparent that he knows neither what he's doing nor what he ought to be doing, despite many attempts to teach him. I do not think he has demonstrated the skill and good judgement necessary for the use of sysop powers. —No-One Jones 20:02, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Pumpie seems to have trouble communicating with others here. Rhobite 20:07, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
CryptoDerk 20:08, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
Absolutely not. Pumpie has absolutely no regard for other editors and constantly causes more harm than good to Misplaced Pages, whether intentionally or not. See Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Pumpie for details. —Stormie 20:19, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
No. -- Schnee 20:20, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
If he's such a genius, he ought to know better than this. Isn't he the one behind all those horribly translated articles? Everyking 20:33, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
No. Has no regard for other users. Merely pumps out very poor translations of articles on other Wikipedias with no regard to the original or to converting them into grammatical English. His many many contributions are in incredibly poor English too. This just creates lots of work for others. Look at his last sentence below: it's not even grammatical. His answer to question 6 below is disingenuous (see his talk page and the RfC page). I doubt strongly that he has a high IQ or is a genius. I have no confidence at all that he would exercise proper judgment as a sysop. jguk 20:50, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
See comments. uc 20:54, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I think he's really trying to improve, but he's not there yet. "I'm brilliant" is not a helpful response to questions and concerns. I understand that translation is not easy and respect his attempts to improve, but I'm concerned that his English skills may result in misunderstanding of policies and difficulty in communicating those policies to others. -] 22:22, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
In spite of assurances that he's a "genius", his poorly translated location substub-with-taxobax articles don't reflect his alleged brilliance. In spite of numorous requests that he stop making empty articles and concentrate of fixing his own mess, he continues to create work for other admins. Honestly, I wonder if Pumpie is not committing subtle vandalism. He should be rejected like he was last time (in the history of this article.) Cool Hand Luke 22:27, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I should add that I think this is his ninth RfA, but it's probably the first where he's been nominated. Cool Hand Luke 22:31, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
According to his talk page, he requested the nomination on irc -- Chris 73 Talk 00:57, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
Aside from the fact that I think his work is shaky, I don't see his answers on the generic questions to be very encouraging. He can do that sort of thing now. If he's brilliant, I'm the Queen of England. Mike H 22:43, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
Adam Bishop 22:53, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Plop 22:56, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
Mackensen (talk) 22:57, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Strongly oppose. Sorry. I have tried to reason with this guy in a calm, rational and friendly manner and he simply ignores all attempts at contact. So have others and he ignores them as well. As I write, he's posting more of those malformed geographic substubs. He's also oblivious to the fact that he's currently on the RfC page. I've tried to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume his intentions are good, but I simply can't do so anymore. - Lucky 6.9 23:45, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. I have tried to work with this user many times in the past, and though I know he works hard, I'm not sure how having admin access would help wikipedia at all. I am unsure of his ability to follow Wiki policies, and question his willingness to communicate with or compromise with other users. Sorry, Pumpie. ] 00:04, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Strongly oppose. I've tried to communicate with Pumpie multiple times (see his talk page), and it has always been unilateral. He refuses to participate in constructive discussions about his work. Also, I think that the storm of "machine translations" (or really, really, really poor human translations) is part of his plot to become an administrator. He'll probably soon realise that it was not a fruitful tactic...(Pumpie has self-nominated for adminship half-a-dozen times over the course of a year). — David Remahl 00:08, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hell, no. ] 00:12, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
David Cannon 00:16, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC). How long is is since we last voted on this one? Even Al Gore knew better than to run again after losing only once, and Pumpie's lost ... how many times is it? Pumpie, put your shoulder to the plogh and do some GOOD quality work, and I'll vote for you in six months. How's that?
I tried to think of a unique way to say no, but I have to admit, everything that can be said about this request has already been said. Shane King 00:24, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
Agree with Shane King, he said it already -- Chris 73 Talk 00:57, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
Zero evidence of change since last (self-)nomination. -- Grun t 🇪🇺 01:33, 2004 Nov 10 (UTC)
Oppose for many reasons, already stated by others. SWAdair | Talk 06:02, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Strongly oppose. A prolific but disruptive contributor, he could at this stage become even more disruptive with administrator rights. olivier 07:10, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
"Having a high I.Q." and wanting to "fix links" aren't exactly convincing reasons for adminship, at least for me. Also, he doesn't seem to be good at communicating with others, judging from the animosity that he's generated and from his lack of contributions to pages outside the Main namespace. Maybe someday, but not now. --Slowking Man 07:17, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
I'm having trouble assuming good faith with this user because I find it hard to believe that someone could really fail to understand the numerous (numerous!) attempts by a diverse range of users to communicate with him. —Lowellian (talk)] 09:01, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
I also no longer extend the benefit of doubt, nor assumptions of good will. What he has been doing is not brilliant at all, unless the aims are to bog down the project in a paroxysm. It is not whether he is English-fluent that's at issue, but whether he is self-aware enough and disciplined enough to understand his limitations and to not attempt things that he cannot do. Geogre 14:55, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Emotional and intellectual (if not chronological) maturity is of primary importance in evenhandedly administering a sysop's editorial functions. And constantly restating that he or she is brilliant implies (to me, at least) that Pumpie feels somehow the rest of us aren't. Fire Star 18:36, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
No way. --Lst27 (talk) 23:44, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

Based on my own review of Pumpie's contributions and the contents of his talk page, I do not share other's strong feelings about his work. There is no requirement that editors at en. have English as their first language. Pumpie is contributing informative articles. I believe the presence of articles such as Ovrya, Greece is part of Misplaced Pages's uniqueness, and I value them, even though the English is a little uneven. I also believe that Pumpie is being unfairly criticised for conducting, manually, some of the same tasks that were once performed by the ram-bot. The ram-bot was divisive in its day and deletion debates still flare up from time to time. I don't think it is appropriate to criticise Pumpie here at RfA for carrying out, in good faith, essentially similar edits.

My concerns about Pumpie, regarding adminship, are limited and objective:

His best work appears to be in areas unrelated to adminship duties
It is unclear that he has the necessary depth of community involvement, in discussions, talk pages, and the like
There is the appearance that he may not have responded to community concerns in some cases

I wish Pumpie the best and hope that he will continue to contribute to the English Misplaced Pages.

uc 20:54, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Some of his articles may be informative, but some contain inaccuracies or misinformation. I believe this is because he is attempting to translate articles from languages of which he has little knowledge to languages of which he has little knowledge, which (as one might expect) makes a mess. Examine the histories of Puteaux and Courbevoie for example. I spotted those two because I know enough French to tell that they bore little resemblance to the corresponding articles on fr:, but I don't doubt that there are others; German-speaking contributors have complained to Pumpie about his mistranslations of articles from de:, and I don't doubt that someone fluent in Portuguese or Italian would find similar problems with the articles he takes from pt: and it:. —No-One Jones 21:56, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

1. Have you read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list?

A. Yes

2. Are you interested in, and do you think you'll have some time to perform, the chores that only sysops have access to do, to help keep Misplaced Pages up to date?

A. I will try.

3. If you become a sysop, which sysop chore or chores (WP:VFD, recent changes, watching for vandals and vandalism, responding to editor requests for assistance, any other) do you especially think you would be able to help with.

A. Try to update some main pages in other wikipedias and other languages, and to protect pages from vandalism.

4. In your opinion, what article have you contributed the most succesfully and helpfully to?

A. Translating other Misplaced Pages pages into English from French.

5. In your opinion, what has your best contribution to the running and maintenance of Misplaced Pages been? (i.e., have you reverted a bad stretch of vandalism, done extensive work categorizing articles, helped mediate a dispute?)

A. I reverted a few pages from vandalism and the other two I did not do.

6. 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 will deal with it in the future?

A. Sometimes, especially some spelling errors.

I want to become an administrator, one reason is I have a high I.Q. level, and I obey most of the rules and also I am brilliant, and second I will fix links and no lower than three links from a page. Pumpie - 19:56 (UTC)

Karada

final (13/0/0) ending 18:00 16 November 2004 (UTC)

Karada has been here almost two years and has made over 6,000 edits. He is best known for his work on human sexuality topics. Throughout this difficult subject, he has worked to create accurate, informative articles that avoid advocacy and overuse of clinical terminology. Despite these topics being something of a lightning rod for vandalism and POV advocacy, he has kept his cool. I recommend him for adminship without reservation. uc 19:18, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for nominating me. I accept the nomination. Regards, Karada 22:49, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Support

uc 19:18, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Another excellent choice. —No-One Jones 20:29, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Agreed. -- Grun t 🇪🇺 01:33, 2004 Nov 10 (UTC)
Seems very mature. --Slowking Man 07:21, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
Lots of work on potentially hotbed topics without a whole bunch of people rushing to vote oppose speaks as highly of him as anything I could say. Shane King 07:50, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
Definitely. —Morven 19:23, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
Yep. --Whosyourjudas (talk) 20:20, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Great user! --Lst27 (talk) 23:46, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Support, but would like to see answers to generic admin questions. Andre (talk) 01:09, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
~~That is what I am waiting for.~~Fire Star 16:58, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Good enough. Support. Fire Star 02:14, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
OK. func (talk) 16:14, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
172 05:07, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Solid contributions. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:04, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

7883 edits as of November 10. --Whosyourjudas (talk) 20:26, 10 Nov 2004 (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 read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

A. Preventing vandalism, handling speedy deletes.

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

A. The sexology articles, which started as a whimsy, but are slowly developing into a sound sub-section of the encyclopedia. Still, more work is needed; it would be nice to get the entries up to textbook grade.

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 will deal with it in the future?

A. Yes, I have. I try hard to keep my cool, and rely on reasonableness and the community's "invisible hand" to fix conflicts. This works with almost all non-troll editors. In my experience, trolls either get bored, or get dealt with by the community sooner or later. I intend to carry on this way if I'm made a sysop.

Wapcaplet

final (35/0/1) ending 18:00 16 November 2004 (UTC)

Eric has been here for almost two years and has racked up 6000 edits. He edits on a variety of general-interest topics, and has done a fair amount of WikiHardLabor, like categorizing stuff, fixing double or broken redirects, and answering questions on the pump. He has also contributed a number of illustrations. uc 19:30, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've resisted becoming an admin before for no really good reason aside from a general avoidance of responsibility. It's probably time. I accept the nomination - thanks! -- Wapcaplet 20:27, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Support

uc 19:30, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
What, he's not an admin yet? Support. -- Schnee 20:22, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
—No-One Jones 20:30, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Support, but I'd like to see you answer the generic admin questions. Andre (talk) 20:42, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
Support. ed g2s • talk 20:48, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Strong community presence. -- user:zanimum
Support. This is one of the "how is he not an admin yet?" ones. -- DrBob 21:27, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I've seen good work, particularly the illustrations. --Michael Snow 22:12, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Michael. Jwrosenzweig 22:16, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Dori | Talk 23:12, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
Rick K 23:23, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC) Sure.
Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 23:25, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Support! — Matt 23:39, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Evercat 23:41, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
never thought I'd say this, but ... He is not an admin yet??? -- Chris 73 Talk 00:58, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
Neutrality (hopefully!) 00:59, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
Hard worker. Good guy. Support. – Quadell ] 01:27, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
Agreed. -- Grun t 🇪🇺 01:34, 2004 Nov 10 (UTC)
Tuf-Kat 02:55, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
Antandrus 03:00, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
func (talk) 14:22, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Fire Star 18:50, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Noisy | Talk 18:53, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You mean he isn't already? —Morven 19:25, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
Most surely. ugen64 22:23, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Lst27 (talk) 23:48, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Geogre 02:05, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC) Finally, someone who has been on the project long enough for me to support them. :-)
Infrogmation 17:16, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Support. +sj + 18:13, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Agreed. Mrholybrain 6:53, 11 Nov 2004 (EST)
Possible sockpuppet. User has 6 edits. -- Grun t 🇪🇺 15:20, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)
Very, very strong support. I've seen his contributions, and this user is fantastic!!!! - Ta bu shi da yu 15:07, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Support. Jayjg 17:06, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Support: courteous, helpful, and unflappable user.--Bishonen (Talk) 11:29, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
172 05:08, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
JFW | T@lk 15:05, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

You mean with all the Wikipedians out there, there's not one iconoclast with a dissenting vote? Wapcaplet must indeed be a fine candidate and it is refreshing to see a candidate get such support. PedanticallySpeaking 17:08, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

Comments

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 read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

A. I'd most likely continue my usual activities; I generally like to work on Misplaced Pages at my own pace, and fix mistakes when and where I find them. I would probably use admin privileges to help with reverting, fixing bad redirects caused by improperly moved pages, and perhaps the occasional article-protection. I have little interest in participating in activities related to article deletion, blocking users, or other political wiki-quagmires.

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

A. I'm quite happy with the illustrations I've contributed; article content that I am proud of includes LEGO, King Crimson, Dots per inch and others.

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 will deal with it in the future?

A. As many users can probably attest, I'm usually fairly laid back. In any conflicts I have been involved in, I've done my best to remain civil and courteous; wikistress is very rarely a problem for me. Whenever I start to feel stressed, I sign off and do something else.

Indrian

final (4/6/1) ending 17:37 16 November 2004 (UTC)

Indrian has been a dedicated RC patroller since July 2004, often tagging CSDs before I get a chance to look at them. I know that he would use the powers of adminship to aid him in these tasks and would serve the community well. -- Grun t 🇪🇺 17:37, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)

I am honored to be nominated for this position and will accept the charge if the community feels I am worthy of having it bestowed upon me. Indrian 21:07, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

Support

-- Grun t 🇪🇺 17:37, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)
Support. ugen64 22:24, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Don't see the harm. anthony 警告 03:49, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Deletionism is not a reason to oppose adminship, and this contributor has shown no other reason to do so. Ambi 13:17, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

1/3 (226/734) of his edits are VfD-related. Rest are fairly minor – long runs of category (Sep 6) and redirect bypassing (Nov 5). Politics around deletionism (or inclusionism) is probably over-blown on RFA, but participants in ADW are a different matter. Contributions he's made adding content to Misplaced Pages are over-shadowed by this. I also note a lack of edit summary use. Maybe in a couple of months. -- Netoholic @ 21:47, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)
Too few edits. Should have more than 2000. Passw0rd 22:21, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Indrian has more edits than his edit count would suggest, due to the vast number of SDCs he's tagged. I also maintain the belief that edits counts do not matter with regard to adminship. -- Grun t 🇪🇺 01:35, 2004 Nov 10 (UTC)
New page patrol is great, but he has a very broad definition of a speedy delete, (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7—this one got to me because it was obviously a newbie's atempt at a redirect, ect). Failed attempts to speedy appear to consitute a shocking portion of his non-VfD edits. Granted, much of this stuff is garbage, but they don't fit speedy criteria. He hasn't done it in the last week and a half, but I would much prefer to have other admins review his deletion judgement for the time being. Aside from that, he has great contributions and I'd almost undoubtably support him next time around. Cool Hand Luke 23:02, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Lack of edit summaries makes it almost impossible for me to assess his contributions. Not tagging your edits shows a basic lack of courtesy to other editors. Start making an effort to tag edits please, and maybe I can support. I'm neutral on the deletionism charges: politics shouldn't play a part in adminship. The number of incorrect speedys is impossible to pass judgement on without knowing the number of correct speedies: it may be a very low error rate for all we know. Shane King 04:00, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
Agree with the above: Some of the speedys show poor judgment, and no edit summaries. Furthermore, too few edits. I'd prefer to see more value added rather than just deletion of articles. —Lowellian (talk)] 09:25, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
Agree with the above. Please try again in three months. --Lst27 (talk) 23:49, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

I've found him to be thoughtful and concerned, and I think it takes conscience and a desire to improve the project to go through RC, to tag speedies, and to go through VfD. He thinks about the bigger issues, and this is very good. As for Netoholic and others who think that VfD voting makes one inelligible, I will say nothing except that it is a very strict minority view. My neutrality is based solely on time on project. I am in favor and supporting him and will absolutely support on a re-nomination. Geogre 15:01, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Comments

734 edits -- Netoholic @ 21:38, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)
Is there a way to get a count of how many articles he's actually tagged for speedy deletion, since those are invisible in his contribs? -- Netoholic @ 21:38, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)
- I don't believe there is. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 22:17, 9 Nov 2004 (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 read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

A. I would undertake any tasks that I was called upon to discharge and would do so in strict accordance with the rules and policies while also taking into account the sensibilities of the community at large. Areas to which I would pay particular attention would be vandalism and deletion.

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

A. I am particularly pleased with my work on the History of Myanmar. While there are still gaps to be filled in by someone with a more specialized knowledge of the country, I took a page that was very short and lacking in a good deal of basic information and made it into a full-length account of the country's history through a series of edits undertaken over several months. I am also pleased with my ongoing projects of contributing and expanding articles on baseball players and Holy Roman Emperors.

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 will deal with it in the future?

A. I will admit up front that I have been involved in some heavy debates on notability, particualrly of schools. Heated words have occasionally been exchanged in this debate, but it has mostly been civil. I have worked with Posieduck, who is trying to reach a compromise on the matter, and have always accepted the will of the community when a decision has not gone my way. I have some strong opinions on what should be in an encyclopedia, but I have never purposely or knowingly violated a rule, policy, or community mandate to further any agenda of my own, and I always place the will of the community before my own once a decision has been made.

Eequor

final (13/17/6) ending 06:34, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

4000 mainspace edits and 8100 total edits as of October 10, been here since March 2004. I believe she is deserving of adminship. —Lowellian (talk)] 06:36, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

I gratefully accept. --] 04:40, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

To my supporters, thank you for your votes; to my opponents, thank you for voicing your concerns. I hope to be less controversial next time. --] 07:38, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Support

—Lowellian (talk)] 06:46, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
See no reason to oppose. Eequor's comments on the link Kate provided were right on target. Gzornenplatz 13:58, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
Looks quite constructive, I see no evidence to the contrary in fact, especially contribs to reference desk and so. Very decent admin material from my quick look through contribs. Oh yeah, and TINC! ;-) Kim Bruning 19:59, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Support! --Sonjaaa 08:43, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
Obviously not going to succeed this time. Opposers below appear confused. They should read more Karl Popper - Xed 19:15, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Support. Eequor makes useful contributions to articles, and has responded clearly and politely to the concerns raised by objectors here. Factitious 08:26, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
Support. Eequor may be insane, but does that nessecarily mean Eequor is insane? Anyhow, support on the basis that while Eequor has done some somewhat questionable things, they've mostly just been too hyped up. For example, what Raul said about what Eequor said about rules is a typical thing one might expect to hear from a stodgy sysop who has spent too much time enforcing rules, but really what Eequor said is in complete agreement with Misplaced Pages policy and it should be recognised that we are meant to obey the SPIRIT of the rules, and not to follow them to the letter - thus good contributors don't get banned for repeat vandalism if they can offer up a good explanation (if they revert it themselves, nobody usually pursues action against them). Good job Eequor. --Node 19:41, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Eequor is a multitalented editor who usually uses her powers for good. :) If she is granted adminship and then abuses it, I will be the first to start an RfC on her, but I don't think she would do that. func (talk) 21:13, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Thought she was one already. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 01:30, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I see absolutely nothing this user has done that would justify the cruel words being levelled at her. Very Verily 10:25, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
She's a little quirky, a little different... all the more reason to support. Andre (talk) 22:37, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
The "rules" are not a substitute for using your head and embracing the spirit of the place. Too many people here use the "rules" to browbeat other users instead of as a means of facilitating a great encyclopaedia. Let's have more admins who believe that fighting for a great encyclopaedia is more important than fighting for the status quo.Dr Zen 07:01, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Although Eequor and I have had disagreements in the past, a variety of viewpoints is useful for the wiki. Support this nomination. ] 07:10, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Support. I see: No respect for authority. Completely opposed to everything I believe in. Sanity questionable. I'm surprised Eequor isn't admin already. -- DavidCary 17:28, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

—No-One Jones 06:45, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Netoholic @ 06:47, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC) -- Disapprovize.
— Kate Turner | Talk 06:48, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)
And verily, I did laugh out loud. - Vague Rant 06:57, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

Developer involvement on a WikiMedia bug report page sounds like a good idea to me. I'm not sure why you listed it in the Oppose section. Factitious 08:26, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
Read what Eequor actually insinuates. JFW | T@lk 19:54, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'm hesitant to read too much into insinuations, since I'm necessarily just guessing about them, but it looks as though she's suggesting that a lack of developer involvement there means that one of two things must be the case. Either no development work is being done, and therefore the page "should be deleted to discourage users from wasting their time", or development work is done in a private, secret way, which would make that page "essentially a façade to maintain the illusion of community involvement without the fact of it." Is that what you're talking about, or have I missed something? Factitious 07:26, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
Not a chance. Rick K 06:52, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
No. - Vague Rant 06:57, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
Not a constructive user. --Slowking Man 07:00, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
This just about says it all about Eequor - "Clearly strict adherence to the "rules" is a naïve and insular position" →Raul654 07:01, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
~~Adminship requires that the user show good judgement. The good news is that it can be developed over time. The bad news is the time has not yet come to pass. Shane King 07:51, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)~~

Interestingly, that quote seems to be in agreement with Misplaced Pages policy. Factitious 08:26, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
Absolutely it is. Anyone with life experience knows that nearly all rules can and should have exceptions. For instance, take Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks, which telling someone to "grow up" might qualify for. Very Verily 10:51, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Amen to most above opinions. •→Iñgólemo ←• 08:07, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)
What target did Eequor hit, exactly? Let's see - she makes out that in a massive project like Misplaced Pages, the fact that the cabal can't be everywhere at once is proof that there is a cabal. You just have to love the rhetorical skills that allow someone to prove the existence of a thing by its absence. I'm sure that kind of logic would greatly simplify the long-running dispute over Atheism. --Michael Snow 17:40, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Huh? The argument is very simple. If the developers are not responsive on a page designed for community feedback to the developers, this suggests they are ignoring the community and making decisions on their own. Pretty clear. I have no idea if what she says is true, but it does not warrant this kind of abusive mockery. I'm disappointed in you. Very Verily 10:51, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Well, this discussion has digressed into an argument only tangentially related to Eequor's qualifications for adminship. My sarcasm was a rhetorical flourish in response to Gzornenplatz's argument, which was unnecessary and I apologize. Discussing the developers further is a bit off-topic, but I agree with Kate's points below, and would add that if the developers have to constantly talk back to the community instead of mostly listening to it, they'll never have time to actually get any developing done. --Michael Snow 18:11, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The target is the unresponsiveness and secretiveness of the developers. A small group that co-opts new members by itself without community involvement is a cabal in my book. Kate knows this best - he somehow managed to become a developer after being here for barely 3 months, before he even was a sysop (pretending to be female may have helped, I guess). Gzornenplatz 22:28, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
I'm not "pretending to be female" any more than User:Lucky 6.9 is pretending to be a car. To suggest that Tim gave me shell access because he thought I was female when he knew my real name is ridiculous and insulting to him.

The very top of the m:MediaWiki 1.3 comments and bug reports page says "Bugs in MediaWiki should always be reported at MediaZilla to make sure they aren't lost or forgotten," in bold; below that it says "for emergency problems on Misplaced Pages & sister projects, try to contact the developers by IRC". I don't see how anyone is being unresponsive or secret by not immediately responding to comments on a page which gives pretty clear instructions about where one should be posting in order for one's comments not to be missed. — Kate Turner | Talk 00:47, 2004 Nov 10 (UTC)
I cannot see a possible justification for that comment for someone that would be fitting for the role of an administrator. -- Grun t 🇪🇺 17:43, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)
But "Yo, fucktard. Take your cute, little, fluffy doggie and stick him where the sun don't shine. Get a life, buttbleed." is fine? 216.155.74.28 04:01, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
No, it isn't. My utter stupidity in posting that comment, repeat vandal or not, cost me an adminship. - Lucky 6.9 22:54, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
That isn't the point. The issue is that Grunt had no problems voting in favor of potential administrators who, for example, frequently use insulting and profane laguage towards other Misplaced Pages users. But, G-d forbid, anyone dare challenge the Misplaced Pages power structure. Insult all you like, but in this world, challenging the Misplaced Pages status quo is " fitting for the role of an administrator." 216.155.74.28 15:51, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Respectfully, that is the point. As Geogre pointed out, I was "screaming" in frustration at an anonymous vandal, not a registered user. Was it wrong in the larger scheme of things? Given the fact that my, uh, rancor is preserved in the edit history leads me to say yes. I have had exactly four moderate fallings-out with registered users only after attempts at reason failed. I didn't simply pull the trigger and cut loose with a tirade after the first disagreement. At the tender age of 43, I hope I'm not that immature and impulsive. I'm pleased to say that we "passed the peace pipe" each and every time. I have no animosity toward any regular user at present and I intend to keep it that way. - Lucky 6.9 02:12, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
While I believe I've shared some of her view points in the past, Eequor took a possible hoax about a Bulgarian radiant leak from the reference desk, and put it as front page news today. Not responsible. -- user:Zanimum
Now that that objection has been met with below, do you still oppose adminship? Factitious 08:26, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
I'd really like to support because I think complaints about her fixation with the "cabal" are silly, but editing "In the News" to repeat an user's heretofore baseless claims is reckless. Cool Hand Luke 02:37, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I normally dont interfere on this things but this edit on Elagabalus(note the recategorization) makes me wonder about Leah Q's sanity (with all due respect) and her use as a sysop. ] 08:13, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
As I have stated elsewhere, there is considerable evidence that Elagabalus was likely to be at least transgendered. --] 08:50, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What about it causes you to question her sanity? I've heard about Heliogabalus being transgendered before. If there's evidence for it, there's no need to avoid mentioning it on Misplaced Pages. Factitious 08:26, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
I am not denying the relevance of recent studies concerning Elagabalus' sexuality - that's why Leah Q's reference was not removed. However, wondering about he preferred to be treated as a she is speculation; in my view wikipedia is not a repository of speculations. As for categorizing the boy as a Roman empress is, to say the least, absurd. ] 09:58, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I'd missed that — I thought the category you were talking about was the "Transgender-related topics" one. Factitious 11:25, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
A lot of fine pharmacological work but also a lot of bias against traditionalist religion (a POV forcefully stated on her userpage). JFW | T@lk 08:16, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I don't see how religious views have any bearing on adminship. --] 08:50, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
That's not the point. The point is that there have been POV wars on religious topics with you as a participant. JFW | T@lk 15:18, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
POV is OK on user pages, but articles are another matter. Michael Hardy 01:45, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's the displaying of this POV during editing I'm referring to. JFW | T@lk 19:56, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
No --Mrfixter 03:11, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
CheeseDreams 11:06, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'm surprised no one has cited Misplaced Pages:Don't disrupt Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point, a proposed policy with which I agree very much. Such inanity as listing rambot articles on VFD is counterproductive, and not the way one should start discussion on the matter. — Dan | Talk 13:16, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I agree with this policy as well, but it explicitly refers to actions which really are intended to cause disruption. Parody and breaching experiments allude to the point while demonstrating its opposite. The Rambot VfD is not an example of this; I stated my purpose clearly and directly without suggesting I had anything else in mind. It has never been my intent to disrupt Misplaced Pages. --] 23:30, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

I've decided to remove my opposition, as really my concern was over the way Eequor has caused other people to react to her, not her behaviour per se. Therefore it's probably unfair of me to oppose. I think one day Eequor will make a good admin, although I think time (as in heals all wounds) will need to pass first. Shane King 07:37, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
the stuff linked to above would make me tend towards 'object', but I haven't researched well enough to really be comfortable with a negative vote (and the cause seems doomed, anyway). I suppose the ideal admin is a much more boring person (janitor) than Eequor. dab 08:22, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Um... I run into Eequor's edits quite a bit, and I've always found them to be good. There are a number of people who are opposing her for whom I have a great deal of respect, so I'm withholding a support vote until I can get a handle on the nature of the opposing viewpoint. func (talk) 14:54, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'm only responding here because my vote was solicited on my user page. I do not normally participate in these votes, and do not intend to start now. Most of my recent work has been on other projects to the extent that I have not followed the behaviour of any candidate on Misplaced Pages to a sufficient extent to be able to cast a vote on his/her suitability as an admin on this project. Eclecticology 18:40, 2004 Nov 10 (UTC)
Lst27 (talk) 23:52, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I think we need to try hard to get many different points of view among administrators, however I am hesitant in supporting this particular user due to reasons which I will not mention here for fear of being offensive. anthony 警告 03:54, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
What's the subject of your concern, if not the details? --] 06:18, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It's already been adequetely alluded to above. anthony 警告 13:05, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I also am somewhat concerned with your "intention to act in the best interests of Misplaced Pages, whatever they appear to be." It is my opinion that admins should act only with the consensus support of the community, not based on whatever they happen to think is best. anthony 警告 16:15, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Eequor does seem intelligent, but has also appeared gratuitously belligerent. It doesn't seem like mere tempermental hotheadedness. See User talk:Eequor/vs. MIT. She wants to claim to have defeated MIT in an argument and make an issue of the matter. The fact that her argument lacks merit doesn't help either. Michael Hardy 01:35, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I claim nothing of the sort. That page's name was what I felt to be most fitting, since you cited the institution. I have no intentions of belligerence; personally, that allegation struck me as "gratuitous belligerence" and rather put me off to the whole discussion. --] 02:04, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Comments

I find it ironic that several of those casting opposition votes recently voted in favor of a nominee who told a fellow editor: "Yo, fucktard. Take your cute, little, fluffy doggie and stick him where the sun don't shine. Get a life, buttbleed." just weeks before his nomination. While Eequor may be high-strung at times, I've never seen her use profanity or be abusive to wikipedians. Behavior like this strongly suggests that the wikicabal is alive and well. 216.155.74.28 02:55, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Did you bother, in that case, to investigate the "editor" to whom it was said? Did you look at the context at all? Did you just see a dirty word and set your jaw and decide that it was proof of a conspiracy? Just wondering. The "victim" of that insult was a vandal, not an editor, who had been going through chopping up articles (otherwise known as vandalism). The "editor" was spoken to three times with gentle warnings, pleading, entreaties. The "editor" did not respond and continued to deface pages. The user who used the profanity could not block the vandal, not being an admin, and screamed -- though very likely not where the vandal would ever see it, since the vandal wasn't exactly responding to other talk page notes. Just so you know. N.b. I have not voted on Eequor, but I do think the nomination of every single Rambot article on VfD was a bit childish. Geogre 15:10, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This is a misrepresentation. I had actually asked for the deletion of articles about towns having fewer than about 1,000 inhabitants which had been produced solely by Rambot. Of course I was not seriously expecting them to be deleted; I was trying to draw attention to the inferior quality of articles produced by Rambot, and to encourage discussion about whether Rambot should be used at all. --] 22:02, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, I understand the desire to draw attention to the articles, but I didn't like having an overloaded VfD get bogged down further. I am not voting, however, as I honestly haven't had enough interaction to form an opinion. (I would far have preferred a Village Pump discussion of Rambot or a namespace vote with lots of publicizing of it and then, if there were a consensus there, reporting to VfD or the mailing list or something. Like I said, though, I'm not taking a position on admin qualities.) Geogre 02:10, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

My, this all seems to be going about as I thought it might.

I'm confused by the suggestion that I have a special interest in the Cabal, and I don't remember ever saying it can't be everywhere at once. Naturally that would be a very specious argument.

My concern about MediaWiki 1.3 comments and bug reports was the fact that the notice at the top appeared to be insufficient for a large number of users, whose comments were being ignored. As the developers obviously know the page exists and is being used, they should accept its presence and check back once in a while rather than pretend it isn't there. Completely ignoring the page demonstrates a profound lack of interest in working with the larger community.

Regarding Template:In the news and the 2004 Bulgaria radiation leak, I feel that recklessness is appropriate on certain occasions, especially if it may save lives. I would like to point out that I reverted the template exactly once. I do not feel this is in any way relevant to an adminship vote, as admin powers would not have changed my actions. Please see my comments at User talk:Eequor#Radiation_leak, which my detractors have not, in twelve hours, had the courtesy to respond to.

Concerning the baseless assertion that I am unconstructive, please see Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Village Pump discussion and consider the number of admins who are less constructive. --] 04:40, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Clearly. The message is: Don't criticize Misplaced Pages is you want to be an admin. Only yes-men will do - Xed 19:15, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Criticism is not the problem. She just isn't ready to have extra responsiblity, she's purely reactionary it seems. The News is what does it for me. -- user:zanimum

For what it's worth, my favorite objection here is Raul654's, which should be quite funny if one understands why. His statement is completely accurate, but should be so obviously true as to be not worth mentioning. --] 05:16, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

To those of my opponents who are concerned about Template:In the news, I would like to draw your attention to the shutdown of the Number 4 Rivno nuclear reactor in the Ukraine on November 4. Rivno is quite close to Romania; it is entirely likely that a Romanian border guard might have heard about the incident and passed on the information. Although the reactor is not actually in Bulgaria, I believe this demonstrates that my concern about a possible radiation leak in the area was not unfounded.

Concerns
I am aware that certain of my opponents have personal dislikes for me that have existed even before I had met them, first expressed by them in a rude comment. As far as I have been able to tell, all were due to their failure to assume good faith. I feel that I deserve to know why I am disliked; this is a good time to make your opinions known. I ask that voters please leave grudges on talk pages. In alphabetical order (feel welcome to add your name and your concern):

~~Netoholic~~

I did not express a "personal dislike" of you. I do not like your one-word, "l33tspeak", made-up-word, inaccurate edit summaries. They are nigh-useless, and you've been asked repeatedly to avoid that. -- Netoholic @ 15:29, 2004 Nov 10 (UTC)

I have never written edit summaries in l33tspeak. o_o

Are you confusing me with User:D3h 3l33t (484I r00lz, whom I note on my user page? --] 22:00, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I know you know what I mean. Phrases like " dephrenologize, consistencize, Dürize, bulletize, deallergize Infoboxize", and my favorite, "Vandalize" are useless. They confuse anyone looking at your contribs, or seeing them come up on watchlists. -- Netoholic @ 22:28, 2004 Nov 10 (UTC)

Okay, summaries of that nature I'll admit to. I'd like to point out that most of them should be easy to understand from a glance at the history. --] 22:33, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

LOL! May I use some of those? Especially consistencize, I like it! func (talk) 03:49, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

*grin*

I'm glad to know somebody else likes them. ^_^ --] 06:18, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Consistencize isn't bad, but Dürize is better. My only concern is whether this makes Eequor a Dürerist. Isomorphic 17:54, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Raul654

Since I have been asked to comment specifically on Eequor, I will take the opportunity to do so, in the hopes that she will improve her behavior in the future. The first time I encountered her, she was complaining on talk:main page that the featured article on that day (Holy prepuce) was inappropriate based on logic so flimsy it would blow down in a soft breeze (that because we don't allow gentical names in user name, that we shouldn't have articles on the main page on the subject). Later, she became petulant and childish. The next time I encountered her, it was because she repeatedly made nominations on the featured article candidates and made no attempt to fix any of the objections. Naturally, they (the nominations) all failed. I dropped a message on her talk page, reminding her that the page rules say if you nominate something, you are expected to make an effort to fix objections. She became extremely rude. Come to find out, this is not the first time she has User talk:Eequor/vs. MIT|acted this way]. Then, later I found out that she had pulled at least one childish stunt - nominating all the rambot articles on the VFD. Eequor has made some good contributions, but all this leads me to conclude that she has a (demonstrable) total inability to work well with others. Working well with others is the #1 trait we should look for in potential admins, and she is definitely not it. →Raul654 21:37, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

The remainder of the main page discussion is worth reading, particularly the initial comments from Raul654 and Eloquence. I think most people would consider those comments rude and would be unlikely to respond to them politely.

I'm still surprised that only one other person found the selection to be in poor taste. It's reasonable to feature, say, exploding whale; it would be quite different to feature an article about the whale's venerated anatomy. One doesn't expect to find such subjects on the front page of any encyclopedia, online or not.

And I'm bemused to find that some people take my user page more seriously than I do. I have a strong interest in comparative religion and a stronger interest in the neutral point of view; it would be remarkably silly for me to have any interest in censoring religious topics. --] 03:59, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't see why the rules for the featured article page should be such a big deal. Featured article status is not an endpoint; it's only a state of elevated recognition. Lots of articles are found to be inadequate for such recognition; why should two more be worth noting? Most of all, Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates gets well-written articles the attention they deserve.

I would consider the act of nominating the articles to have accomplished exactly what you say I did not -- fixing the objections. Following my nomination of sewage treatment, for example, there were a number of edits in a very short period of time. I'd rather point out a good article and then stay out of the way, than to pretend I have ownership; and I'd rather ignore a useless guideline than leave a good article in stasis.

That discussion is still on my talk page; would you care to explain the disrespectful tone you adopted following my attempts to hold a polite conversation? --] 03:59, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And, as I've noted before, I wasn't expecting the Rambot articles to all be deleted, much less the over-the-top reactions to my suggestion. In my opinion, some Wikipedians would do well to cultivate a sense of humor (please note the irony here). --] 03:59, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

RickK

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 read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

A. I am familiar with the pages on the reading list and with the capabilities of admins, I have experimented with an installation of MediaWiki, and I understand that adminship is not an especially big deal. I expect I would help out with maintenance issues here and there, occasionally roll back vandalism, and possibly help with speedy deletion candidates. It is my intention to act in the best interests of Misplaced Pages, whatever they appear to be.

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

A. I try not to get attached to articles. A few recent examples, however, are ultimate fate of the Universe and Satyendra Nath Bose. An older example is Template:RD header, which has not changed significantly since I wrote it. Also see my other contributions to the reference desk.

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 will deal with it in the future?

A. The majority of Wikipedians encounter some conflicts. I try to avoid it and the stress it causes, but of course that is not always possible. I don't feel this is the place to discuss users who have caused me stress.

I approach arguments in a calm, reasoned, and respectful manner, and I expect others to do the same. I do not target specific users, ever, and, as noted above, I simply do not use profanity (and find it appalling that there could be support for the previous nominee). I will defend other users with exactly the politeness their aggressors deserve.

Particularly exasperating discussions can be found at User talk:Eequor/vs. MIT (from Talk:empty product) and User talk:Eequor/Zealotry.

Derek Ross

final (22/0/0) ending 00:30, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Derek has been with the project for three years and has amassed over 7500 edits, remaining active even after moving across the Atlantic ocean to Canada. I believe adminship is long overdue. uc 04:11, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've had lots of fun dealing with trouble on Misplaced Pages even without using the admin functions but I'm not one to look a gift horse in the mouth. I accept the nomination, thanks. -- Derek Ross | Talk

Support

. uc 22:31, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
—No-One Jones 22:38, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Fine by me. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 22:38, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Andre (talk) 23:45, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
Ok. -- Grun t 🇪🇺 01:22, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)
Absolutely, (even though the guy is obsessed with BASIC) ;-) func (talk) 02:41, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
That Derek Ross has not already become an administrator is surprising. -- Emsworth 02:54, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Tuf-Kat 03:28, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
Indeed. Mike H 04:08, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
<cliche>He's not an admin?</cliche> --Slowking Man 07:03, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
3 years and not yet an admin? Surely be bold should apply for nominating yourself for adminship! I especially like the modest and no nonsense replies to comments. Shane King 08:17, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
Support. utcursch 09:12, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
You mean...wow...Mackensen (talk) 14:32, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Michael Snow 17:32, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Absolutely. Fire Star 18:01, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Support -- Infrogmation 19:28, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Honestly never heard of him, but I have no reason to oppose from what I can see on a quick one-over. -- user:zanimum
] 17:26, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Strongly support. --Lst27 (talk) 23:54, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Support. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:15, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Support. - john k 15:29, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
obviously dab 15:59, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

3 years + 7500 edits... wow!!! func (talk) 02:41, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
this guy deserves admin powers!

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 read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

A. Anything that needs doing.

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

A. I enjoy editing but I'm not particularly good at it. However I am pleased with the translations that I have done on various 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 will deal with it in the future?

A. I suppose I must have but nothing has fazed me enough to stick in my mind.

Ortolan88

final (27/0/0) ending 22:24, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Tom has been with the project for three years and has made over 6000 edits. He has recently returned from an extended WikiVacation and is once again making copious edits. I cannot remember him stirring up trouble in the days of yore, and he certainly hasn't done so recently. His user page chronicles his impressive contributions to the project. uc 22:20, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I accept the nomination. I had avoided it in the past because I wanted to retain street cred as just a little ole user, but with the growth of Misplaced Pages I expect there are some extra obligations for old hands who know a little about "how the web was woven". I do appreciate the compliment and consider the nomination an honor. Sincerely, Tom Ortolan88 04:53, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Support

uc 22:20, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Fine by me. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 22:34, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yes of course. —No-One Jones 22:37, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Acegikmo1 22:41, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Have had nothing but good experiences with this user. Personable, knowledgeable, responsible. — Gwalla | Talk 22:44, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Jwrosenzweig 23:00, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC) Good user, reliable editor, fine candidate.
Dori | Talk 23:18, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
Superb editor, glad to have him around; he'd be a great admin. Antandrus 23:44, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Andre (talk) 23:45, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
Very much so. Rdsmith4— Dan | Talk 23:49, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Ok. -- Grun t 🇪🇺 01:22, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)
Support enthusiastically. Tuf-Kat 03:29, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
Having met him in person at the Boston meetup, I can say that he's trustworthy and personable. →Raul654 07:12, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
Again, he isn't an admin? --Slowking Man 07:19, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
Michael Snow 17:31, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Support. Fire Star 18:02, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Absolutely. Been here since long before I showed up, and never had a problem as far as I know. Isomorphic 18:27, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Support! -- Infrogmation 19:27, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
DanKeshet 19:47, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
Slam dunk is the term being used, I believe. func (talk) 14:29, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Absolutely. His integrity, talent, quality of judgement, and dedication to the project are beyond question. Kosebamse 15:28, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Agree with Kosebamse. --Lst27 (talk) 23:54, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Ample street cred one way or another. +sj + 19:27, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Joyous 00:26, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
172 05:10, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
JFW | T@lk 15:04, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
dab 16:01, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

No one mentioned my sense of humor. Ortolan88
- Note: Ortolan88 has a sense of humor. :) func (talk) 14:29, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks to all of you for your kind words and thoughts. I treasure them (and agree with them). (I told you I had a sense of humor.) Ortolan88 22:06, 16 Nov 2004 (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 read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

A. I'll be glad to help out as I can. I would particularly enjoy working with controversies I am not involved in. (See Answer 3) I'll study up on all the reading materials and plunge in as appropriate. I suppose I'll have to get back on the mailing list too. I took my WikiVacation because I just got too emotionally involved, but I'm better now, thanks.

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

A. See User:Ortolan88. I take pleasure in writing, of course, that's why I'm here, but I enjoy fixing a lot of niggling markup problems just as much. See my contributions for evidence on both kinds of contribution.

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 will deal with it in the future?

A. My policy on editing conflicts is to avoid them. I completely lack the capacity to deal with people who rabidly assert ownership over a page, see Talk:Acronym or Talk:List of transgendered people. When this happens, I just drop out and try to wait them out. On the other hand, I'm a pretty nice calm and kind guy and fairly smart too, so I think I could help other people solve conflicts, as in Talk:David Irving. In the cases mentioned above, I wished that some reasonable and uninvolved person could step in to help. (Maybe they have already; I haven't revisited either of these recently.)

DanKeshet

final (18/0/0) ending 22:28, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

DanKeshet has been editing for three years and has made over 2500 edits. In addition to his article edits, he is a regular, insightful participant in policy discussions. Despite editing in inherently controversial areas, he has maintained a low profile. uc 04:12, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'll accept the nomination. I agree with Ortolan88 in his nomination above; I wanted to have the same perspective as non-sysop users. But I now agree that sysops are necessary. I can't imagine doing much sysop stuff, but I'll read up on it and do it when I think it'll help. When I see vandals in my watchlist, I will rollback their changes. DanKeshet 19:45, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

Support

. uc 22:28, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
—No-One Jones 22:37, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Jwrosenzweig 23:02, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC) I just met him in person and was struck by his intelligence, reasonable temperament, and ability to see an issue with fairness. Had I known he wasn't an admin, I would have nominated him that very night -- he's perfectly suited for the position.
Andre (talk) 23:45, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
Decumanus 00:11, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC). What Jwrosenzweig said.
Ok. -- Grun t 🇪🇺 01:22, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)
Tuf-Kat 03:29, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
Very Verily 04:42, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Jayjg 16:26, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Support. Fire Star 18:03, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The first three "support" votes are enough to satisfy me. Isomorphic 19:48, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Michael Snow 21:07, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Lst27 (talk) 23:56, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
But of course. +sj + 18:38, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yup. func (talk) 23:38, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
172 05:10, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
JFW | T@lk 15:04, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Gady 15:07, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

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 read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

A. I'll have to read more about sysop duties, but I'd probably protect and unprotect disputes in areas where I don't participate. I find many disputes I'm not involved in fascinating and wouldn't mind reading more about them. I probably won't be involved in deleting much; I'm too slow for the fast-paced nature of VfD, I think.

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

A. Voting systems and related. I want to turn them into a WikiReader, eventually.

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 will deal with it in the future?

A. Yes, I have been involved in at least one conflict. RK, Zero, and I were in a dispute at Israel Shahak (starting at Edward Said, actually). I posted to RfC and did get a few comments, but that didn't resolve anything, so I posted to Requests for Mediation. When mediation had many false starts, Zero posted to Requests for Arbitration and I participated in a minor role in the Arbitration request. Other conflicts I have been involved in: apparently, there are many mailing list posts on the elections-method mailing list about my edits in the Voting system section, though because they were off-wiki I didn't respond to them. On the other hand, I wouldn't say that any of this caused me undue stress. DanKeshet 19:45, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

Joy Stovall

final (21/0/0) ending 21:51 15 November 2004 (UTC)

Joy has made over 2100 edits to Misplaced Pages since May of 2004. She has taken the concept of "Wiki-custodian" to dizzying heights with her tenacious work on Topbanana's reports. She would be a valuable Misplaced Pages admin. Taco Deposit | Talk-o Deposit 21:51, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you so kindly for your nomination; I accept. Joyous 23:04, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Support

Taco Deposit | Talk-o Deposit 21:51, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
Certainly! BLANKFAZE | (что??) 22:15, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Full support. -- Schnee 22:16, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Andre (talk) 22:19, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
Her edit history shows that she understands the alphabet. :) func (talk) 22:29, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Ok. -- Grun t 🇪🇺 01:22, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)
Dude, she wasn't one already? Mike H 04:07, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
Certainly. --Slowking Man 07:23, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
Support. Fire Star 18:04, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Isomorphic 19:52, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC) People willing to do grunt-work should definitely be made admins.
Support. -gadfium 21:14, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Support. --DrBob 21:25, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Support. ] 21:36, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Support. zoney ♣ talk 01:19, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Lst27 (talk) 23:57, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yes, yes, yes and yes. Did I happen to say "yes?" If not, YES!! - Lucky 6.9 00:07, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Geogre Sorry about the confusion.
– Quadell ] 14:48, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
Antandrus 00:33, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC) Fine choice for admin.
Support. Jayjg 17:01, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
of course. dab 15:33, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

Question: Didn't Joy get an account name change from something else? Just for the sake of memory, it would be good to have that listed here. Geogre 15:17, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You are most likely thinking of User:Joy who used to be "Shallot." Taco Deposit | Talk-o Deposit 15:58, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

I've never had a different account name. Joyous 21:39, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

D'oh! (They say memory is the second thing to go, and I can't remember the first.) Geogre 02:14, 11 Nov 2004 (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 read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

A. I'd be happy to assist with checking new articles, organizational tasks on VFD and Cleanup, and watching for/reverting vandalism. I expect to continue the non-sysop work I've been doing with repairing links, general copyediting, and creating/expanding articles.

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

A. I'm very proud of the work I've done with Topbanana's list of mispunctuated links. Though a bit tedious, I enjoy the feeling that I'm helping knit the information on Wikepedia a little more tightly together. As far as specific articles go, I'm quite happy with how Flesch-Kincaid Readability Test turned out, especially as it had been a VFD-nominated article. Snellen chart is another that I'm pleased with, as an example of the power of collaborative editing.

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 will deal with it in the future?

A. The articles where I do extensive editing tend to be uncontroversial: it's hard to get too worked up over masking tape, for example. I've made some mistakes, and when they've been brought to my attention, I've fixed them. On occasions where I believe someone else is in error, I've tried to be very polite when I've asked about it. I see this as a goal for the future: politeness tends to beget politeness.

Please stop inserting your POV into masking tape. It isn't always "easy-to-tear". ;-) func (talk) 04:21, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

DF08

final (11/0/0) ending 04:56, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

DF08 has been a contributor since June 2004 and has accumulated approximately 1500 edits. He seems to value neutrality and level-headed editing. Although 1500 edits is relatively few for someone to be nominated for adminship, he has created dozens of robust articles with extensive content. I think he would make a highly competent administrator. Spencer195–spencer 195 04:56, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I thank Spencer195 for the vote of confidence in nominating me. I am certainly aware that 1,500 is by no means plenty, and far from veteranesque. 1,500 edits -- or quality articles -- the old question of quality versus quantity once again may pop up. Personally, I would have seriously considered adminship at over 2,000 votes, but I accepted the nomination as someone who wasn't called DF08 nominated me. --DF08 05:10, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Support

Spencer195–spencer 195 04:56, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Support from me, too, and I agree with JW's comment. -- Schnee 21:48, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Andre (talk) 22:24, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
Ok. -- Grun t 🇪🇺 01:22, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)
We can always use more vandal fighters. --Slowking Man 07:25, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
] 15:31, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
Wile E. Heresiarch 15:50, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Lst27 (talk) 23:58, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Certainly; as a side note, is "vandalisation" a word? ugen64 16:14, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Looks good to me; as a side note, is "ugen64" a word? ;-) func (talk) 23:36, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Sure; veterenesque isn't a word though? ] 02:56, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

I don't know the user, so I can't comment in any way on their suitability for admin. I just want to note that I wish we'd stop creeping up the level of edits necessary -- 1500, in my opinion, is not "relatively few". I have continued to support users with less than 1,000 edits, and I hope we haven't gotten to the point where even 1,500 is below the community's requirements. Sorry for being a little off-topic, but I saw the comment in the nomination and felt compelled to reply. Jwrosenzweig 05:01, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

(responses have been moved to talk)

Please consider expressing your views at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Standards. —Lowellian (talk)] 02:36, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

Re: "vandalisation": A quick check on Wiktionary: entries for "vandal" and "vandalise"/"vandalize". So I guess "vandalisation" would mean "vandalise" in progress... IMHO it exists, but not sure if for real. I use UK orthography; I realise it's "vandalization" State-side. --DF08 17:34, 12 Nov 2004 (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 read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

A. Prevention of pages from vandalisation. Vandalism is bad and should get no place in Misplaced Pages. Also, page reversion and eventually, helping out in making sure articles are on the right track, NPOV-wise. In addition, count a check or two on VfD: I'll chime in on VfD articles I know about (and if I don't know about that topic, I won't chime in...)

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

A. I'd like to think of Misplaced Pages as everyone's Misplaced Pages, and I don't have that tendency to "own" my works on WP. Given that, though, a few I'm rather pleased about has got to be the numerous articles on the roads and expressways of China, and mucho content on Beijing. One bit I'm pleased is how I managed to add both the infobox and the template to other Beijing/Tianjin expressways at the end of every article related to those topics. Even an expressway (non-digital) can become a digital info expressway, so to speak.

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 will deal with it in the future?

A. I've been rather lucky on this issue, due to two factors: First, as I stated on my user page, I'm going to keep the zip on my mouth in regards to articles about politics (but not law) and religion. Second, and this may either be pure luck (or a well-written article?), none of the articles I've written about have had any serious edit wars (in fact, there has been no edit wars at all, as far as myself can see...) There were two cases where I felt content may have been better kept, but "readjusted my views" after asking/reading the reasons for removal. One was on how to avoid writing Chinglish; I would have liked to keep the part on "How to avoid Chinglish" but it was removed, though with a reason, and all I did was to respect that. Second, I added in a snip or two about unitary/federal nations and dual/multiple citizenship and that was gone too, to the Talk page. (On the second one, I got it from a book on law -- published in mainland China. It could be possible that the book got it wrong, and I was "infected" and passed that wrong info to WP.) I have had virtually no cases of people causing me stress on Misplaced Pages, at least none related to my edits/contributed articles.

Folks, this may sound like smooth sailing all along for me (no NPOV disputes, edit wars, vandalism, etc...) but all of this is true, seriously.

Hyacinth

final (46/2/0) ending 03:05, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Since joining the project over 15 months ago, Hyacinth has quietly amassed over 10,000 edits, many to topics related to music. His music contributions have covered essentially all styles from classical to pop, including many forms that are less well known. He has been a prolific biographer of figures who have been involved in music, both in recent times and the distant past. His scholarly writing and nonconfrontational approach could serve as a model to others. He participates occasionally at VfD and has undertaken various minor cleanup tasks, like adding categories to groups of articles. I recommend him for adminship without reservation.

uc 03:05, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Support

uc 03:05, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC) (I'm going to assume that uc wants this here. If not, please remove it. -- Grun t 🇪🇺 03:08, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC))
You! Of course! -- Grun t 🇪🇺 03:08, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC)
Hyacinth is a model editor: productive, motivated, and imperturbable no matter how noxious the provocation. - Nunh-huh 03:13, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Excellent hardworking editor. Shane King 03:14, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
Definitely. —No-One Jones 03:15, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
15 months, 10,000 edits, and isn't widely reviled? Well, I'd say he's a sure bet for adminship, then. Everyking 03:21, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Will make a great admin, methinks. -- Schnee 03:35, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Musicians of the world, unite! --Michael Snow 03:49, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yes!!! --Node 03:50, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
One of the things I like about Hyacinth is that he makes his biases clear on his personal page, and he goes to lengths NOT to push them in articles. This shows great integrity. Excellent editor; I don't agree with him about a lot of things, but respect him immensely. In addition, he's amazingly even-tempered when attacked. I believe he would be a superb admin. Antandrus 04:04, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Markalexander100 04:06, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Geogre 04:08, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC) Willingly to learn and graciously to teach. Geogre 04:08, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Andre (talk) 04:46, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
Dori | Talk 04:54, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
Tuf-Kat 05:54, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
Fantastic user, would be a great addition to the admin community. ] 06:34, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Huh? I always assumed Hyacinth was already an admin. —Lowellian (talk)] 07:04, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
I also thought Hyacinth was an admin. Strong Support. utcursch 09:40, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
Gzornenplatz 12:21, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
Whaddayamean he's not an admin already? --Conti|✉ 15:40, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
Certainly. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 22:08, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Rdsmith4— Dan | Talk 22:09, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
] 00:48, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
Sarge Baldy 01:45, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
I thought Hyacinth already was an admin. SWAdair | Talk 04:00, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Mike H 04:09, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
Hyacinth was the first person who greeted me on my homepage, and ever since I seem to find his edits wherever I go on Misplaced Pages. I've been hoping that he'd becomes an admin. He's even handed and open minded. His rigorous scholarship is an inspiration. --Samuel Wantman 04:18, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Chris 73 Talk 05:01, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
I'll just jump on the bandwagon here. --Slowking Man 07:30, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
10,000? Wow... Fire Star 18:05, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Infrogmation 19:34, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yep! Rhobite 19:58, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
Sure, Hyacinth deserves it. -- user:zanimum
Make it so. Rick K 23:25, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
Seems very neutral and amiable, often a voice of balance. Sam 01:10, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Like he said. Herschelkrustofsky 02:01, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Band wagon jumping. Good history. func (talk) 14:14, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Definately support. Hyacinth is a great editor with a lot of specialized knowledge, and would make a superb admin. -Seth Mahoney 20:16, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
Wow. --Lst27 (talk) 00:00, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I don't think Steven Zenith's concerns are likely to cause Hyacinth to be a bad admin, though perhaps I am a bit too optimistic. I am slightly concerned about the fact that this user has not explained why ey wants admin powers, but I'll support anyway. Adminship should be no big deal, after all. anthony 警告 03:57, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I support.WHEELER 18:15, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yes and yes. +sj + 19:36, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Support. Jayjg 17:04, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Pardon the cliche, but...you mean he's not an admin with over 10,000 edits under his belt while managing to stay out of harm's way? Everyking said it best further up the page. :) Way overdue. Support. - Lucky 6.9 20:14, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Duh. Snowspinner 03:58, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
Good work. ] 10:53, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

Steven Zenith 19:17, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC) NO. NO. NO. Hyacinth has demonstrated a basic failure to adhere to Misplaced Pages principles of bias free editing. He readily makes accusations of homophobia and in the case of semeiotics, at least, demonstrated a bias toward gay propaganda.
This would be a fascinating point, if there was any such thing as "gay propaganda". Please provide examples of Hyacinth making (inaccurate and/or inappropriate) accusations of homophobia. func (talk) 19:26, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
All my comments refer to the discussion in semeiotics - referenced above. Steven Zenith 01:55, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I can point out that I delt with Hyacinth on some pages dealing with controversial homosexual matters, and found him to be a peace maker. I ended up removing most of these sorts of pages from my watchlist due to some of the offensive POV-warrior tactics and agenda pushing of others, but Hyacinth in my experience strove for balance and civility, not the advancement of POV. The closest thing I found to a problem were some communication issues Hyacinth had w User:WHEELER, (who isn't always the easiest person to understand, he's rather an antiquarian). That ended fairly amiably as well, with Wheeler creating a Classical definition of effeminacy page for his non-modernist interpretations. Sam 20:34, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Which I believe supports my contention that he is, in fact, a propagandist - this is exactly what propagandists do to be effective ... they play to the goodwill of others. The bottomline result is that the encyclopedia contains a disproportionate representation of the propangandized subject. Steven Zenith 07:17, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
So you're saying that if we find someone's well liked, it shows that they have influenced us with propaganda and hence we should vote against them? That's absurd, if we followed that standard we'd never have any admin candidates get voted in. Shane King 07:31, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

I disagree; I think his theorem would have us voting in only disagreeable candidates ;). For what its worth I agree that the wikipedia contains an excess of info (and POV) from a variety of special interest groups, the homosexual community being just one of them. There are lots of others, communists, anarchists, atheists, to name a few. That’s because we are online, and online demographics are strange. Frankly I'd like to do some sociological research regarding online demographics, but I think we can all agree that the wikipedia has rather different demographics than say... our hometowns ;) The only cure for that in my eyes is recruiting new users, and not biting nube's (esp. not nube's w unpopular backgrounds). Real diversity is a good thing. That said, regardless of what you can say about Hyacinth's background or POV, he relates to others in an amiable and civil manner, and to content in a reasonably neutral one. Sure, he's not a robot, maybe he has interests and stuff, but I don't see him forcing thru a POV agenda. Sam 11:59, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Well, let me also point out that I have had to undo a number of edits by Hyacinth that demonstrated a lack of competence. He changes content where he only has a partial understanding. I think he's dangerous to the Misplaced Pages endeavor - perhaps my expectations are too high? Steven Zenith 21:24, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Woefully short answers in the "Questions for the candidate" section. Ignoring the most important one completely. -- Netoholic @ 17:15, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

Ooh geez, what is it that makes me suspect this zenith guy is a troll? There there Hyacinth, we love you even if he doesn't. *pats back* --Node 00:30, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I accept. Hyacinth 03:45, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It was my understanding that "this should be no big deal." Hyacinth 19:24, 11 Nov 2004 (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 read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

A. It would be convenient to be able to delete pages I had created myself. I would willingly revert edits by vandals of music related pages. I would continue to consider myself an editor or regular contributor and that this would still be my benefit if any to Misplaced Pages.

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

A. User:Hyacinth/Portfolio

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 will deal with it in the future?

A. Talk:Classical music#On the "Development" paragraph, User talk:Hyacinth/Words of wisdom from someone who's actually SANE, Talk:Effeminacy.

Ran

final (16/2/0) ending 09:55, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ran has made 2529 edits since April 2004. I have found his work on China-related topics to be useful and extensive. He seems familiar with the rules here and would make a fine admin. --Jia ng 09:55, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I accept. Thanks to Jiang and everyone else for your kind words and encouragement. :D -- ] 16:49, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)

Support

Jia ng 09:55, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Excellent work on China-related topics. Strong support. 172 10:19, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Gzornenplatz 10:54, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
Very Verily 11:48, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
DF08 14:19, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Andre (talk) 17:35, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
—No-One Jones 18:51, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
BLANKFAZE | (что??) 21:40, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Of course. --Lst27 (talk) 23:39, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Absolutely. Responded very quickly when I needed help communicating with a problem Chinese contributor whose English is not so good. --Michael Snow 00:38, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Ok. -- Grun t 🇪🇺 03:07, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC)
Great work, seems to keep cool when the heat is on. Shane King 03:46, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
Node 03:52, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
DV 06:28, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yep. Fluency in Chinese is a plus, too. —Lowellian (talk)] 07:05, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
Support. Fire Star 18:06, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

I hope Ran has "truly learned what NPOV means", but I'm not convinced yet. On Tibet he seemed to have trouble recognising that other viewpoints should be mentioned, and with using the talk page to negotiate changes where topics are controversial. I think more time is needed. Markalexander100 04:01, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
anthony 警告 03:58, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Comment

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 read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

A. I've asked for help several times in the past regarding speedy-deletes and I think I'll be returning the favour if I get adminship. Also, once I get that fabled rollback button I might finally be motivated enough to watch the recent changes page for vandals. VfD would be another page I'll be looking more regularly at.

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

A. Well, in rough chronologically order, I started out writing a good chunk of Singlish. Then I started working through the provinces of China: Beijing, Tianjin, Hebei, Shanxi, Inner Mongolia, Liaoning, Jilin, Heilongjiang, Shanghai, Jiangsu, Zhejiang (still ongoing); in the process I did Political divisions of China and a lot of its subpages; also there was some work done on Mandarin (linguistics), Jin (linguistics), and a couple of other pages about the Chinese language, and there was also Template:Province-level divisions of the People's Republic of China, and on a related vein, Template:Administrative divisions of Russia and a couple other template pages. And I've recently been working on State leaders by year.

I can't really say if any of them pleases me particularly. It's just nice to go through a long-forgotten article and be able to say, "Hey! I wrote that!". :) There are still wide gaps in Misplaced Pages concerning China-related topics and I'm just happy that I've helped fill up a bit of 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 will deal with it in the future?

A. Yeah, I've had conflicts in Asian Cup 2004, Mausoleum of Genghis Khan, China proper, Tibet, and People's Republic of China. The first few were rather heated, but in the last one (People's Republic of China) I think I truly learned what NPOV means (NPOV means putting all the views in no matter how downright absurd they seem to you) and I drafted the final NPOV version in the end. So that's the way I'll be dealing with similar disputes in the future. -- ] 16:49, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)

COgden

final (12/1/0) ending 04:54, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

COgden has been here about a year and has over 1500 edits. That's plenty to judge by (which is the only real reason for needing time and history). I'm not aware of any negatives. User writes good content, appreciates NPOV policy, and seems always civil from what I have seen. Will make a cool-headed admin, I think. Tom - Talk 04:55, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Support

Tom - Talk 04:57, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Very strong support. User puts significant effort and content into his contributions. Seems to work well with others too. Cool Hand Luke 06:29, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Big content contributor. Content almost always gives both sides of controversial issues - not afraid to be neutral in edits. Even though I don't always agree with the amount of detail of what he adds, it is generally best for the topics he edits. Support. -Visorstuff 15:50, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
From my observation, truly committed to NPOV ideals and knows how to write neutrally regardless of personal feelings on the subject matter. --Michael Snow 17:53, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I've seen nothing but good from this user. Skyler 1534 18:52, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
Strongly support. --Lst27 (talk) 00:24, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I agree with all of the above -- an excellent contributor. Jwrosenzweig 18:22, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
—No-One Jones 18:33, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I know next to nothing about the history of Mormonism, but I can see the amount of effort put in, and I'll trust other people's judgement that it's all good editing. Excellent work. Shane King 00:42, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
Will support after 1336 edits. Oh, wait a minute... -- Grun t 🇪🇺 01:11, 2004 Nov 7 (UTC)
Andre (talk) 17:35, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
uc 22:16, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

Scope of work seems a little narrow in my mind, and religious topics tend to make involved editors very over-protective. Also doesn't seem to be a very active editor - 1335 edits over the course of one year is pretty low for someone who wants to be an admin. I don't see COgden participating in any routine maintenance efforts, either. Would support in a couple months if he can become more involved, but right now I don't see evidence that admin privilege is well-placed here. -- Netoholic @ 04:12, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

1335 Edits since Nov 2003. Cool Hand Luke 06:29, 5 Nov 2004 (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 read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

A. Certainly reverting vandalism when I see it, as I have always done, and I would block abusive vandals when I catch them. I would assist in deleting articles according to the deletion policy, especially concerning the subject matters of my personal interest.

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

A. Deconstruction: this is a somewhat controversial article, and over the months I have added lots of substantive content and formal revisions for NPOV. Mormonism and Christianity: after lots of heated discussion, I assisted in "historicizing" the article (turning argumentative opinions into historical facts) in a way that everybody appears to be living with. Family values: an article I created on a very controversial subject, which has managed thus far to avoid edit wars. History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and some of its spin-offs: this is a huge unfinished project, and I contributed the bulk of the content. Other examples are on my user page. Most of these are religion articles, but I am also interested in the areas of Law, Science, Government, and Critical theory.

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 will deal with it in the future?

A. I've put in my two cents in a number of heated discussions, but they've all been worked out amicably without outside involvement. If I am on the minority side of an issue, where everyone else has reached consensus, I typically defer to the majority. As an outside adjudicator, I would be very hesitant to wholly favor one side of an issue, because there is almost always room for compromise, and if one side feels shut-out, they may stop contributing to the article.

Dbachmann (a.k.a. dab)

final (19/1/1) ending 15:56 11 November 2004 (UTC)

I found this user to be a voice of reason in otherwise unpleasent circumstances, and found his ability to preserve neutrality, civility, and the project ideals an exemplary resume for the job of admin. I hope you see fit to support him as well. Sam 15:56, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Seconded. Dieter is a prolific editor, with us since July 2004, and has more than 2500 edits. Keeps calm when the editing gets hot and seems primarily interested in improving articles. Active on Misplaced Pages:peer review, amongst other places. If Sam hadn't nominated him, I would have done so. Lupo 16:07, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am flattered, thank you. I accept the nomination, mostly in the spirit of "it doesn't do harm to give any good-faith editor admin power, even if he doesn't make frequent use of them". Sorry about the dab confusion, btw, User:dab was taken, but I usually just sign with my initials. dab 09:07, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Support

Sam 16:04, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Lupo 16:07, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
—No-One Jones 21:31, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
BLANKFAZE | (что??) 21:40, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Wait a minute... you're DaB. Of course support. -- Grun t 🇪🇺 21:45, 2004 Nov 4 (UTC)
Dab. Ok. Tom - Talk 22:13, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Add another to the list who didn't recognise the full name as being dab. Shane King 23:35, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
Andre (talk) 15:07, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
Once you connect the username with the signature, this is a no-brainer. --Michael Snow 17:55, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Gangleri 22:30, 2004 Nov 5 (UTC)
Lst27 (talk) 00:24, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Rednblu | Talk 01:17, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC) dab is the Misplaced Pages hero editor par excellence. Always cool. Always insightful comments. I particularly appreciated dab's patience when I was in the process of figuring out some very neat things about us "humans" for the Human page. :))
dab has what it takes -- when I see his sig, I always stop to see what he's saying, as it's almost always on target and perceptive. Jwrosenzweig 18:26, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Whosyourjudas (talk) 02:44, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Filiocht 09:33, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
Of course. SWAdair | Talk 03:57, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Support. Fire Star 18:08, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
+disambig, I mean +dab, I mean Support. func (talk) 14:10, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Acegikmo1 23:58, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

CheeseDreams 20:23, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

never met ~~him~~her. probably this vote reflects feelings towards my noble nominator (against whom I am on the brink of an edit war, at the moment;) dab 08:28, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

User seems to be very clear-headed and calm, especially considering the heated topics he seems to frequent (e.g. religious). However, I would prefer to see a user with more participation on community pages (other than article or user talk pages). Nothing personal and best of luck. Skyler 1534 19:10, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

Your point is taken. As I say, I intend to only make infrequent use of admin powers in the near future. I find myself scanning community pages increasingly, and I will react if asked for participation, but my main interest remains the actual editing of articles, for the moment. dab 13:52, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Comments

User has 2549 edits as of just now. Andre (talk) 20:58, Nov 4, 2004 (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 read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

A. I do not intend to focus on admin-specific tasks soon. I do some occasional vandal-hunting, when I'm bored, where the rollback-feature would be useful, but of course not necessary. I would be prepared to mediate disputes if all parties accept me, but I prefer to stay out of the more venomous dissentions.

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

A. I haven't had the stamina to actually get an article to 'featured' standard, so far. I think Arabic grammar is entirely 'mine' at this moment. Most articles in Template:Indo-European (excepting the individual language branches) are heavily edited by me. I may strive to elevate Kurgan or Chariot to FA level in the future. The main example of my participation in discussing a disputed article was on Human, and now on God.

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 will deal with it in the future?

A. I have been called names over an edit on exactly one occasion, after which I simply walked away from the article (the event may be reconstructed from my talk page if anyone is interested). Otherwise, my impression of Wikipedians' capacity for conflict resolution has been has been one of maturity, mutual respect and circumspection. Also in the future, if I were to feel bullied or annoyed, I will link the article in question on RFC and take a break.

dab 11:31, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Lachatdelarue

Editing since July with more than five hundred edits (I'm sure someone will be more specific), and active in the dog breeds Wikiproject. I think she has a good understanding of Wiki policies and would make a good admin. Tuf-Kat 05:05, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

(10/2/0) ending 05:05 11 Nov 2004 0000 (UTC)

Thank you, I accept the nomination. ] 15:33, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Support

Elf | Talk 16:06, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC) Have worked with L. since user joined and have a very favorable opinion, both attitude & technical.
Gangleri | talk 19:47, 2004 Nov 4 (UTC) for Lachatdelarue's ongoing work on cat and dog breeds. He will need adminship to find all the (cat, dog ...) articles together and to continue his work.
Andre (talk) 21:01, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Shane King 03:56, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
A good contributor sannse (talk) 10:09, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yet another prime example of a qualified individual here. -- Grun t 🇪🇺 16:12, 2004 Nov 5 (UTC)
Strongly support. TO BLANKFAZE: I believe 1500 edits is enough for adminship, and there is no reason to oppose someone because you aren't familiar with her. --Lst27 (talk) 00:26, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Support. Has a nice username, too :) ugen64 03:49, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Support. Well Blankfaze is an admin, even though I don't know him and he's got less than 2000 edits in the main namespace (assuming the statistics are right). So what? I've heard no complaints about his admin performance. I see no reason to oppose adminship for Lachatdelarue any more than for Blankfaze. Wolfman 23:08, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The user's talk page indicates that she has been very friendly and helpful to other uses and makes valuable maintenance and cleanup contributions. Acegikmo1 23:56, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

Doesn't meet my personal standards. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 05:18, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Which of your standards doesn't she meet? -- Schnee 03:00, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  - The 2,000 edits one, primarily. Also, I'm unfamiliar with her. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 03:37, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    - How is not knowing her a reason for opposition? JOHN COLLISON 17:51, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Not enough edits. Passw0rd 22:32, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

1482 edits as of now. -- Netoholic @ 05:09, 2004 Nov 4 (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 read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

A. I would help with RC Patrol (which I have already been active in) and recently I've been getting more interested in VfD. I enjoy cleanup work.

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

A. I am very happy with the work I've done for the cat breeds project, doing major formatting and organizational work, not to mention expanding articles.

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 will deal with it in the future?

A. I haven't been in any major conflicts over editing, but if I were I believe I would keep a level-head about it, and resolve it peacably.

Self nominations for adminship

Self-nominators, please review the qualifications above. Many editors feel that self-nominees should "exceed the usual guidelines by a good measure," have an account name that is many months old and have many hundreds of edits. This is not to say that self-nominators are necessarily any less qualified than "sponsored" nominations; however, many editors use their knowledge of the nominator as a "jumping off" point for considering nominees, and it is human nature to be more skeptical of those asking for a position than those being proposed by others. If you self-nominate, a good solid background is therefore very important.

Please add new requests at the top of this section (and again, please update the headers when voting)

Duncharris

(39/5/3) ending 22:27, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I'm gonna take the plunge and nominate myself. I think I've been around for long enough. So here's your chance to really say what you think of me. Do your worst... Dunc|☺ 20:52, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Can someone please tell me what is going on with this "spam" issue? Dunc|☺ 12:49, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Apparently someone was advertising your nomination on talk pages. Andre (talk) 15:28, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

It was I. Huge and sincere apologies. Sam Spade set me staight on my user page, and I immediately remove it all. Tom - Talk 19:32, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Support

He does the work of an administrator. I've rubbed shoulders with him a bit in stressful circumstances and he generally keeps cool. Only once do I recall an irritated comment to a troublesome user that concerned me. If somebody has a serious problem with him, I will obviously listen and reconsider. Tom - Talk 22:27, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC) Sorry. I like Dunch, but I have to change my vote to oppose. Tom - Talk 19:32, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Andre (talk) 23:07, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)
Acegikmo1 23:14, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
—No-One Jones 23:17, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC) thought he already . . . oh, never mind.
Joe D (t) 23:20, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Wile E. Heresiarch 23:25, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
~~Have never dealt with him myself, but I trust the judgement of some of those signed above. Cool Hand Luke 23:54, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)~~
I am a little hesitant on the "spam" issue, but Dunc wasn't responsible for it, and I do note that the comment I saw didn't openly campaign for a vote either direction. While I don't care much for advertising, I do grudgingly accept the right of people to publicize a RFA vote (though I wish they wouldn't do it on talk pages). Anyhow, I've always had positive experiences with Duncharris, and I think he would make an excellent admin. Jwrosenzweig 23:59, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Has done lots of good work. Shane King 00:01, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC). Moving back to support, a single incident in so many edits doesn't seem such a big deal now I think about it. Shane King 00:39, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
--FeloniousMonk 00:30, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Netoholic @ 00:56, 2004 Nov 4 (UTC) -- Well-balanced contributor. Probably should have stepped up sooner. :)
I have no reservations. I have fought against him; I have fought by his side; I have learned to respect this guy greatly--particularly when we have disagreed--because in fighting against him, he has helped me learn about many pieces of history, philosophy, and science which I value highly. Incidently, I also appreciated finding the advertisement--which as a matter of fact had already been thoughtfully removed and was buried in the history file. But for the buried advertisement, I might have missed this opportunity to vote for a great man! :)) ---Rednblu | Talk 01:22, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Dunc isn't an admin? Why? This makes no sense. Support, and I can't think of any reason anyone would even be neutral. Strong user, contributor, and mediator. Geogre 03:34, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Somebody set up us the nomination. -- Grun t 🇪🇺 04:24, 2004 Nov 4 (UTC)
Make it so. - RedWordSmith 04:40, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Support. SWAdair | Talk 04:47, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Thought you already were one. Strong support. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 05:15, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Support. Rhymeless | (Methyl Remiss) 05:35, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
older≠wiser 14:45, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
Emsworth 14:46, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Excellent service record. Strong support. Antandrus 16:05, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Support. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:04, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Noisy | Talk 17:12, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Dunc, enjoy. Pleasant to work with. And almost 9000 edits is really great. JFW | T@lk 17:42, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Support. -JCarriker 19:32, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
Dunc is a trustworthy, reliable, genial user, and would make a fine admin. →Raul654 19:58, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
Support Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 23:36, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
support. ugen64 02:53, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Mike H 05:01, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
Support. 172 10:06, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
He's not an administrator yet? --Lst27 (talk) 00:23, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Support because of the organized, frothing-at-the-mouth opposition. And would someone tell Sam Spade to stick to one name instead of changing his name at whim, so we know who he really is? Rick K 05:49, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
Wolfman 00:38, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
What RickK said. Ambi 07:42, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Who is frothing? And what is this complaint about my sig about? That was for one day, one time... Sam 21:48, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Proteus (Talk) 00:34, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Graham is a pillar of Misplaced Pages. It's unconscionable that he is not a sysop. Full support! Neutrality (hopefully!) 00:40, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
Calling a liar and a pov-pusher a liar and a pov-pusher is not a flaw (although the bullshit thing went just a little far). Cyrius|✎ 05:35, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Holy crap, you mean....Duncharris' not an admin? Well, this is something we must certainly remedy right away! Johnleemk | Talk 12:23, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Support. zoney ♣ talk 01:18, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
CheeseDreams 20:20, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, admin material. func (talk) 15:06, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

I oppose out of principle as there was spam directing to this link on the talk atheism pages, sorry if I appear churlish, that's not my intent. Rather it is to discourage such practice --Nick-in-South-Africa 23:44, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Do note that he did not place them, and they were already removed by the time your vote was stamped. Cool Hand Luke 23:54, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

OK I think I made the point and I now withdraw the opposition, I cant support it as I dont know the user so now am agnostic on the nomination --Nick-in-South-Africa 21:59, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I oppose, because he calls the return of the a Constitutional Monarchy in Vientam silliness and ridiculous idea also he called me a liar. I have been contributing articles relating to Vietnamese Royalty, and the Vietnam War. I am a neutral person has been researching this since I was in College. A person should not be a Admin, if they are using words like this to a Misplaced Pages members. This is not acceptable. please see evidence of his non-neutral position on the issue. I have never used any words concerning articles that he has presented as ridiculous or silliness and never called him a liar. I feel that this is not right nor it should be tolerated here on the wikipedia community http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Nguyen_Phuc_Buu_Chanh also please see "Please don't paste drivel onto my talk page. I'm just going to ignore you. I have better things to do. You're a aggressive pov-pushing crank. I'll make it easy for you, bugger off and don't come back. Dunc|☺ 10:30, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)"--Jimmyvanthach 12:10, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Duncharris ":Misplaced Pages is not Usenet. Please refrain from posting monotonous angry monologues in appalling prose. This page is full of Jimmybullshit. Dunc|☺ 15:12, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)"
- why negative language and profanity?
For the community I have been contributing to Vietnam Royals, Laos Royals, and Vietnam War, particular ARVN Generals ie. Nguyen Cao Ky and just history pertaining to Vietnam, I have noticed a lack of Vietnamese history in certain areas and only want to contribute to the Misplaced Pages community. Please see I have never used cures or called anyone a liar. Everyone is entiled to their opinion and I respect it, but foul language should not be acceptable.--Jimmyvanthach 22:33, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I am opposing because of the way he is treating Jimmyvanthach. I realize Jimmy has been a nuisance and a POV pusher who needs to be censured, but administrators are held to a higher standard of diplomacy. Diplomacy factors heavily in my voting, so I have to ask Dunch to practice it a bit longer. And, Dunc, I will continue to enjoy working with you on the Jimmy problem. p.s. With friends like me, I realize you don't need enemies, what with the "spam" and all. My sincerest regrets. Tom - Talk 19:32, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Oppose due to treatment of Jimmyvanthatch, Misplaced Pages:Civility is a keystone policy in my book. Sam 20:02, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Civility issue pushes me to negative as above. Cool Hand Luke 23:25, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Moved to oppose unless you can explain the Jimmyvanthatch issue. I'm sure most people can think of a user that they feel that way about, but coming out and giving them a spray is not on. Shane King 01:15, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
- See Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Tran Van Ba, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Jimmvanthach; basically the guy is a systematic liar and POV pusher, and perhaps I should not have insulted him, but he insults the good community here with his behaviour. Dunc|☺ 12:45, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Evidently my concerns expressed in my neutral vote weren't worth a reply, so I change my vote to oppose. Everyking 04:56, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

~~Why is there spam regarding this vote @ Talk:Atheism? Thomas Jefferson for President 23:33, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)~~
~~Talk:Natural selection and Talk:Intelligent design as well? I'm tempted to oppose on principal. Thomas Jefferson for President 23:39, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)~~
Tom is no sockpuppet, and I don't believe duncharris coordinated those. duncharris has been involved in a lot of disputes and apparently handled them well. It's not unfair that those who have dealt with him should vote for him: otherwise they might not know he's up for adminship. These are possibly the most qualified people to speak on behalf of his character. Cool Hand Luke 23:49, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The appropriate place for that would be on people's talk pages, not article talk pages I would think. Shane King 00:01, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks, Shane. Tom - Talk 19:37, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

~~Didn't he once nominate Haylie Duff for deletion? Deletionism like that gets me all jittery. Everyking 00:11, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)~~ Moved to oppose.

Isn't the point of VfD to be a place where articles that are questionable are nominated to so that the whole community can have their say on whether they stay or go? As such, why is nominating an article there disturbing? It's the correct thing to do if you believe you find something that fits the deletion criteria, but not speedy criteria. The fact that some things get nominated that people decide shouldn't be deleted is the whole point: that's why there is a process rather than having things deleted on sight! Shane King 03:41, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
Because, well, that article isn't really questionable, and it makes me wonder about whether he's out to eliminate legitimate content because he has a much higher standard of notability than most of us. But of course that's just one thing from months ago, so I don't know. Everyking 11:16, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Need some more information. Why do you want to be an admin? anthony 警告 18:00, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'm not sure what to make of the whole Jimmyvantach issue, so for now, I'll remain neutral on this. -- Schnee 02:59, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Comments

8488 edits since Feb 27, 2004. Cool Hand Luke 23:41, 3 Nov 2004 (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 read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

A. I have done new pages patrols in the past, but try to stay away from them now as I start worrying that that the wiki is constantly under attack by a bunch of well-intentioned chimpanzees and end up wasting my time. But I do do some cleanup and wander around sweeping up the mess that people leave as well as trying to participate in the community pages.

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

A. I wrote George R. Price which is fully referenced having initially found nothing via Google. I also have lots on the peppered moth though I do need to go back and read up some more references on that.

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 will deal with it in the future?

A. I have had my share of arguments, I try not to let it get personal, and accept the wisdom of the people on here, even if they are wrong about the taxobox on the human page. Jimmyvanthach is annoying me a bit at the moment, but I think we're dealing with him, albeit slowly. Dunc|☺ 18:45, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Spam has been removed, and withdraw my neutrality. If I knew the guy better, I'd vote, but I don't so... Thomas Jefferson for President 00:50, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, had to change my vote to oppose due to evidence raised. Nothing to do w User:Hawstom tho, his was an honest mistake, which he promptly corrected. Sam 20:05, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Requests for De-adminship due to inactivity

De-adminship of several inactive users who were never especially active (20/18/0)

After compiling Misplaced Pages:Another list of Wikipedians in order of arrival, I noted that there are several stale accounts with admin status. I list here those accounts that had been idle for a year or more, and that would not meet the minimum requirements for adminship if nominated today:

User:LC. About 1000 edits between 8/01 - 10/02.
User:Peter Winnberg. Fewer than 500 edits between 11/01 - 8/02 and a handful more through 1/03.
User:Mirwin. Fewer than 500 contributions 2/02-11/02 with about a dozen since then.
User:Khendon. About 700 contributions between 9/02 - 4/03 and another 50 or so through 12/03.
User:Sugarfish. Fewer than 1000 contributions between 7/03 - 11/03

I suggest that the accounts above be changed to ordinary user accounts. In the event any of these users return and wish to continue to serve as admins, I believe their requests should be handled on a case-by-case basis.

Vote Here

Support de-adminship

uc 17:36, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Support all requests unless any of the listed users expresses opposition to being de-admined. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 21:39, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Netoholic @ 21:53, 2004 Nov 4 (UTC) -- Provisionally. A message to this effect should be left on their talk pages for at least two weeks before removing access.
Adminship should not be for life Shane King 23:40, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
Support. There's no reason adminship must last forever. Angela . 00:12, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
Emsworth 00:21, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Rdsmith4— Dan | Talk 04:32, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Aha, the ideals of my proposed (and dismissed) policy come back for all to see... this is exactly the sort of action I think we need around here. -- Grun t 🇪🇺 16:08, 2004 Nov 5 (UTC)
I don't see the lack of established policy as any kind of a problem here. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:32, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Support, comment below.--Bishonen 02:49, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Support. ugen64 20:01, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Whether we're following precedent or establishing it, support. --Michael Snow 06:51, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'll support this bunch, but I want to see policy instances for the latter bunch. Andre (talk) 17:37, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
Noisy | Talk 22:39, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I posted a link to this vote on the de-nominated user talk pages Wolfman 01:45, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Support. Adminship should only be retained by active users. Jayjg 03:06, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Support in these cases. Several of these users should not have been given adminship under the standards we have for adminship, and that following their adminship they have not risen above those standards testifies to the inappropriateness of their adminship. Note, however, that I oppose de-adminship of admins who do meet standards, even if they haven't edited recently. —Lowellian (talk)] 07:01, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
David Cannon 10:13, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC). Strongly support. Sysophood should not be a sinecure or some kind of meaningless title of nobility. Users who have clearly been doing nothing for a long time should be assumed to have quit. BTW, I don't mean anything personal by this, but should the rule also apply to admins who have declared themselves to have quit the project? Secretlondon, for example, has a note on her user page, "I don't edit here any more. 22:02, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)." but is still listed as both an administrator and a bureaucrat (albeit as an inactive one). I think that not only she, but all admins in the same category, should be asked whether their withdrawal from the project is merely temporary. If so, they should be allowed to stay; otherwise, their admin/bureaucrat access should be cancelled. Just my two cents' worth.
SWAdair | Talk 09:32, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Support all except User:Khendon, who just edited, and User:Sugarfish, who had a few edits in the last year. Incidentally, why the hell was notice not posted on their talk pages? We inform sysop nominations, after all. One year seems like a resonable standard. Cool Hand Luke 00:56, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oppose de-adminship

anthony 警告 17:56, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
silsor 21:16, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
Chris 73 Talk 00:33, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC) I think this should be a separate vote for each of them. Also, could you provide us with a link to the policy? -- Chris 73 Talk 00:33, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
As noted in comments, there really is no policy on this since in the project's youth this wasn't a problem. If you wish to vote differently on some candidates, you may indicate that above in the candidate list. uc 14:46, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Since several people have brought this up, I suggest that you indicate your vote in the candidate list if you wish to vote for some but not others. uc 14:46, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Still Oppose deadminship for all, because i dislike the style of the mass de-adminship. If i (and others) would write between the above lines, the whole thing would become a awful mess and it would be very hard to sort out who voted for what. I may support or oppose deadminship for the candidates only if there is an individual vote for each one. Same goes for the second list below. I would like to point out that I am NOT opposed to de-adminship due to inactivity in general, even though the reasons (potential stolen passwords) don't make sense for me either. -- Chris 73 Talk 05:41, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
Please list them separately. Until you do, I'll vote against the en gros de-adminification. -- Schnee 03:05, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You may indicate your votes in the candidate list if you do not wish to vote for them en gros, as you put it. uc 14:46, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Agree with Schneelocke. --Lst27 (talk) 00:28, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Don't like wholesale de-adminship either. Dori | Talk 02:58, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
Agree with Dori, also some sysops who left sometimes do return (I.E. Zoe)--Comrade Nick @)---^-- 03:37, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
There's no policy for deadminship other than by request or bad behaviour. Inactivity is neither of those. - Nunh-huh 07:03, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Oppose - if I were an admin and were in a coma for some time, I wouldn't want to wake up and find this. Granted, that'd be an unusual case. But besides, what good is this going to do? Do unto others... - RedWordSmith 18:24, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
Sarge Baldy 02:07, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. PedanticallySpeaking 17:34, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
Very strong oppose, see comments Kim Bruning 20:34, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Rmhermen 23:45, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC) We should make a policy first then I would probably support.
This is a solution without a problem. Convince me that these accounts are somehow harmful (and I don't consider the password-theft bit compelling) and then I might support. Isomorphic 15:17, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. What good would that do? Rules and policies change all the time. I don't see why we should apply today's version of this/that/any standard/policy/rule those who have served Misplaced Pages in the past and have not demonstrated any lack of compliance with the rules (and more importantly, the spirit) of this project. Prolonged inactivity is also not a good reason. Several of the best Wikipedians have taken extensive Wikivacations and I can't see why an admin should not be allowed to. Kosebamse 15:47, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Strongly oppose. Look, people sometimes wander off for a while because they need a break, or because of stress in their lives, or whatever. And it can be a long break, too - I was gone for the best part of a year. People were made admins (which is supposed to be "no big deal" anyway, right?) because they demonstrated judgement, and they aren't going to lose that just because they are gone for a while. From personal experience, yes, you have to be careful when re-appearing, because policy on some things will have changed subtly in the interim. If there is a security issue with inactive accounts, by all means lets find some way to deal with it. However, if it involves turning off the admin bit on the account after some period of inactivity, there ought to be some simple mechanistic way (e.g. contacting a bureacrat and asking) to get it turned back on. Noel (talk) 02:37, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'd like to note that I'm no longer inactive. On a more general note, I don't understand the purpose of this. The only reason I've read, "security", doesn't make any sense - an active user is just as likely to have their password guessed, I'd have thought. I'm strongly opposed until somebody explains the benefit. --Khendon 17:08, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. We have no agreed policy for this, and I do not see simple inactivity as a cause for de-adminning. De-admin "for cause" by all means, but if a person was thought sensible enough to be made an admin in the first place (whether they meet the current criteria or not) simple inactivity is not justification for their removal. -- Arwel 01:29, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Strongly Oppose. As on of those listed, I can vouch that there may be many very good reasons why an individual may have been on a 'virtual vacation'. Now that I am in a position to be active once more I would have been most upset to have ben de-adminified. sugarfish 08:47, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comments

Is a user with a dozen edits since 4/03, including 7 from 10 to 15 Sept 2004, "inactive"?
- I'm not sure who you mean. Mirwin had 7 edits in September 2003, not September 2004, if that's who you're referring to. uc
  - Oh, mea culpa. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:44, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be a separate vote on each one, rather than a slate? -- ALoan (Talk) 19:13, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I suppose so, if there are people who would vote differently for different users. But, I thought that most people would either support or oppose for all, since it's really an administrative matter rather than something related to each contributor, so I listed them as a group. uc 21:01, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Housekeeping isn't a bad thing, but do we have any kind of settled policy? For example, what constitutes consensus to de-admin? I think it would be better if we just had a firm up or down policy: i.e., no contributions for one year, or user formally left Misplaced Pages (i.e., "I'm leaving") and still gone after six months, just de-admin w/o vote. I don't know if those are the right time periods, but you get the idea. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 03:26, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Efforts to address this as a matter of policy have been divisive, in part due to a lack of examples. I think these cases in particular are clear-cut and hope we can reach a consensus on them. The best policymaking at Misplaced Pages has arisen from series of small decisions on specific cases made by consensus. uc 14:46, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
In any case, the de-nominator should sign his/her de-nominations. As for now I can only guess that the first support vote also nominated -- Chris 73 Talk 04:29, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
- Done. uc 14:46, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Can we propose deadminning of active admins this way? I have a few in mind. anthony 警告 15:21, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- You can propose anything you want. For de-admining people you don't like, your're supposed to list them at WP:RFC, and if you list them here instead the listings are likely to be moved there. There is a form for you to fill out, I believe. uc 15:58, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  - Maybe this should be moved to RFC as well, considering there's no policy for it and considering that when someone proposed a policy for it it failed. anthony 警告 17:57, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I am a little surprised that policy is created on the hoof like this - surely it would have been a good idea to start a discussion in Misplaced Pages Talk:Requests for adminship and/or Village Pump. I vaguely remember an inconclusive discussion about the "inactivity" of some admins recently: was there any consultation about this "de-admin" procedure? (Please point me at it if there was: I don't remember any.) For example, to avoid frivolous or malicious sniping at active admins (see above; the presence of the RfC, etc, procedures are surely enough already), I would suggest that this procedure is only used for admins who:
1. have been inactive for at least 12 months;
2. have not responded to a preliminary warning on their user talk page for at least 1 month; and
3. do not request reinstatement within 3 months of being deadmined.

These are just examples of the sorts of policies and safeguards that I would expect to see. If such safeguards can be developed, I think we could dispense with the "de-admin" vote, but the policies they need to be developed in a proper, unhurried discussion, not alongside a vote like this.

I believe the RfC procedure can lead to "de-admin"ing as a disciplinary measure, and some admins have volntarily surrendered their admin status: are there any other ways to "de-admin" someone? -- ALoan (Talk) 16:02, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree with uc that we're more likely to get good policy from discussing specific cases and building consensus than from discussing in a void. It's important to get many people involved, and I think more of us feel comfortable contributing to an empirical format like this vote, and more of us have the time to do it. Take me, I'm probably not a singular example: I'm glad to vote here and write a modest comment, but I just don't have enough time to attempt philosophy in an abstract policy discussion. Not really the lungs for the rarified air of it, either. --Bishonen 02:49, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Policy" on Misplaced Pages isn't some sort of legal code, it's just a set of traditions and practices. We should not avoid things just because there "isn't any policy" on it. Isomorphic 15:16, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No: I accept entirely that we can create policy as we go along, mainly because policy is generally created to address a particular issue when that issue first occurs rather than deciding in abstract and in advance how things ought to be: however, I don't see why we can't discuss things before we start to do them - I suppose you would say that this is the discussion: well, fine; but it is nicer to discuss policy without a metaphorical gun pointing at your or someone else's head. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:42, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Adminship is when you've convinced folks you can be trusted with the broom and mop. These folks might not be around much anymore, but um, why wouldn't they be allowed to employ broom and mop whenever they are? :-/ Kim Bruning 20:34, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If this is a measure to stop password guessing, I suggest we set it up so that anyone who has not been on wikipedia for a couple of months automatically looses the admin flag in software, as a technical measure to prevent such cracking. If/when he/she/it comes back they can re-request at any time from a bureaucrat. I'd certainly support such a measure, since it wouldn't be a big deal. That's not what's being voted on here at the moment, so my vote remains oppose. Kim Bruning 17:06, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oh, I like this last suggestion much better. Can it be done? Do we need to vote on it? -- ALoan (Talk) 20:12, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ditto. Automatic 'inactive' status (based on last login, not last edit), with immediate reinstatement on request... useful, NABD. +sj + 18:35, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Another request for de-adminship due to inactivity (8/15/3)

These two accounts have been dormant for over a year. It has been our policy to remove adminship from accounts that have been unused for a year or more, chiefly to protect against password guessing by vandals, and we should do so in these cases. If these users should return to Misplaced Pages in the coming year, it would be customary to restore adminship status upon request.

User:--_April. About 3000 contributions between 12/01-5/03 and under a dozen since then.
User:Scipius. About 2500 contributions betwee 2/02 - 6/03.

Vote Here

Support de-adminship

uc 17:36, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Support all requests unless any of the listed users expresses opposition to being de-admined. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 21:39, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Netoholic @ 21:54, 2004 Nov 4 (UTC) -- Provisionally. A message to this effect should be left on their talk pages for at least two weeks before removing access.
As above Shane King 23:43, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
Support. There's no reason adminship must last forever. Angela . 00:12, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
Rdsmith4— Dan | Talk 04:34, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Agree with Netoholic, but with at least two warnings spaced two weeks apart with a further two weeks before deadminship. -- Grun t 🇪🇺 16:09, 2004 Nov 5 (UTC)
Support, as above. Jayjg 03:10, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oppose de-adminship

anthony 警告 17:56, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
silsor 21:16, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
Chris 73 Talk 00:36, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC) I think every admin should have its own vote. Also I would like a link to the policy. Right now I don't know the policy, i.e. if one of them comes back and wants to be an admin. I may change to support in these two cases, but I don't like the current mass-deadminship at all. -- Chris 73 Talk 00:36, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
As above, please list them separately. Until you do, I'll vote against the en gros de-adminification. -- Schnee 03:05, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Very Verily 12:01, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC) This is unprecedented, is it not? And the stated reason makes no sense to me - how are the two inactive accounts more vulnerable to password guessing than the three hundred active ones?
If someone were to guess, say, User:Angela's password, we would find out right away, because she would notice and draw attention to the imposter. Dormant accounts are susceptible because, if somebody were to guess a password for User:Scipius, for example, we would probably not be the wiser.
I'm not sure I agree. If a vandal took over one of those two accounts, we'd know almost right away, wouldn't we? And why would Angela (alas being picked on) notice before anyone else, unless she happened to be paging through her own contributions? Very Verily 01:32, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

So, umm, someone is going to steal the password for User:Scipius and then start using the account for non-suspicious admin activities? Sounds like a positive thing. anthony 警告 01:45, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Please list them separately, or I won't support. --Lst27 (talk) 00:29, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Dori | Talk 02:59, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
] 03:42, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
De-adminship of admins who wouldn't meet qualifications today is one thing. De-adminship of admins just because they haven't edited recently is another. Oppose deadminship of these admins who meet admin qualifications. —Lowellian (talk)] 06:58, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
There's no policy for deadminship other than by request or bad behaviour. Inactivity is neither of those. - Nunh-huh 07:04, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Sarge Baldy 02:07, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. PedanticallySpeaking 17:35, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
Oppose for now, see above. Kim Bruning 20:49, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Strongly oppose. Look, people sometimes wander off for a while because they need a break, or because of stress in their lives, or whatever. And it can be a long break, too - I was gone for the best part of a year. People were made admins (which is supposed to be "no big deal" anyway, right?) because they demonstrated judgement, and they aren't going to lose that just because they are gone for a while. From personal experience, yes, you have to be careful when re-appearing, because policy on some things will have changed subtly in the interim. If there is a security issue with inactive accounts, by all means lets find some way to deal with it. However, if it involves turning off the admin bit on the account after some period of inactivity, there ought to be some simple mechanistic way (e.g. contacting a bureacrat and asking) to get it turned back on. Noel (talk) 02:41, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. I strongly disagree with the principle of de-adminning people without cause, and simple inactivity is not "for cause". I note that User:Jtdirl, one of our most valuable contributors, disappeared without warning for about 6 months earlier this year before returning. I notice that some of you seem to think that 2 weeks' notice on someones talk page is sufficient notice – I can only conclude you're all Americans with trivial amounts of vacation time -- in civilized parts of the world it's not unusual to be away from home for 2 or 3 weeks, and I would consider a calendar month to be the minimum reasonable notice time if any such de-adminning policy were to be adopted. -- Arwel 01:40, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Split vote

Support de-adminship for Scipius. However, with an edit as recent as July of this year, even if it's only one, I'm not prepared to support the request as applied to April. --Michael Snow 06:54, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Agree with Michael Snow. Support de-adminship for Scipius, Oppose de-adminship for April. SWAdair | Talk 09:34, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Ditto above. ] 00:10, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

Comments

It has been our policy to remove adminship; it would be customary to restore adminship
- Are these policies and customs enunciated somewhere?
- Has anyone been de-admined for inactivity before?
- Has anyone been re-admined after being de-admined for inactivity?
User:--_April last made an edit in July 2004 - is that inactive? (to be fair, the previous one was in December 2003).
Shouldn't there be a separate vote on each one, rather than a slate? -- ALoan (Talk) 19:17, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I'd like to hear more about this policy, too, before I vote on this or the other Inactive one. Andre (talk) 20:39, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
  - I believe that User:Eloquence handled this last time. I'll leave a note on his talk page. uc
As above, the de-nominator should sign his/her de-nominations. As for now I can only guess that the first support vote also nominated -- Chris 73 Talk 04:29, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

Requests for bureaucratship

Bureaucrats are simply users with the ability to make other people admins or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here. The process for bureaucrats is similar to that for adminship above, but is generally by request only. New bureaucrats are recorded at Misplaced Pages:Recently created bureaucrats.

Please add new requests at the top of this section (and again, please update the headers when voting)

Andrevan

final (12/3/4) ends 00:20, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

This poll is closed. Please make any comments on the talk page.

I've noticed that we have a large amount of adminship nominations at the moment - 12, including two self-nominations. Since this is rather a lot of nominations, and it appears most if not all of them will be successful, I'd like to help lighten the load for now and continue to serve as a bureaucrat. I've been an administrator for a few months and I have RfA on my watchlist. I believe I have a good understanding of consensus, as well. Andre (talk) 00:20, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

At the prompting of ShaneKing, I'd like to address the common objection that we do not need another bureaucrat. You're right! We don't need another bureaucrat - but I believe one would be helpful. With 16 admin nominations (up from earlier), probably 13 or 14 of those likely to succeed, and a whole queue of good users on the talk page just waiting to be nominated, I think another bureaucrat could help speed things up.

Func brings up an interesting point, which is that I have voted not to enact a limit on nominations, and he suggests that this may be an instance of circular logic. Actually, I think that the current majority for not enacting a nomination limit supports the suggestion that a new bureaucrat would be helpful. I believe we should have as many admins as there are willing, skilled, and responsible users, and I do not see the wisdom in slowing down the process. If this means that we need more bureaucrats to deal with the load, so be it! Regardless of whether or not my view on admin nominations prevails, I nominated myself before the current poll due to the 16 admin nominations currently on RfA - so that poll shouldn't be much of an issue, if any. Andre (talk) 01:20, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

Support

Neutrality (hopefully!) 00:46, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
Comrade Nick @)---^--]] 01:54, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC) 01:54, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Tuf-Kat 03:33, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
Very helpful user. I don't see how we can have "too many bureaucrats." There isn't some quota of bureaucrats that we can't exceed. --Slowking Man 06:48, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
Adminship should be no big deal; I fail to see how it's any different with bureaucratship. Johnleemk | Talk 12:22, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Great user. ugen64 22:28, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
OK, I'm still not totally convinced it's really needed. But really the only reason not to promote is the risk of someone going rogue and the lack of process to deal with it. Perhaps the best way around that is to ignore it until it actually happens: if it does, there's likely to be more urgency in developing any process required. Hence, support (and don't take my comments as meaning I think Andre is likely to turn rogue!). Shane King 23:43, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
Of course. Lst27 (talk) 00:21, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Given his history of successful dispute mediation and successful adminship, Andre's a fine choice for overseeing a consensus and as such, dealing with the overflow of RfAs--which may or may not exist (Ingoolemo)? DG 18:50, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Zchangu 02:47, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
squash 04:25, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
αγδεε (τ) 23:48, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)

Oppose

No one likes Andrevan's idea but is not game to say so. I don't know much about him but I do know hand-wringing when I see it. All the Neutrals should be moved to oppose and this request should be denied. Backster 23:49, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
First of all, no one moves my vote without my say so. The neutral "vote" serves a purpose. Secondly, what "idea" are you referring to? func (talk) 23:53, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Note that this is User Backster's first post to Misplaced Pages. Rick K 00:09, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
He signed up just to oppose me? I'm not sure whether to be flattered or crushed. All signs point to sock puppet, but there's no sense in bandying about accusations; is there a possible developer check for this? Andre (talk) 01:01, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
Have to discount this vote. if "Backster" wants to oppose this nom, they'll have to log in under their regular user name. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 14:20, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It seems we have enough bureaucrats right now. /Tuomas 11:00, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
No need. —Lowellian (talk)] 03:15, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
I initially placed my vote under Neutral as I was reluctant to oppose because I have nothing against Andrevan; I just think that bureaucrats should be among the most experienced Wikipedians of all, as many of the bureaucrats are. I am now moving my vote to oppose. —Lowellian (talk)] 09:57, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedians have clearly indicated the desire for a higher standard for Bureaucrats. This nomination attracted lukewarm interest (17 18 votes total), tepid support (11 12 positive, including a couple doubtful), and two opposes and four neutrals that doubt the basis of the nomination. Nothing personal against Andre as person, editor or admin, but this fails consensus. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 23:41, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

I think we have enough bureaucrats right now. —No-One Jones 00:27, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I agree. -- Grun t 🇪🇺 01:16, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)
It may look like a big load, but as has been seen on numerous occasions, it really isn't. Do we need another Bureaucrat? •→Iñgólemo ←• 08:12, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)
Worthy candidate, I just don't see the need. We can always use more admins, while extra bureaucrats don't seem to be a huge benefit. If you can convince me why we need more, I'll support. Shane King 00:39, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
Moved from "oppose"; I think we have enough bureaucrats right now, but I'm not opposing Andrevan's nomination. func (talk) 01:39, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Comments

The above Neutrals read more like Opposes. Please make certain you are putting your vote in the right place. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 10:04, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I think they're reluctant to oppose outright because they don't have any information that Andre is unqualified, just unnecessary. --Michael Snow 17:27, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I believe I was somewhat inappropriate in my comments. I apoligize, Andrevan. func(talk) 01:39, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I am sorry, but there is something about this that bothers me. Andrevan is currently stating on the talk page that there shouldn't be any limits to adminship nominations, and here he is using too many adminship nominations as justification for his being a bureaucrat. It strikes me as employing circular reasoning, and possibly suggests that he is being self-serving. I think we have enough bureaucrats, it is a very limited job, and I've never seen any shortage-problems associated with it. Bureaucratship, just like adminship, is a big deal, especially since there are no realistic means of censuring rogues. func(talk) 00:58, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  - No problem, you're forgiven. :) Andre (talk) 02:02, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
I don't see how a lack of a need for more bureaucrats is a reason not to promote those who are interested. If they're not needed, then they'll never use their bureaucrat powers and it will be a totally irrelevant promotion. If they are needed, they will be used. The only worrisome thing is that they could promote without consensus -- I don't see a worry that Andrevan will do so, thus the worst that could happen is that he would never get around to promoting anyone. Tuf-Kat 02:54, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

Questions

Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?
Yes. I believe a consensus of users for promotion to be 80%, or 75% in unusual cases. Probable sock puppets may be discounted if the vote is close, and if it's really close (say, 74.5%) the vote should be extended for a day or two.
How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?
The same as any other nomination - if consensus exists, promote. As I said above, if the vote is really close, I would argue for extending it another day or two.

Other requests

Requests for permissions on other Wikimedia projects
Requests for adminship or bureaucratship on meta
Requests for self-de-adminship on any project can be made at m:Requests for permissions.
Requests to mark a user as a bot can be made at m:Requests for permissions following consensus at wikipedia talk:bots that the bot should be allowed to run.
Requests for comment on possible misuses of sysop rights

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

Categories: