Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:28, 7 March 2009

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

• WP:RFA
• WP:RFX

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

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

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

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

About administrators

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

About RfA

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

Nomination standards

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

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

Nominations

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

Notice of RfA

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

Expressing opinions

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion, decision, and closing procedures

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

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

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

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

Monitors

• WP:MONITOR

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

Current nominations for adminship

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jasonr was made a sysop by me, a billion and one years ago, and so this whole process is inappropriate and POINTy. As pointed out below, there is no precedent nor justification for this kind of reconfirmation nomination. The nominator should have just asked me. I have just now removed Jason's bit, a pointless thing to do, but harmless.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Jasonr

Nomination

(4/9/4); Scheduled to end 15:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC) Result: Pointless to start with and moot by Jimbo's action.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Jasonr (talk · contribs) – I’m nominating this user for (de)adminship per this discussion and WP:BOLD. Jasonr never went through a RfA and thus never gained the community’s trust/was never approved by the community. He also has never taken an admin action and has only made 4 edits since 2004 in total. I think it’s just fair to give the community the chance to provide or not provide it’s trust here. — Aitias // discussion 15:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A:

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

A:

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

A:

General comments

• Requests for adminship/Jasonr
• Requests for adminship/Jasonr (reconfirmation)

• Links for Jasonr: Jasonr (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Jasonr can be found here.

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

Discussion

• User has been informed about this. — Aitias // discussion 15:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• Is there any pressing need to be winging this at top speed? Since when do random other people post reconfirmations on behalf of someone else? How about I post a reconfirmation RfA on Aitias? This page should be deleted. Avruch 15:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Please discuss this here. — Aitias // discussion 15:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Go on then Avruch. Majorly talk 15:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I think here is as good as anywhere else, since the subject is this request. What makes you think that posting this with barely any prior discussion or planning is a good idea? Avruch 16:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Because discussing it is a waste of time. What are your arguments for prolonging and process wonking over this? Majorly talk 16:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• This is a solution in search of a problem. Is there any evidence that the account is being misused? Adminship is no big deal and bad admin actions are quickly reverted. We waste more time discussing this than it would take to deal with the account should it be misused. Since there is no evidence of misuse the only excuse for this "nomination" is wikilawyering and constitutional nit-picking. Take it away.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree with Scott Mac. After five years of zero controversy, it's inappropriate to bypass normal discussion and push this so quickly. Durova 16:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Adminship is a big deal. One look at a typical modern RfA, or an RfAr which has a significant chance of resulting in a desysopping, will show you that. It didn't used to be a big deal, but then we didn't used to be a top 10 website with tens of thousands of regular contributors. Maybe it shouldn't be, we can argue that somewhere else, but the fact remains that is is a big deal. Making false assertions is not a good way of supporting your opinion. --Tango (talk) 16:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
• Nominating user should pay a visit to Misplaced Pages:RFDA#How_to_request_someone.27s_de-adminship and note that all past intent for a reconfirmation process has seen the community fail to come to a consensus about it. Esteffect (talk) 16:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• That is not an exhaustive list, and nor is it policy. Nor is it even a guideline. It's irrelevant. Majorly talk 16:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• It does, however, make it clear that such a policy to revoke adminship by nomination does not exist. Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_deadminship#Proposed_processes shows that every attempt to create such a policy has failed, and this entire nomination goes against the fact that no consensus exists for this to actually happen (none have achieved a consensus to enact). Esteffect (talk) 16:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• One of the reasons such proposals fail is because people use the fact it has failed in the past a "reason" to oppose it. Now, if we could have a proper discussion about it, without people throwing PEREN and polling is evil around with no thought, perhaps the real consensus will be found. Majorly talk 16:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• This is not a "proper discussion", though, this is a nomination to make a point that we should have a proper discussion. I have nothing against such a process being considered, but I have a lot against using the RFA process incorrectly with a process that does not actually exist anyway. Esteffect (talk) 16:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
• Also, "Because discussing it is a waste of time". That quote comes from yourself half an hour before the one stating we should now "Have a proper discussion about it", which I dare say makes this look more like a point so as to initiate discussion. Esteffect (talk) 17:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• I have no problem with the issue of desysopping inactive admins, but was any form of communication made with Jasonr before Aitias suddenly decided to post this reconfirmation RfA? Both to ask the person if they wanted the account desysopped (therefore avoiding this) or to give them a chance to respond before this even went up? If not, then I think that's incredibly unfair: our worst admins are provided plenty (more than plenty) of communication before we even begin an RfC, yet an inactive admin gets no chance at that at all. Acalamari 17:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Support - This procedure is a violation of WP:POINT. RfA is not an acceptable form of desysopping. This does not belong here. Thus, the very basis of it is a disruption. The nominator has made it clear that their feelings, which means this disruption is to make a point about Jasonr and ex employees in general. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Strong Support per the fact that we have no involuntary process for "reconfirming" adminship, and as such is an invalid RFA as user already has administrative capabilities (Requests for adminship (RfA) is the process by which the Misplaced Pages community decides who will become administrators). Also per Avruch. Esteffect (talk) 16:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Support. This is not the right forum for this. Also, it is a dangerous slope to start tossing inactive admins into reconfirmation procedures like this. Kingturtle (talk) 16:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

   How is it dangerous? Misplaced Pages is not based on a series of precedents, each case should be taken on its own merit, which is why arguments like WP:PEREN are frustrating. In this case, if Jasonr was applying for sysop for the first time, with just four edits to his name, would you support? Nev1 (talk) 16:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

4. Support per User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards, which in this case is really an WP:AGF as candidate has not been blocked, had memorable negative interactions with me, i.e. has not done anything to make me not want to support him even if there is not much in the way of edits. Don't we only remove tools after someone has done something wrong? Best, --A Nobody 17:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

   Don't we only give sysop rights once a user has earned the trust of the community? Nev1 (talk) 18:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

5. Support "while the correct use of the tools and appropriate conduct is considered very important, being an administrator should not be considered a big deal." WP:DEAL Also, the mop should either be removed voluntarily or by ArbCom, not by someone with a WP:POINT -- M2Ys4U 18:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Not particularly supporting - but see no reason to desysop

1. I also note that it will require a consensus to desysop.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
2. I agree with Scott MacDonald. Ruslik (talk) 17:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
3. This is interesting. I'll note that, while it's impossible to trust an editor whom the community barely knows, a desysop doesn't seem to solve any real problems considering Jason has never actually done anything with his sysop tools and is unlikely to ever do anything with them either. On principle, I agree with Wizardman in the "oppose" section. Master&Expert (Talk) 18:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Major violation of WP:POINT. Desysop nominator? ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 18:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
5. I agree this is also way too pointy. RFA is for the purpose of requesting adminship, not to remove adminship. Stuffing a square peg in a round hole is not a good practice. bibliomaniac15 18:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
6. No particular opinion. I'm generally in favour of some easier way to desysop for genuine reasons, but setting up a request for adminship in this way is probably not the way to do it. If there's consensus for some sort of desysopping, we should work from there. For now, this is premature and a bit rushed, in my opinion. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
7. Agree largely with Biblio and Peter. I don't really see a problem with Jason keeping his adminship, and at the same time I do not in principle oppose creating an easier way for the community at large to remove administrators' rights. However, unilaterally setting up an RfDA when there is no community consensus for such a procedure is not appropriate, in my opinion. J.delanoy_adds 19:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
8. Let Jimbo decide. Jimbo made the account into an admin because Jason worked as his personal assistant. Now he doesn't work for Wikimedia. What Jimbo has given, let Jimbo take away. Royalbroil 19:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
9. No action This is out of process, has no basis in community wishes and has been insufficiently discussed with the "candidate. SpinningSpark 19:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
10. Per Royalbroil. Additionally, I don't think this request is valid grounds to call for Aitias' desysopping, either. Hermione1980 20:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
11. Per Royalbroil, and I agree with Scott MacDonald. Kcowolf (talk) 20:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose As nominator. — Aitias // discussion 15:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Oppose continued adminship, and let's see more of these reconfirmations for admins who were never entrusted by the community. Majorly talk 15:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Strong Oppose Per Majorly, more of these should be happening.--Giants27 /C 15:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Oppose I agree with the nominating statement. The conditions of the initial granting of sysop status are somewhat hazy (Ed Poor, who performed the act, does not recall the events ), and Jasonr has not made enough edits for me to trust this user. Nev1 (talk) 15:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
5. Oppose per nom. --Tango (talk) 16:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
6. I have no problem with this process. A user who hasn't been around in five years isn't going to notice the tools gone, no reason to have them. If the user never went through RfA to begin with, then all the more reason to remove. I applaud the creation of this. Wizardman 16:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
7. Oppose per nom. Discussion has been leaning towards this evolution for years. rootology (C)(T) 17:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

   What evolution are you referring to exactly? Reconfirmation of inactive admins? Reconfirmation of all admins? Kingturtle (talk) 17:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

   The inactive ones in particular but the general tone of making it easier to lose the bit. A test case isn't an evil thing; if the community hates the idea it will fail as an idea. If not... consensus can change. rootology (C)(T) 17:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

8. Oppose. I've always wondered why there's, what, over 1600 sysops but I've only seen 2-300 max. Bsimmons666 (talk) 17:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
9. Oppose A bold move, but one that might bring about change. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 17:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
10. Oppose As per Aitias and Giants27.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Abstain per Avruch. Juliancolton (talk) 15:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Abstain also per Avruch. iMatthew // talk // 16:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
3. This really isn't the correct forum (and unfortunately there is no forum for it). In addition, this is likely a waste of time considering the outcome will not be binding as we have no policy for this. I'd support one, however. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
4. There is no such thing. The idea of "reconfirmation" or "deadmining" in this fashion has been rejected by the community repeatedly. This goes against consensus. This is not the venue for this decision. Also this "rfa" is invalid because Jasonr has not accepted the nomination, this is all messed up. There is no precedent nor justification for this kind of reconfirmation nomination. Chillum 17:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

   Well, while previous proposals have been rejected for the suggested various process pages, if this one has overwhelming support--consensus can change is policy. ;) rootology (C)(T) 17:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

   But consensus hasn't changed, it is just being bypassed. I highly doubt any steward is going to obey a "reconfirmation rfa" when there is no demonstration of community acceptance of such an idea. Chillum

   Apples and oranges; we don't have a highly supported policy that says x consensus must form in venue y for outcome z, and any such policy would be so foolish as to be as to dog excrement on our shoes. Valid consensus is valid consensus; if 10 people say Jason should keep the bit and 300 say no, he has no mandate or right to the bit. rootology (C)(T) 17:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

   We will see what the stewards think. The fact is that this exact thing has been rejected repeatedly and nothing has changed. Just because you throw a vote(and this is a vote) and a bunch of people show up does not make a new consensus. This is simply bypassing existing discussions and decisions. Chillum 17:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

   (ec) I think community consensus would be self-evident in this case. If a lot of people oppose Jasonr having adminship, it would be clear enough that the community has voiced its opinion and why should a bureaucrat ignore that? Conversely, if the neutral section is rammed with people objecting to the process, it means there is need for more discussion away from this RfA, not necessarily that consensus hasn't changed. Nev1 (talk) 17:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

5. Not the right forum (I know that seems needlessly bureaucratic). The framework or support and oppose is reversed. We are putting forward a proposition to desysop him, so it seems odd that "oppose" would be the vote which would confirm that proposition. There isn't a rush, and we could just ask jimbo to contact this guy and have him turn the bit in. I don't agree with the supports, though. This isn't a "WP:POINT" violation. Protonk (talk) 18:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
6. the guide to RFAs states: "Nominations must be accepted by the user in question. If you wish to nominate a user, contact them first before making the nomination page. If they accept, create the nomination and ask them to sign their acceptance." In this case, the user has not accepted nomination nor signed it. In normal circumstances such an omission would mean the RfA would be removed quickly, and that's what should happen here. Dean B (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

   The community is being asked here whether they agree with Jasonr having admin tools. Where is the logic in Jasonr being able to "decline the nomination"? The point of people being asked to accept a nomination at RfA is that they might not want the extra responsibility/drain on their time, that doesn't apply here. Nev1 (talk) 18:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

   If the "community is being asked" then you screwed up the letters. This is RfA, not RfC. This should be refiled under such if that is the case. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

   My mistake, I must have misunderstood the bit that reads "the process by which the Misplaced Pages community decides who will become administrators" on WP:RFA. Nev1 (talk) 19:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

   The mistake is in misinterpreting the words "who will become". It does not say "who is and who is not". Desysoping has never been the job of rfa. Chillum 20:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

   He already became one. Thus, RfA can't handle this. RfC is where the community normally calls for a desysopping. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

   Because every editor is entitled to some basic courtesy. Consulting with the user before their record is up for scrutiny in this forum is only fair. Maybe if he is contacted, he will say he doesn't mind having the bit removed. What's the rush here? Email the guy, and wait a few days for him to think it over. Just because that's the courteous, decent thing to do. Dean B (talk) 19:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

   I know, which is why I made sure that Jasonr was informed of this proposal to desysop him on his talk page. Things are moving quickly, but it's planned that this will be open for a week, so it’s not really that rushed. There's plenty of time for Jasonr to chip in and for others to make their opinion heard. Nev1 (talk) 19:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

 Bureaucrat note: There is sufficient support in this RfA to merit promotion. Although there is concern in the opposition about the overuse of huggle and the lack of experience in content and consensus building, there are no examples of incivility, misunderstanding of policies, abuse of huggle, edit warring, drama, controversy; nor are there problematic answers to the RfA questions - and in the few instances of questionable actions (specifically reverting edits and dealing with anonymous editors), Camw has admitted to making mistakes and shown a willingness to learn and improve.

I have also read the many editors weighing in as neutral. Their concerns are no different really than those in opposition, but they are decidedly neutral, and not in opposition. Kingturtle (talk) 15:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Camw

Nomination

Final: (69/20/14); closed by Kingturtle as successful at 15:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Camw (talk · contribs) – Greetings. I've been a user of Misplaced Pages since 2005, though it is more recently that I've become involved in making a substantial contribution. I enjoy the work I do now, and I would hope to continue to participate in these non-administrator related areas if I were successful in this application, but I would also like to be able to assist in some areas of interest on the administrator side of the site. I am close to reaching 10,000 edits (9,480 at the time of this nomination), these edits have mostly been made through the use of anti-vandalism tools like Popups and later on, Huggle.

I appreciate the time that you take to look over my nomination, edit history and your judgment of suitability for the mop. I'll be sure to take on board any constructive criticism that is presented regardless of the final decision. Camw (talk) 13:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: The main work I would involve myself in would involve vandalism intervention and to a lesser extent AfD debates, page protection and protected page edit requests. I would be willing to perform other work if assistance is required after familiarizing myself with the procedures and rules that are associated with the area in question. I have read over material on the Administrators' reading list and there are some areas that look interesting but where I know I need to improve my knowledge and experience before getting involved.

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

A: The contributions I take some pride in is the submission of 110 photos of Australian based Association football players to the Wikimedia Commons project over the past six months and including them on the player pages. This was an area where only one team had a significant number of profile photos on their pages prior to this season. I'm not a professional so the quality does vary and I'm limited to including players that come and play a match in my state, but they are a good start and something I'll continue to build on. The images can be seen here if you are interested.

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

A: I'm not the kind of person that gets stressed easily, my first job many years ago was on an IT helpdesk and so I have learned to not take abuse personally where other factors are at play, and be able to maintain a professional manner when faced with stressful and difficult situations. I've found that discussing problems on a Users or Article talk page over content inclusion/exclusion will usually lead to a mutually acceptable resolution and where it isn't possible to reach a satisfactory solution, having a third party join the discussion with a fresh viewpoint can be helpful for both sides of a discussion. There is an occasional question from a user that I have reverted as to why their change was rolled back - these questions can sometimes come across in an unfriendly manner, and in these cases I assume good faith and indicate to the user the relevant Misplaced Pages policy.

Optional questions from Aitias

4. Is there any circumstance in which you would delete a page despite a Hangon tag?

A. Yes, if the page contents definitely meets the criteria for speedy deletion and the reason provided in the hangon tag doesn't satisfactorily address the problem. This would have to be judged on a case by case basis, but if a page is accurately tagged with a serious issue like G10 or G12 then I would proceed to delete the page despite the tag. For pages where notability is not asserted like A7 or A9 I think a more lenient stance is justified where the hangon tag explanation gives good reason to believe that an editor needs more time to bring the article up to a suitable standard.

5. What would your personal standards be on granting and removing rollback?

A. I would expect the user to have a reasonable level of experience in fighting vandalism, no significant and recent incidents of edit warring and to have shown consistent good judgment with their vandalism related decisions (to assume good faith where appropriate, overall accuracy and the notification of users with appropriate warning templates). This isn't an area that I want to jump into straight away, but if you want a number of edits that constitute "reasonable level" then I'd be looking for around 500, unless suggested by an administrator that is more experienced that I should do otherwise. That number would vary somewhat depending on the history of the user requesting the tool. The removal of rollback privileges would have to be carefully considered, but where misuse of the ability is evident then it would be an action that may need to be taken.

6. Under what circumstances may a non-free photograph of a living person be used on Misplaced Pages?

A. This is a complex area. The image would have to satisfy the Non-free content criteria. One of the criteria on the page that must be satisfied is "where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." - for living people the "could be created" means that the image would portray the subject in a way that was no longer possible to capture and is crucial and relevant to their notability. An example may be an actor with a specific look that they are noted for, perhaps at a younger stage of their life. The image would have to have accurate and detailed fair use tags and rationale behind it to be used and the image could only be used in articles.

7. An IP vandalises a page. You revert the vandalism and give the IP a final warning on its talk page. After that the IP vandalises your userpage. Summarising, the IP was sufficiently warned and vandalised (your userpage) after a final warning. Would you block the IP yourself or rather report it to WP:AIV? Respectively, would you consider blocking the IP yourself a conflict of interest?

A. I believe a fine line can exist between vandalism and a good faith talk page edit from a frustrated user who may not understand or know the relevant policy (an example being a user adding external links that are considered spammy). So first I would take care that I do not make a rash decision simply because it is my userpage being modified/vandalised, as I said earlier I don't take edits to "my" pages personally so I believe that I can distance myself from the location of the alleged vandalism and focus on the content of the edit instead. If I were in doubt I could take it to AIV for a second opinion, but in the majority of cases I feel like consideration of the blocking of an IP should not be a source of a conflict of interest for a responsible administrator.

8. Under what circumstances, if any, would you block a user without any warnings?

A. Under a very limited set of circumstances indeed. In the majority of cases (95%+) I have seen while working on anti-vandalism tasks, the edits are easy to revert and cause limited harm to the encyclopedia (aside from the time spent by people in monitoring/cleaning it up) and I'm happy to assume good faith and to go through the full set of warnings before submitting the user to be blocked. For a user to warrant such extreme action as a block without a warning the vandalism would have to be of a similar extreme nature such as blatant hate promotion, an obviously inappropriate username or other material that would seriously damage the encyclopedia (such as using a tool to seriously vandalise a large number of pages at a time). In other cases I would favor erring on the side of caution and giving the user a chance to turn into a productive contributor.

Optional questions from Deacon of Pndapetzim

9. What policies should admins generally avoid using blocks to enforce?

A. Thanks for the interesting questions. I think this is outlined best at the Blocking Policy page. The page details a number of policies an admin should generally (or totally) avoid using to justify a block. The first, content disputes is common sense, a block should not be used on a user where you may have a conflict of interest over the content in question, this requires an administrator who can take a neutral stance to be involved. A block with the only purpose of giving a user a "time out" or cool down should be avoided as they do not solve the root cause of the problem and may make it worse. Blocking a user with the intention being to have something negative recorded against the block log of the user is not appropriate unless it meets one of the criteria listed on the page (an apology/acknowledgment of a mistake in a previous block)

10. Does WP:Consensus mean that truth on wikipedia is purely social?

A. There is a social aspect to consensus, through civil social interaction you get the most valuable discussions and can work toward mutually acceptable solutions but the basis of any consensus on truth needs to be supported by reliable sources. "The truth" in content can not be determined simply by a majority vote, the "strength and quality" of arguments must be considered as well - consensus is partially social, but built on a solid foundation of facts.

11. When should a user be disciplined for following WP:IAR?

A. Assuming the edits in question are good faith and are aimed toward improving the encyclopedia, no discipline would be appropriate - it may be that a discussion with the user over the edits could be helpful if following some rules might help with improving the contribution. Situations where a user would need to be warned over ignoring rules fall into common sense areas like multiple bad faith edits ignoring rules/policies such as WP:Vandalism, WP:Civility, WP:Copyright and others of this nature.

Optional question from Keepscases

12. Your user page has been Rickrolled numerous times. Why do you believe this is?

A:

@Keepscases: How was Camw's user page “rickrolled”? Could you please provide some diff-links for instance? Thanks. — Aitias // discussion 19:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

On behalf of Keepscases, I believe he is referring to a number of vandals briefly replacing my userpage with the lyrics to Never gonna give you up - see here for an example. As to why they would want to do that, I guess they just wanted to tell me how they were feeling, they had to make me understand. Camw (talk) 19:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Optional questions from User:Carlossuarez46:

13a. A user creates a page for a web-company and the contents are no more than a link to its website and {{underconstruction}}, and another user tags it for speedy deletion; how long in its current state of construction would it be before you decided to grant a speedy deletion request?

A: I would grant the request for deletion quickly. Under the criteria for speedy deletion A3 it states that the criteria is "Any article ... consisting only of external links" and the template page says that "In general, this template should not be used for new articles with little content.". I would suggest to the user that they could create and use their sandbox to get the article built to a better stub or better level before publishing.

13b. Would your answer be different if there were no link to its website, and the contents were only the underconstruction template; if so, what say you?

A: The article would still fall under the A3 criteria and my answer would not be different.

13c. An editor adds relevant properly sourced, but controversial, material to an article and another editor removes it because of the controversial nature, the original editor re-adds it, and it is re-removed by yet a third editor. Is vandalism occuring, and if so, by whom? Is anyone being disruptive, and if so, who?

A: I don't see this situation as vandalism, although "controversial" has a wide range to it and there may be more to it depending on the wording and issue behind the material. As a first step I'd like to see the editors enter a discussion on the article talk page to expand on their reasoning behind adding/removing the content and to see if there was a way to find a mutually acceptable way of including in some form (possible modified from the original edits) or exclude the material and to reach a consensus. If that fails then there are other options available like taking the issue to a group like the Mediation Cabal. If problems begin like incivility or if it turns into an edit war then additional action may need to be taken, but the situation as it stands in the question probably happens very frequently and most of the time I would expect a civil discussion on the talk page to assist in resolution without further administrator involvement.

13d. Is your view of consensus at deletion discussions different than your view of consensus in article writing - or is majority rule more appropos with respect to the latter?

A: Not really, I think both should be attempted to be resolved around strong, reasoned discussion and reliable sources. A majority of interested people could probably impose their view more easily on an article, but that is a reason why there are various avenues (e.g third opinion, RfC) to resolve article differences if the parties involved aren't satisfied. Camw (talk) 01:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Optional Questions from NGG

14a. Okay as noted, you made over 10,000 edits over the period of three months. In that time it looks like you've done alot of anti-vandal work, what is your experience with actual article writing? N.G.G. 03:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

To NGG: see this. –Juliancolton 03:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

A: My (limited) experience with article writing has been covered in the discussion, but I know there is a lot of information to read through! I've pasted a list of articles created on the talk page (and the tool here but it can be a bit slow), but I freely admit (in the discussion as well as my initial nomination statement) that they are for the most part stub articles with most of the effort going into the information in the infobox. The photos described in the nomination as my most significant article building, but obviously it doesn't fall into the realm of article writing. I've also admitted that article writing isn't my strength - I wouldn't say I'm not interested in it, but it just isn't where I feel like I can make the best contribution. I hope this helps! Camw (talk) 03:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

General comments

• Links for Camw: Camw (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Camw can be found here.

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

Discussion

• If this RFA continues to go the way that it is (toward a no consensus), then it may be an idea to withdraw and return in a short time (say, a month to six weeks). I think the majority of opposition is due to a lack of demonstration as to familiarity with policies, and if in that time you were to dedicate yourself to proving your competence in areas away from automation/Huggle, I have no doubt a return RFA would pass successfully. This is, of course, only a suggestion. Esteffect (talk) 04:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

  Thanks for the suggestions, being an admin is no big deal to me, so whether I would stop doing my current work in order to pursue the broader experience required to be certain to pass a RfA would be something I would have to carefully consider (I'm not saying I wouldn't do it, just that I'm not certain at this point). The RfA is currently (just) in the grey area between 70 and 80% where someone would have to make a decision based on the content of the discussion (unless Neutral is counted as "not yes" for the decision) so I'm not sure about withdrawing either. If enough people thought it was a good idea, again I'd consider it. Camw (talk) 05:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

  It's up to the opposition; if a few opposers want to say that the candidate is likely to pass in a month if he learns specific things, I don't think anyone would say, "No! It's not done!" But ... I haven't seen that done last year or this year, so if there's no discussion, it's a reasonable assumption that the candidate should come back in 3 months (if he wants to) if he fails. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 15:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• So there are a couple of days to go now. I'd like to thank everyone for their comments and suggestions so far. If anyone has any questions/comments that need some thought and detailed response I'd appreciate if you get them in over the next day or so, so that I have a good chance to consider and respond to you. I'm not quite sure how this is going to pan out, it is currently at 78.1% support against oppose and both sides have made good arguments. Either way, I'll be taking to heart the points made by the oppose and neutral editors and hopefully can prove to you that it was either a good idea to make me an administrator if it goes through, or that I should have your support in a future RfA if this fails. Camw (talk) 01:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
• Advice: Your answer to question 4 is not to my liking. I would not speedily delete any article with a {{hangon}} placed in apparent good faith. Such articles can go to WP:AfD. I'd make an exception for blatant WP:BLP violations or attack pages where an antagonist tried to game the system by using a hangon tag. Jehochman 13:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

  Hi, I did qualify my statement by saying it needs to be judged on a case by case basis and that I would be looking to do it for "serious" problems like G10 (attack pages) and G12 (copyright violation), whereas other cases like A7 or A9 for example it would (depending on the specific case) be possible and justified to be more lenient. To be honest it seems like we are on a similar wavelength here unless I've misunderstood? Camw (talk) 14:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

  I have not memorized the criteria by their letters. You have violated WP:WOTTA, but I will support you nevertheless. Jehochman 17:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

  Sorry about that - I should have been clearer in the first place, but thanks for your support. Camw (talk) 18:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. I am going to have a closer look at your contributions later, but I'm very happy with what I've seen so far. I have no problem with primarily huggle-based editors becoming admins, providing that the huggle work is of a generally high standard of accuracy. In your case I haven't seen any mistakes as yet, and generally you seem to handle it very effectively - and from the number of AIV reports that ended up being submitted (and subsequently blocked, allowing you to block directly would free up a lot of time for other admins. Your contributions to AfD debates have also generally seemed intelligent, logical and in many cases add new arguments or sources to the discussion rather than just jumping on a delete bandwagon. Combine that with some very good question answers and enough content work to at least demonstrate you know this is an encyclopedia - I feel very happy to support at this time. ~ mazca 15:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

   After looking at more contributions I found nothing to concern me. I ran across a few AfDs that demonstrated A Nobody's concerns below about weak deletion reasons, but in none of the cases was your opinion actually incorrect, simply poorly-elaborated. As I'm sure you'll work on that in future it is not a problem to me. Additionally, I chuckled out loud when I came across the contribution history of Walker Creek (California) and your ten-minute battle with the world's most persistent vandal - is this not a great example of someone who could have used a block button right about then? :) ~ mazca 18:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

   Thank you. While I wasn't laughing at the time, in retrospect I can see the humor in the situation! I think between the vandal, Marek and myself the edit count for a pretty peaceful page over a couple of years until that point increased by about 5x. A block button would have been handy, but we got there eventually and hopefully Walker Creek can rest easy for a while! Camw (talk) 18:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

2. Support Everything I've looked at so far has been good. I love the intelligent talk page correspondence, I applaud the project-focused user page, I'm glad you aren't eager to jump into deletion areas where you don't have lots of experience. I think you'd be a good administrator. Townlake (talk) 16:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Strong support. So he uses huggle, no big deal. Wizardman 16:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Support (Moved from oppose.) Camw's answers both to my questions and their comments in the neutral section are impressive. They clearly indicate that the candidate has the most important thing —common sense—. Thus, I'm happy to support. — Aitias // discussion 17:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
5. Support. Per Aitias. Surely this user has clue shown by the answers. -- Mentifisto 17:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Weak support per User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards as candidate has never been blocked, but does have a barnstar on the userpage. "Weak", however, because while we both agreed in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/A Warriors Trial, i.e. deletion was the right call in that case, please do not use WP:JNN per User:Stifle/Don't say non-notable. Sincerely, --A Nobody 17:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

   Thanks for the comment, I agree with you on WP:JNN, points like that don't usually add to the discussion and the process isn't a vote. I'll remember to more carefully consider this in my future actions in AfD processes as a user or otherwise. Camw (talk) 17:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

   You're welcome and thank you to you for keeping an open-mind and responding to suggestions maturely! Good luck when you become an admin!  :) Best, --A Nobody 23:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

7. Support Sure, you huggle a lot, but your messages to other users on their talk page and yours show me that you're clueful and intelligent. Such people are capable of learning administrative areas. I see no reason not to support. FlyingToaster 18:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
8. Support. We need more admins, and automated edits show experience too. Stifle (talk) 18:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
9. Support. This is quite an edit rate... keep it, and you will be able to delete Jimbo, crats, sysops and all the users and start a brave new wikipedia the way we want it. Seriously, the community gains a new admin without losing an article builder. Stop that! it's silly!, but you've got my voice. NVO (talk) 18:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
10. Support - Clueful and active. Huggle isn't a problem. — neuro 18:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
11. Look at my automated edits prior to gaining the mop, and after gaining the mop... support Hiberniantears (talk) 19:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
12. Support No issue not to. America69 (talk) 19:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
13. Support Keepscases (talk) 20:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
14. Support No problems.--Giants27 /C 22:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
15. Support Huggle use doesn't scare me, and he has large amounts of clue. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 00:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
16. Weak Support -- great editor, would benefit with the tools, as long as you try to stay away from strictly using HG.--₮RUCӨ 01:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
17. Support No problems here. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 01:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
18. No issues here. VX! 02:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
19. Support has been around since Jan 2005 and vandal fighter and see no scope for misuse of tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
20. Support No reason not to.--Res2216firestar 04:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
21. Support - Will type out a rationale in a bit. –Juliancolton 06:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

    Alright, here's my rationale: first of all, Camw does have article writing experience in the form of creating and updating sports-related BLPs. He/she may not have any FAs or GAs, but the goal of the encyclopedia isn't to do so. We're trying to build and maintain a comprehensive encyclopedia, and the creation of numerous stubs is an excellent step towards achieving this goal. With that out of the way, I checked out the rest of the candidate's contributions, and I uncovered the following: experience with CSD (admins only); participation in a community-wide discussion; plenty of work at AIV; attention to details; etc. The list goes on and on.

    That aside, it's undeniable that the majority of the candidate's contributions consist of Huggle-assisted vandalism reverts, but I don't understand how this can be seen as bad. As much as we need to write pages, we need to maintain them by removing and preventing vandalism. Think of a hedge, for example. You've planted a row of 'em, great! Now in six months, they'll be overgrown, messy, ugly, and useless. The same can be said of articles. If nobody ever wrote another article, Misplaced Pages would remain a comprehensive and useful resource for years to come. If not for anti-vandalism work, the website would be useless in a matter of weeks, perhaps days. I apologize if this seems a bit like rambling, but the bottom line is that cleaning up vandalism is a vital job, one that the encyclopedia would not be able to survive without.

    WP:AGF is also relevant. While the oppose section raises some valid concerns, I'm not convinced by the argument that a lack of work in certain areas such as AfD correlates to a lack of policy knowledge. We don't know if Camw knows the difference between a block and a ban. We don't know if Camw could tell you how long to block a user who violates 3RR. We don't know if Camw knows what a username violation is. Then again, we don't know for certain if any admins know such facts. So, until one of the devs implement a mind-reading device, I'm going to AGF and assume that the candidate has memorized every policy on the English Misplaced Pages, as there is nothing to suggest otherwise.

    In short, there is nothing to suggest that Camw would abuse the tools. He/she isn't a perfect editor—if there is such a thing—but I have no doubt in my mind that granting them adminship will be beneficial to the project. –Juliancolton 07:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

    Actually I suppose that the diff you provided shows that Camw might know the difference. -- Mentifisto 00:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

    Ah, quite true. –Juliancolton 01:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

22. Strong Support. You've been here since 2005 and are near the 10000th edit milestone. Certainly you'll do well with the tools. –BuickCenturyDriver 11:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
23. Support per Juliancolton's last paragraph. LittleMountain5 15:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
24. Support. Julian makes a convincing argument, and I loved the candidate's answers and replies. I often oppose when someone hasn't had broad enough experience, but when the reason is that they were too busy improving the encyclopedia, that works for me. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 17:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
25. Support - I'm impressed with Camw's answers and I see nothing to cause me to believe that the editor would disrupt the viscous flow of continuity of The Wiki. Though I myself have no authority to give advice for up-and-coming admins, I would suggest perhaps a bit more participation in other areas of Misplaced Pages—if for no other reason than to acknowledge the existence of the inner cogs, wheels, and gremlins that make the system work. Good luck! —Archon Magnus 18:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
26. Support - From my experience, Camw does an excellent job with anti-vandal work, and s/he has said that vandal-patrol would be the focus of his/her admin work. J.delanoy_adds 03:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
27. Support, is clearly a user who does a good job in vandal fighting, and any user who does that and is sufficiently experienced is, for me, a very good candidate for adminship. Refer to the "Discussion" section for a further point regarding the direction this RFA is taking. Esteffect (talk) 04:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
28. Support Fast and accurate vandal fighter. Surely this counts as positive experience. Marek.69 06:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
29. Support I think admins with a limited focus are fine, and you've certainly put in good work. Ray (talk) 18:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
30. Support TBDevilRays2009 (talk) 19:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
31. Support, An editor who is intelligent, supports the goals of the encyclopedia, and is good with tools. Give them a few more. --StaniStani  20:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
32. If an user is an excellent patroller (even thought he hasn't got many experience), I think he may be a good admin --Mojska (m) 13:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
33. Support Per above α§ʈάt̪íňέ-210 17:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
34. Support Great work so far. -download | sign! 20:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
35. Support Erik9 (talk) 20:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
36. Support Keep up the good work! Shawnpoo (talk) 20:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
37. Support The questions above seem to indicate a user with solid policy knowledge and an appropriate temperament, which are the primary things I'm looking for. Edit counts don't concern me necessarily, though the small number of talk edits (the user talk edits are probably almost all warnings) is slightly troubling. No other red flags though, so I support. Oren0 (talk) 21:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
38. Support Although most of your created articles have just one sentence (your longest written "stub" is Campbell Mattinson), your "good sports images" are quite impressive enough for me to consider you as a content builder. You are determined to help people from good faith, and seems to understand image policies. So the low edit count does not worry me much.--Caspian blue 02:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
39. Support reasonably competent in the areas he wants to work. About content building, I agree with Caspian blue. Icewedge (talk) 06:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
40. Support, vandalism fighting is solid, image contributions are good, and no reason to believe user would abuse the tools. Lankiveil 11:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC).
41. Support - net positive. PhilKnight (talk) 13:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
42. Strong support Huggle work is extremely good. Fahadsadah (talk) 14:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
43. Support - Huggle contributions are good, it shows they're willing to help out on vandalism patrol. Xclamation point 15:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
44. Support 10,000 edits with an aid is really like 5,000 edits manually, but that's still ok. Don't see any problems otherwise. Spinach Monster (talk) 15:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
45. Support - This was another difficult one, but after reviewing User:Camaron/Requests for adminship/Criteria, I have decided to support. You clearly love Huggle, I have nothing against that, and have made many many good edits with it. You have shown yourself to have the right attitude in disputes (key criteria 7), and seem to me to have sufficient knowledge of policy (key criteria 8/9), with a good record overall (key criteria 1-4). The only concern I had was your communication concerns (key criteria 5) as brought up by Coppertwig (talk · contribs), and I also noticed in your user talk archives. However, your response to these concerns demonstrates important skills of an administrator, and of which not having is a common reason for people loosing the tools, these are: 1) Being willing to admit you are wrong, and 2) Learning from mistakes (key criteria 6). So overall, I think you have plenty of need for the tools and should benefit the project as an admin. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

    Thanks, I don't know that I love Huggle, but my girlfriend would probably be jealous if she found out how much time I spent with it ;) Camw (talk) 00:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

46. Support Opposes are imposing too high a standard. I see no problems with handing Camw the mop. Cleanup in aisle 4, excuse me.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
47. Support. With that many edits, he probably isn't here to delete the main page. Admiral Norton 20:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
48. Support. On balance, what very little risk is involved here (and I think it's quite low, after - among other things - reading the candidate's reasoned responses) is more than offset by the value of having him as an admin now. I understand why some editors are opposing; while they also are not expecting perfection in a candidate, they're looking for something closer to that than I am. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
49. I looked at a reply Camw made regarding one of his edits (here), and was impressed by his demeanor. In another edit, (here) I found that he also does not have a problem with admitting he is wrong or with trying to fix his mistakes. From what I can see, Camw has a decent head on his shoulders, and despite his heavy huggle use he should do well as an administrator. Good luck, Malinaccier (talk) 22:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

    The candidate seems to be very calm and civil. However, based on the diff you provided, I'm switching from Neutral back to Weak Oppose. The candidate seems to be under the impression that reverting without comment and warning with a uw-huggle1 template is not treating an edit as vandalism. I don't even see anything wrong with the edit, (though there may well be problems with it apparent on closer examination), let alone a reason to revert it without any comment and warn the editor. This looks like a BITE violation to me. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

    What I meant to the user is that the first warning assumes good faith and talks about constructive contributions. I admitted to the user that I probably shouldn't have reverted the edit, but my trigger finger was probably a bit quick because the article had been undergoing very heavy constant vandalism. The user came back to my talk page to thank me for the response and say their issue was resolved based on my response, so I hope they didn't feel bitten. Camw (talk) 00:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

    Do you ever knowingly revert without comment and warn with uw-huggle1 when it's an edit you consider unconstructive but which isn't vandalism? I'm happy to hear that the issue was resolved satisfactorily with that user. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

    Only by mistake rather than intent (and I think these are the very small majority where I have made an error). If you care to pick your way through my edit history (I don't mind going and finding some diffs if it would help), you'll find I still drop out of Huggle and use the Undo function with an appropriate edit summary a decent amount when I know rollback isn't appropriate Camw (talk) 00:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

    Thanks for your reply. I'm sorry, I may have misunderstood what you had said about not having treated the edit as vandalism: just the kind of thing I tend to say and am misunderstood about! I'm switching back to Neutral. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

50. Support. This candidate is reasonable and conscientious, provided excellent answers to the questions, and is ready for the tools. — Athaenara ✉ 01:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
51. Support. You know what you're doing. By the way, good answers. Caden S (talk) 03:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
52. Whole Hearted Support I see an admin's eye already, great contributions, excellent vandal fighting, basically everything that's already been said! :) Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 05:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
53. Support Good contributions, excellent answers to questions and good vandal fighting (yes I'm counting photos as contributions) WereSpielChequers 14:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
54. Support Great answers, good contributions, hope this puts you over the top. Valley2city 18:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
55. Support - iMatthew // talk // 19:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
56. Support good answers to the questions has swayed me. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
57. Support I'm very impressed with the user's answers and level of maturity and respect in this RfA. Arguments above seem to outweigh those below, so I can't oppose. Good luck with the tools if this pulls through! ~ ωαdεstεr16_♣T 00:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
58. Camw will be okay: just take it slow, and don't hesitate to ask more experienced users for help. Acalamari 15:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

    Thank you, that is indeed my plan if this goes through. Camw (talk) 15:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

    That is a good attitude to take. Acalamari 16:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

59. Support has sufficient experience and tact. Jehochman 17:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
60. Support am persuaded that candidate will not misuse the tools. Davewild (talk) 18:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
61. Support Good contributions and looks like he/she can be trusted with admin tools. GT5162 21:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
62. Support Sufficiently qualified. MBisanz 01:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
63. Support - no reason to believe that this soccer fan cannot be trusted. X MarX the Spot (talk) 01:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
64. Support Broader experience would be a plus. But seems to have enough of a clue. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 01:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
65. Support. Looks good to me. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
66. Support. Leave out the automated edits and you still have a good contributor. rspεεr (talk) 06:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
67. Support I see nothing lacking with his experience. He uses Huggle. So what? Antivenin 07:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
68. Support Experienced, Good contributions and vandalism reverts. --Nvineeth (talk) 11:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
69. Support Thoughtful and serious..I think will do well...Modernist (talk) 12:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose 7500 out of 9000 of your edits are Huggle-based and they all are from the last two months, 1600 of them in the last three days. While Huggle users are needed to maintain the encyclopedia, they do not indicate any knowledge of administrative duties. Your contributions to Talk: and Misplaced Pages: namespaces are virtually nil. I suggest you work on Misplaced Pages actively for another 3-4 months, not only with Huggle or such, and then retry RFA (if this fails). Your current contributions just don't allow me to trust you with the tools. Regards SoWhy 15:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

   Understood, and thanks for the feedback. My main area of interest does lie in vandalism fighting and I guess "cleanup" oriented tasks, so that is where my edits have been rather than in the content space where I'm not as strong. I'll look into some other areas that I could contribute to in order to gain your trust (and others with a similar line of thought) if this request fails. Camw (talk) 15:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

   SoWhy, linking to NOTNOW was probably not necessary, as that page is designed for the people with, oh say, 500 edits, whose RfA has virtually no chances of passing. Camw doesn't look like he's fitting that description. For what it's worth, there's discussion on the talk page about it (link) currently happening. Xclamation point 05:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

   I agree. Perhaps SoWhy would consider removing that link as it does not seem relevant to this candidate. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

   Thanks, I knew what he meant and no offense was taken. If he wants to remove the link after looking through the talk page discussion then that's fine, but if not then no harm done! Camw (talk) 08:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

   I never thought NOTNOW is only for candidates that have no chances of passing but for all candidacies where one might think, the candidate is running too soon. But I understand the criticism of this usage and although Camw seems to have understood my meaning, others seem to be confused by it and so I have removed it. Regards SoWhy 15:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

2. Weak Oppose. Pretty much the same thing I said at Mikaey's concurrent RFA, you're on your way, but I need to see more than Huggling. Adminship requires knowledge of policy, civility, clue, and so forth, and you may have tons of each, but it is difficult to tell with your contributions as they currently stand. For example, you say in Q1 you want to work on RFPP, but you have only four edits there. Get some more experience in the project space and I look forward to supporting in the future. Useight (talk) 16:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

   Thank you for the feedback, I don't necessarily think that my focus would shift in a large way to other areas of the project should this fail, but I'll endeavor to broaden my horizons. Camw (talk) 16:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

   Oppose per the points mentioned both by SoWhy and Useight above and by Pedro in the neutral section. Also, per the answer to Q2. Sorry. — Aitias // discussion 16:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

   No need to be sorry. Can I ask you to expand on the problem with my answer to Q2 please? Camw (talk) 16:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

   Well, it shows a complete lack of article building. — Aitias // discussion 16:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

   I acknowledge that article building is not my strength so I try to focus on and contribute in other ways, but I understand your concerns. Camw (talk) 17:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

   Actually, both your answers to my questions and your comments here (and in the neutral section) are that impressive that I can no longer oppose. Moving to support. — Aitias // discussion 17:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

3. Oppose per SoWhy. JPG-GR (talk) 17:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Somewhat oppose I would give you merit for your edits, but your edits in Huggle are a tad much. Ginbot86 (talk) 18:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
5. Oppose - Automaticity makes it nearly impossible for me to gauge your knowledge of policy. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 19:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Oppose. Too dependent on automated tools. There is no way to fully acknowledge that the candidate has a grasped our policies. DiverseMentality 23:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
7. Oppose. You have virtually no experience in writing articles , and you were hardly involved in any article talk page discussions. I cannot trust you to make decision regarding deletion or establishing consensus. Xasodfuih (talk) 02:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

   That is a great website that i did not know, thanks for linking to it but there is nothing there that shows stats about articles written. 137.154.73.31 (talk) 05:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

   It is sufficient in my mind; the same information is (now) available on this RfA's talk page:

   • 51 - Sydney_FC
   • 17 - Walker_Creek_(California)
   • 11 - Erica_Enders
   • 11 - Frankenstein
   • 9 - Plastic
   • 9 - Authority
   • 8 - Hush_(Buffy_the_Vampire_Slayer)
   • 8 - Queensland_Roar_FC
   • 8 - Gloucester_Cathedral
   • 8 - Nantes

   Xasodfuih (talk) 17:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

   May I remind the audience that the most edited pages do not equate to articles written. Sometimes it's most watched, most vandalised, most reverted. Many edits remain invisible to the bot. It's not a reliable indicator. NVO (talk) 20:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

   Let's cut to the chase here: can you name an article that the applicant has written a substantial portion thereof? Xasodfuih (talk) 21:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

   Xasodfuih, from my reading NVO is making a similar point to you so I'm not sure who this is aimed at. If it's at me then I'm afraid I cannot name an article, but I have never claimed article building experience past stub creation and image contribution. I understand that doesn't meet your criteria (and that of others). Camw (talk) 23:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

8. Oppose. Per SoWhy, Useight, and Xasodfuih. Try to get some more experience in those areas noted above first. Sorry. - Fastily (talk) 02:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
9. Oppose. Per Xasodfuih. I like to see admins with some experience in content and consensus building. Dean B (talk) 06:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
10. Regretful Oppose. Good answers, a level-headed and friendly editor. But, as others have said before me, you need more experience in other areas first. yandman 08:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
11. Oppose as we need real people who have a good understanding of the rules and not some "Huggle bots". 1600 non-Huggle edits are simply not enough for me to come to the understanding that you know your way around the 'pedia. Tavix (talk) 04:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

    Happy to accept your note on understanding the rules, but I'm not really comfortable with being called a huggle bot. Every one of the huggle edits I've made required a decision and action from me - Huggle is doing the work of loading the page and showing the diffs but it still needs an operator to take responsibility for the action. Vandalism isn't always clear cut and if I've made 8000 odd Huggle edits, then I've probably reviewed 10 times as many edits and let them pass. This process gives me an understanding of a specific set of rules, but I obviously concede that it isn't over a wide range of areas as some would like to see. I feel like my answers to the policy based questions above have been alright for the most part, but putting them into consistent practice may be more difficult. Thanks for the feedback anyway. Camw (talk) 04:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

    Your still using an automatic tool to load the edits for you, it doesn't matter who presses the button. My statement was largely WP:NOTNOW. Tavix (talk) 01:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

    I think that it does matter who presses the button or else everyone would have rollback access, but I accept that you take a different view. Camw (talk) 01:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

12. Oppose. Limited experience (few edits before January) and little or no article building experience. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

    Actually, Camw has created well over a dozen articles. Sorry if you already knew this. Cheers, –Juliancolton 13:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

    Thanks, it's hard to see anything about his/her non-automated edits for the flood of automated ones. I have amended my comment. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

    I would appreciate it if someone would provide a list of the articles created or substantially expanded by the candidate. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

    Hi Coppertwig (and others). There is a tool here that lists pages created (but not substantially expanded). The tool lists 52 pages and 3 redirects created. Most of them are stubs with an accurate infobox and a reference as I think I mentioned elsewhere, but it was still work that needed doing. I'll post the list generated to the talk page as the tool is a little slow. Camw (talk) 00:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

    What I see there are articles like Campbell Mattinson: no references, (Rachel Cooper: one-sentence article, also no references, Nikola Dieter ibid. Stopped looking. Xasodfuih (talk) 21:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

13. Oppose. Camw has done some good work in a short time. Keep up the good work, round out experience (substantive article edits / WP projects other than WP:AIV) and come back in a few months and I will support. Sunray (talk) 22:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
14. Oppose. Little activity until very recently. Given that the vast majority of edits have been made with automated tools, more time is needed to assess this candidate's suitability for adminship. A potentially a good future candidate. Singopo (talk) 13:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
15. Oppose Like most every opposer here, I feel you are too reliant on automated tools for me to feel comfortable with you as an admin. Come back when you have more manual edits, and more mainspace contributions. ArcAngel (talk) 06:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
16. Oppose Sorry mate but you need some time to develop and edit Misplaced Pages so that you get a sense of the overall experience. As demonstrated here, if you had more experience in developing articles you'd likely be more mindful of contributions made by others. I think with some time and more experience I'd support you. Nja 09:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

    I've explained that edit elsewhere in this discussion and it was a mistake that was cleared up to the satisfaction of the parties involved. I admit that I made a mistake but understand you aren't comfortable with my experience in areas you are looking for. Camw (talk) 00:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

17. Sorry I'm one of those editors who thinks some article work should be required for adminship unless there are special exceptions, and I don't see one here. And note creating articles such as Grace Gill-McGrath doesn't count as writing experience for me Secret 13:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

    No need to be sorry. I'm sorry that article writing isn't really my area of strength, so I don't expect to be able to be able to meet your criteria for supporting my application. Camw (talk) 00:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

18. Oppose. While I don't oppose based on edit counts, you had less than 1000 edits until two months ago. Involvement over time is one of the ways to earn the trust of the community, and I don't believe there is enough evidence to evaluate your request or adequately determine how you would react in a variety of situations. As a side note, I hope you are remembering to eat and sleep. Is a rate of editing like the 2000 edits in the five days leading up to this RfA a sustainable rate for you? Are you going to hit the wall? Dekimasuよ! 00:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

    No, my free time does vary depending on various other things going on so I don't expect to continue at quite the same as the current rate. Thanks for the concern though! Camw (talk) 00:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

19. Oppose Article editing experience isn't a huge deal for me given your other good qualities. But you lack any Misplaced Pages: namespace edits beyond AIV and AfD, which makes it hard to judge your ability to think about and solve issues, know policy, or be sufficiently careful. What tipped it for me was reading all of your AfD !!votes. Nearly all of them are "per nom" or "not notable" or similar. There is rarely extra reasoning, sources, or evidence. While this may be a function of choosing uncontroversial AfDs, it also doesn't give any basis to judge your ability to make difficult decisions. I'm reluctantly opposing so I'd like to ask an informal question to judge your reasoning if I may (you are under zero obligation to respond since it's time consuming). How would ou close this AfD for this article as an admin, and why? Phil153 (talk) 01:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

    Hi Phil, understood and I agree here and in another comment somewhere above that per nom/not notable isn't a good enough contribution. I've been trying to improve my responses to AfD debates and I think the last couple have been better, but almost all my time lately has been spent in this RfA! ;) I'll have a look over the linked AfD and try to get back to you in shortly with an answer. Camw (talk) 02:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

    You weren't wrong about it being time consuming! In addition to the AfD debate I've gotten sidetracked reading all kinds of somewhat interesting arbitration cases about fringe/pseudoscience. I think the argument has to come back to reliable sources and notability regardless of the acceptance (or not) of the scientific community about the theories put forward by an individual. I have to spend more time looking over the linked articles, but at first glance some of the ones I've looked at are not as independent or reliable as some participants in the debate are asserting. I'll keep looking at it and going through the debate and sources. Camw (talk) 02:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

    I think I'm going to run out of time before this RfA closes and some of the references aren't loading for me in the AfD, but I'm still leaning toward closing it as a delete because the sources provided, while they are numerous, struggle to convince me that they constitute "significant coverage", and that they are reliable - there are a lot of claims made by the sources, but little evidence of fact checking or healthy skepticism on their part. The award from the citiy looks to be genuine, but I don't think it is enough to stake a claim for notability. If I don't manage to get back to this in more detail and the RfA is closed (either succeding or failing), I'd still like to hear your opinion on the AfD and what you would do(on my talk page if you have time and this is closed?). Camw (talk) 05:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

    I wanted to see if you could efficiently pull the trigger on a complex issue, since nearly all your previous AfD votes have been straightforward pile-ons in very uncontroversial AfDs that didn't require more than a "per nom". As for this AfD, by the discussion there delete was fine; by a more careful consideration of the previous RfA, looking at the sources/spirit of the notability guidlines, consideration of systemic bias, and the harm of deletion, "no consensus" would have been justified too. Either would have been a good answer. I'll probably move to netural before this closes because you're such a good candidate in terms of temperament and clue. :) Phil153 (talk) 06:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

    Thanks Phil153, it was a good, challenging question. Camw (talk) 06:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

20. Oppose. I like your attitude but would need to see more of it in 'action' over a wider area and over a more sustained period than a quarter of a year.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I just don't feel that three months using Huggle or AWB cuts it for me. Of your last 1,000 contributions only one was manual that I could see. Okay, you've made some improvements to Sydney FC but I don't see much article writing. Very little talk page interaction makes me wonder as well (eg. interacting with editors to gain consensus). Having said that you seem very accurate with the automated tools, and you are clearly here for the right reasons. Reasonable level of AFD work which is where you want to focus. Photography work is always appreciated but I don't see how it links to +sysop. I can't oppose an honest dedicated Wikipedian (particularly one I granted rollback too :)), but I'm not sure I can support. Do you perhaps have any contributions showing decisions based on consensus? I couldn't really see any - and AFD is the last place for unilateral action of course. Pedro :  Chat  14:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

   Pedro, thanks for the balanced response. I agree that the photography work isn't relevant, and perhaps I should have chosen a different tack but that was the contribution where I feel like I've been able to move the encyclopedia forward rather than "not backwards" as the efforts of vandalism fighting can sometimes feel like. Article writing isn't an area where I feel I have much strength, so the photography is my (small) contribution to article building. I have created a number (50 maybe) of articles for W-League players where notable, but to be honest they have been mostly stubs with basic information and an accurate infobox. I'll have a think about the consensus based decisions and come back to you, I know there are some situations where I have reached agreements with users on content, there is one on my talk page now - but I will want to find evidence of more complex interactions and I'll need some time please. Camw (talk) 15:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

   I do think photography is very important for Misplaced Pages and you have a right to be proud of your contributions. I would also note I was impressed by the first two answers to the optional questions. Pedro :  Chat  16:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

   On the subject of consensus based decisions, one I recalled/found was an instance where an IP was placing notices on a page indicating that it would be deleted, I good faith warned the user and they responded on my talk page (see the first section here. I responded and indicated that they should take their concerns to an AfD discussion if they were committed to following the correct process, the user did so (AfD, a consensus was reached and as far as I have seen the user accepted the decision and has not made any more disruptive edits to the page. I'll look for more (better?) examples, but it's not easy to sort through all the vandalism edits looking for them! Camw (talk) 17:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

2. Neutral here too. Like Pedro and SoWhy I am unable to discern how you will choose to use the tools. I am not so troubled by the automated edits, rather, it's the lack of edits showing who how you would use the tools at your discretion, or apply policy. Your AfD work is a bit light for me to determine the depth of your policy knowledge, and if you had any RFPP work I missed it in my review. If you intend to work at AfD, I'd like to see you weigh in on cases that can go either way, in which your position might be challenged. Most of those I saw were straight deletes with no voices in dissent. You are accurate in your CSD tagging and vandalism reverting, which tends to help my comfort level, and I would expect to support if the other issues could be addressed. Xymmax _{So let it be done} 15:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

   Thanks Xymmax. WP:AIV is where I want to concentrate on at first, but I also understand that the privileges granted are "all or nothing" and you need to be sure that I'm not going to create havoc (and hinder rather than help the existing administrators) in areas that I have little to no experience. Camw (talk) 16:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

3. Neutral. Generally good contributions. However Camw should work on more content creation and demonstrate good interactions with other editors. Axl ¤ 18:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
4. I have no problem with Huggle-only administrators. However, I would ask for at least an attempt into looking at other parts of the encyclopedia, preferably in a GA attempt or a DYK if primarily anti-vandal based. Also, a few months just really doesn't cut it; I would like to see a bit more than that. Cam, you are a generally solid user though, from what I can tell. Please do keep up the good work; just consider branching out a bit. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 20:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
5. Neutral for now. I'd oppose based on experience, but I like his answers and it seems like he has a good temperament. Go get some more experience where you can demonstrate judgement -- either deletion discussions or working on controversial articles. I think you'll do well at these tasks and a second RfA (if needed) will pass handily. --A. B. 01:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Neutral for now. Similar feeling here. Seems like a fine candidate for admin, but it would be nice to see a bit more history and more participation in AfD's, RfC's, etc. I'll be happy to support another RfA in a few months time. LK (talk) 10:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
7. Neutral Gah, I'm flitting between Neutral and Support, but in the end that indecision itself is swaying me to neutral, and I've certainly no reason to oppose. Just yesterday Camw and I were (independently) chasing vandals around football related pages, and I actually thought he already had the mop until I saw him requesting blocks at WP:AIV. Whilst a big chunk of his edits have been in 2009, I know I've seen him around way before that and never had any problem with him that I remember. The lack of contributions at places like XfD and WP:ANI and the surprisingly low number at AIV are making me hesitate. I would just like to see a bit more evidence of knowledge of stuff beyond vandalism fighting. I've no problem with Huggling, nor Twinkling for that matter, and there's enough article work there for me. For me, spend some time at AfD because I think that's a great place to really get familiar with a whole range of policies and how they practically interact with articles. --GedUK  13:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
8. Neutral I was originally going to oppose. Then I realized that I couldn't come up with a good enough excuse that wouldn't have lots of people badgering. I'm sure people have put forth other things. I don't really see the need for every vandal fighter to be an admin, by the way. What was the old expression? "Too many chiefs, not enough Indians"? Ottava Rima (talk) 04:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

   Nicely put, on all points, if you understand "badgering" the same way I do (although I'm personally in the support column). - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 15:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

   Wouldn't this be more akin to giving a brave a horse and a rifle? ;-) --StaniStani  20:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

9. Neutral per Pedro and Ottava Rima. Bearian (talk) 18:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
10. Neutral Seems like a good candidate, but there aren't enough non-hg edits to judge how they would use the tools. For the candidate, this is easy to fix! I agree with several other editors here that if you spend some time on noticeboards (especially the underserved ones, not AN & AN/I), policy talk pages and article work (specifically, pick something and see if you can bring it to GA or FA), you will do well. This may seem like checking boxes or "leveling up", but it isn't. If you are genuinely interested in learning how this place works and judging how consensus, dispute resolution and content improvement are helped or hindered by the tools, those are all valuable processes to undergo. Even if the process itself doesn't enlighten you, you will meet new people and discover new corners of the wiki (Misplaced Pages:Database reports is a good place to work, or Misplaced Pages:Articles for creation, or any of the peer review systems). You will run into conflicts, resolve them, help users, shepherd newbies, and by the time you are done, people will wonder why you aren't an admin. So please, if this RfA doesn't succeed, take it as some constructive feedback from a community that wants and needs your help across all of the encyclopedia. Protonk (talk) 04:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

    Other suggestions: Misplaced Pages:Peer review, Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal, Misplaced Pages:Editor review, Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment, and Misplaced Pages:Third opinion, all of which often have backlogs. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

11. Oppose Weak oppose Neutral Weak oppose Neutral, with regret because when I came to this RfA because of the uncertain percentages, I hoped I would be able to support. I appreciate the valuable contributions the candidate makes to the project, for example in the form of reversion of vandalism, and I appreciate the quick response to my request for a list of articles created. The candidate seems to be a productive editor and I would like to encourage him/her to continue contributing. I examined the situations surrounding three messages which the candidate deleted from his/her talk page. All three were complaints from editors whose edits had been reverted as vandalism by the candidate. Administrators, even more than ordinary editors, need to be open to discussing complaints about their actions. In one case, 1A, the candidate provided 1B a helpful and communicative reply to the user, so that's fine, although I would prefer to see consistent archiving of talk page messages, and although immediate deletion of messages may also impede further communication with the user. In another case 2A, I'm concerned that communication with the user seems to have been cut off 1B by calling the posting of a talk page edit "vandalism". Although the user's initial edits seem to be clear vandalism, I disagree that the posting of the talk page comment was vandalism. In a third case, 3A, after deleting the user talk page comment, as far as I found the candidate didn't reply with any talk page comment but carried on a discussion via edit summary only while repeatedly reverting: not the best practice. (A revert: ; page history showing total of 3 reverts by Camw: 1C) In the candidate's favour, the candidate did say something in an edit summary about using a talk page, and remained civil while the other user was not. The original edit in this case does not seem to me to have been vandalism. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

    I should have handled the last two situations better I agree. Sorry to have fallen short in these cases. Camw (talk) 17:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

    I'm switching to "weak oppose". Thank you for your response. After it, I looked through your talk page history for other situations where you had reverted edits to your talk page. What I found in general was situations where it seemed quite reasonable for you to simply revert: i.e., your talk page was being vandalised. I think that after doing a lot of reversion of vandalism, it can take effort to remember to treat angry good-faith editors with AGF. In other words, it's not surprising that you treated those situations in the way you did; however, RC patrollers do need to make the effort to AGF in each new situation, and either the same people should not do both a lot of vandalism reversion and blocking of editors, or else they need to be good at being able to AGF as necessary regardless of how much vandalism they've encountered recently. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 19:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

    On second thought, switching to "neutral" because admins are allowed to make some mistakes. I encourage the candidate to be careful with the admin tools if the RfA succeeds. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

    Thanks, if I succeed I will certainly be careful with the tools. I like to assume that I assume good faith almost always, but your comments are something to reflect on further. Camw (talk) 23:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

    Thank you for considering my comments. Unfortunately I'm switching back to "weak oppose"; see my reply to Malinaccier in the support section. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

    No problem, I've responded there. Should I add .5 or .7 to the tally for a weak oppose? ;) Camw (talk) 00:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

    LOL! ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

    Switching back to Neutral based on Camw's reply in the Support section. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

12. Neutral -- Great editor who would use the tools well, however, lack of manual editing puzzles me and how well this user would serve as an admin, since all edits are mainly made with scripts.--₮RUCӨ 01:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
13. Neutral Leaning to Oppose. After seeing you're count, I'm very.....confused I guess you could say. You have been here for four years...but you had done nothing over a quater of the time. You had a couple edits here and there and then all of a sudden you started reverting vandalism. Also, you have done over 10,000 edits in just 3 months, but the number means nothing, it's about the experience, and right now you're just the same as a person who has been here for 3 moths posting an RFA. But at the same time, you didn't have dumb answers. It looked and sounded like you actually knew what you were talking about. But 3 months of editing just isn't right to me. N.G.G. 02:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

    Sorry for any confusion caused! I read a lot, more than I have contributed in the past I suppose. So I guess that is the experience where my answers come from rather than editing. Obviously it is impossible to quantify reading as it isn't counted anywhere but I hope the answers to the questions posted so far might sway your opinion, since as you say numbers mean nothing. If I don't get through on this RfA then I hope I can contribute in different ways over the coming months to lean you toward (and I hope into) support next time around. Camw (talk) 02:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

    Lol it's cool. I like you're attitude man. I really want to support you but I'm just on the fence and to the fence has caught onto my pants so I can't REALY lean either way. N.G.G. 03:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

14. I'd love to see more content contribution from you, be it a GA/DYK/FA. I believe it will greatly benefit you in having a well-rounded perspective when you receive the mop. Looking forward to supporting in future, - Mailer Diablo 09:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Mikaey

Nomination

Final: (14/20/12); closed by Kingturtle at 12:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC) as unsuccessful

Mikaey (talk · contribs) – After looking at the amount of vandalism this user reverts and the dedication that goes with deleting it, I would like to nominate Mikaey for adminship. The user himself has stated that he would like to become an admin one day. I believe they would make good use of admin tools to rid of vandalism off wikipedia.

Mikaey first came to my attention in late January 2009 when I was regularly visiting the Recent Changes page to see if there was any vandalism I could revert manually (This was before my request for rollbacking, and before I discovered the use for tools such as Huggle). Mikaey's name was regularly appearing on the list for reverting vandalism. It was this that inspired me to discover easier and quicker ways of reverting vandalism on Misplaced Pages. Neu_tralle 23:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I gladly accept, with a big "thank you" to Neutralle for the nomination. Matt (talk) 00:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: I'm not entirely sure that I would be able to contribute a whole lot as far as improving the content of articles. I don't tend to think of myself as having a vast amount of knowledge in any area that hasn't already been extensively covered. In fact, I usually refer to Misplaced Pages first when I need information about something. That has given me a lot of respect for what Misplaced Pages is and what it is trying to do, and I have a strong desire to keep it neat and clean. Therefore, I think my main activities would probably be an extension of what I've already been doing -- anti-vandalism work. So, I would continue to use Huggle/Twinkle to revert vandalism, as well as paying close attention to WP:AIV (I have to admit that adminship would be handy in instances where WP:AIV isn't being paid close attention to, especially in the wee hours of the morning when not many people are still awake). I would also be paying close attention to C:SD, and even CAT:AFC. However, I'm not above giving help to Wikipedians that need help (such as I did here, with a user that asked for help in the mainspace of the article), and I plan to continue to give help where needed and asked for.

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

A: I think the one I'm most proud of is one that I'm not even finished with -- MG Wallace F. Randolph. This was one I came across while looking at the list of orphaned articles. There was no particular reason that I attached myself to it, it just sounded like I challenge that I could tackle. This article started out as Thunderbolt Wreck, and it mainly described the dive site that was formed by the sinking of the ship. I did some research and expanded on the article to include the ship's history before it was sank, including contacting the Army and requesting records on the ship (however, they have yet to respond). I even went so far as to get in touch with the Joyner Library at East Carolina University -- the records from the company that built the ship were donated to them -- and got a photo of the ship from them (I'm just waiting on the library's director to release it before it gets uploaded). Despite that it's still a fairly short article, I'm still rather proud of the work I did to that one.

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

A: I don't know that there's any instances where someone else was challenging the content that I added to an article. I tend to be a pretty easy-going person, and I don't lose my cool very often. There have been a few where I was challenging the content that someone else was adding to an article, however. The one that comes to mind is P = NP problem. This was one I came across while patrolling the recent changes on Huggle. The user was adding a link to a "solution" to the as-yet-unsolved problem. I checked out his source, and it appeared to me to be original research, so I reverted his change. The user continued to introduce the solution into the page, and so I continued to revert it. Eventually, I began to wonder to myself whether or not I had violated 3RR (the thought process going through my mind was "if this is indeed original research, I'm fine, but if it's not, I'm in trouble"). My solution was to bring in another editor for their take on it. The other editor agreed with my assertion, and we went on to get the user blocked for ignoring our warnings.

As a general rule, if you're in an edit war with someone (e.g., one where both parties are hot-headed and reverting each other's edits), I think the quickest solution is to ask another, experienced editor for their perspective. If both parties are keeping their cool, then talk pages are an excellent resource for discussing your differences. In either situation, it never hurts to step back for some time (maybe even a day), let yourself cool off, and then take a second look at the differences between the two people's perspectives.

Q's from flaminglawyer

4. (not just a crap question; this is to judge your morals) What's your answer to the Heinz dilemma, and more importantly, why did you pick it?

A. Ah yes, it's been a while since I've thought about this one. Of course, in today's America, you can get the drug without having to pay for it by simply going to a hospital and saying "I can't pay for it". I think my solution would have been to break in and steal the drug, but I would leave the $1,000 that I had managed to collect. But since this isn't what the question was asking, I think I'd have to say yes, Heinz should have broken in and stolen the drug. I think my reasoning would have to be that in the end, the right to life outweighs the right to make a 90% markup on the drug. However, one has to be careful when using that as your defense, because it morally obligates you to do the same for anyone else in the same situation -- after all, his wife's life isn't necessarily worth any more than anyone else's life.

General comments

• Links for Mikaey: Mikaey (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Mikaey can be found here.
• Even though this is probably going to end up as a WP:SNOW, I'd still like to recommend the editor in question to a few links that will help them next time: WP:UAA, WP:ANI, WP:CSD, WP:AFD, WP:3O, WP:3RR, WP:RESCUE, and a bunch more I haven't mentioned here. Good luck! Cheers. Imperat§ r 02:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Discussion

Support

1. Beat the nom support Whilst his project edit is not very impressive, his anti-vandalism work excels; I'm sure that his lack of knowledge in, say, WP:UAA, won't affect his ability to block vandals who are freely strolling around the place, recking havoc. WP:WHYNOT. Cheers. Imperat§ r 02:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Moral Support And thank you for the work you are doing. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 03:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Support. Though I know this is not likely to pass, I am willing to support you in the future, given the amount of edits you have. –BuickCenturyDriver 12:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Looks fine. Majorly talk 16:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
5. We ask for too many edits these days, he's fine. Support Wizardman 16:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Support - I really do not see any problems whatsoever. People pile on with WP:NOTNOW, but I could easily see you as an admin. I did not click on this RFA expecting to find an excellent editor, but hey, suprise suprise. If this RFA does not pass, then please request again in a few months. Inferno, Lord of Penguins 17:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

   Comment: Keep up the good work with huggle as well. We really do need more antivandal admins. I also think that more people would be willing to support if you did more CSD work, just to demonstrate your judgement to them. Inferno, Lord of Penguins 17:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

   I second this and add that if you do get heavily into CSD, be careful to the point of paranoia about marking anything for speedy deletion. Just a few mistakes in thousands can kill an RfA (mine may help show what people are looking for). Don't mean to scare you though - if you start in CSD, asking an experienced editor what they think of your work can be a great way to get feedback to build on. FlyingToaster 17:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

7. Support per User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards as candidate has neither been blocked nor had any memorable negative interactions with me. Sincerely, --A Nobody 17:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
8. Support Your anti-vandalism work looks great and I see no reason you couldn't be trusted with the mop. But then, it's a mop. So don't poke your eye out, kid. FlyingToaster 17:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
9. Support Why not?--Res2216firestar 04:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
10. Support Huge dedication to recent changes patrol, seems to always stay cool when reverting, which is more then I can say for myself, havn't really talked to Mikaey at all, but looking around, seems to be a very nice person with good humor Spitfire 09:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
11. Support, no evidence or indication that this user would abuse the tools. Lankiveil 10:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC).
12. Support. I see absolutely no evidence that you would abuse the tools. Good anti-vandal work, and we need more of that. Cool3 (talk) 01:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
13. Support While I do not raise any question to the fact that one admin in his time wears many hats, I see no reason why specialization seems so undervalued. As an interested member of WikiProject Law Enforcement, I easily see an analogy between Sysops and cops. They have special privileges, among which the most powerful may be the taking away another's rights (arrest/imprisonment analogous to blocking) and destruction of that which is deemed contraband (seizure of contraband analogous to deleting pages). In both cases, the individual responsible for upholding the policies and procedures, and, in effect, the opinions, of the population must be one in whom absolute trust can be confided. Perusing this editor's history, I have seen very little that would raise questions about his integrity. His current activity, or lack thereof, in, for example, usernames for administrator attention, seems of little relative concern. Based on my judgment, he will be willing and able to follow the correct procedures throughout the project, and do what becomes necessary for maintaining the smooth operation of the English Misplaced Pages. I liken him to an officer who is concerned primarily with traffic. Traffic officers constantly come into contact with those who do not act in the population's best interests. They issue citations to violators, and may arrest habitual offenders. This editor's citations, however, are warning templates, and his arrest power, Misplaced Pages's blocking policy. Too frequently, traffic officers come across crashes and are charged with discovering the cause of the mess, how to fix the problem, and how to prevent problems in the future. Mikaey, I trust, will be able to work collaboratively to discover, fix, and prevent problems. Just because an officer prefers to work traffic, does this mean that they are unable to act as a mediator in heated disputes, assist well-meaning citizens, or contribute in any other way to the operation of the city? Even if all I expected this editor to do was revert vandalism, I would have a hard time opposing this nomination. I can see him quickly becoming an invaluable resource to this project and the community it involves. Should I be in the minority, I forsee him working his way up to whatever high standards will be demanded from an administrator in the future of the English Misplaced Pages. —Dromioofephesus (talk) 01:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

    I think the law enforcement analogy is good ... but I really appreciate the fact you're willing to write longer rationales than mine :) If it helps, I think the candidate can be optimistic about a future RFA, based on what I'm seeing in the opposition, as long as the candidate takes the advice to heart. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 18:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

14. Support Despite a lack of edits, Mikaey seems trustworthy to me. I don't think this user will abuse the tools. hmwithτ 18:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Per WP:NOTNOW. Outstanding work so far but general standard is 5,000 edits for vandalism experts. Come back ASAP, I'd really like to support. Ceranthor 02:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

   I disagree with the use of WP:NOTNOW for any close. A bureaucrat or even an administrator closing under WP:SNOW later might be more acceptable, but Mikaey has been here a while, and deserves the chance to learn at least a little from this experience. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 02:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

2. Per Ceranthor. I'd really like to support after a bit more experience in other areas of Misplaced Pages. -download | sign! 02:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Oppose. You're on your way, but I don't yet see enough experience in the Misplaced Pages namespace for me to be assured that you know everything I want an admin candidate to know. For example, you say in Q1 that you want to work at CSD, but you've only tagged about 20 or 30 articles for speedy deletion. Also, there are a lot more qualities and characteristics that I want to see in an admin candidate (I'm not saying you don't have them) than I can tell from simply Huggling. You may have the clue, the knowledge of policy, the civility, and so forth, but it will take more than clicking Huggle for me to be sure. I see that 83% (2140 of 2567) of your work has been automated, including 94% of your last 1500 edits. I look forward to supporting in the future, when you get some more experience in the project space. Useight (talk) 02:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Yes, nice work so far but more experience needed. The answer to question 3 in particular shows a lack of experience in handling disputes. Looie496 (talk) 02:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
5. Oppose Sorry, but your lack of experience in the areas you say you want to work in will be the downfall of this RFA. Learn from it and come back when you have the required amount of experience. ArcAngel (talk) 02:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

   As the admin who granted Mikaey rollback, I think it's clear that WP:NOTNOW can't be blindly applied in this case. Even so, I must agree with the other opposes regarding the candidate's experience. –Juliancolton 03:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC) changed to neutral

6. Oppose per Useight and Ceranthor. Try again maybe in a few months and with more experience. Sorry - Fastily (talk) 03:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
7. Oppose per Useight. Good Luck. -- Avi (talk) 07:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
8. Oppose Not a not WP:NOTNOW oppose but a real one. Wants to work in C:SD but makes mistakes like this. There is virtually no experience with CSD to judge from. Also, while I like Huggle myself, one fifth of this users edits were done within the last three days(!) using Huggle and a total of 1800 edits (out of 2600) are Huggled and another 400 are Twinkled. While anti-vandalism work is good (and there are good Huggling admins like J.delanoy (talk · contribs)), there is no contributions in areas where admins need to work. I can't even say (and this pains me) that the candidate is on the right path. It looks like the candidate desperately tried to increase their edit-count for this RFA to quickly gain the tools. There is no reason to support that. If you, Mikaey, want to become an admin, work some months within the community, helping users, clearing away problems etc. It's not easy and it requires patience but it's what an admin really needs to be able to do. Regards SoWhy 08:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
9. Just a little too soon. Whilst total edits count is a decent number, they have come in a big lump in the last few days, according to wikichecker results. I would like to see more experience in the core areas he wants to assist in, and more WP namespace contributions wouldn't hurt. --GedUK  08:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
10. Oppose per SoWhy. Apparently, it's Huggle season all around. JPG-GR (talk) 17:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
11. Oppose. A little too early. Stifle (talk) 18:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
12. Oppose I would like to support, but I agree with several of the comments above, and also concur this RFA may be a bit early. Sorry. America69 (talk) 19:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
13. Regretful oppose- he's close to meeting my standards, but needs a bit more experience. In another month or two, I'd be sure to support. Bearian (talk) 22:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
14. Oppose. Too dependent on automated tools and little experience in admin-related areas. The candidate has done good work, but lacks sufficient experience. DiverseMentality 23:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
15. Oppose You don't know what to do with the tool but want to be an admin? I think you're not ready yet.--Caspian blue 00:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
16. Oppose -- The nom is a bit premature, needs to gain more experience and do edits without an automated script.--₮RUCӨ 01:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
17. Oppose -- per Useight. Needs to contribute in XfD discussions, CSD, UAA, and help out other users. Sorry. Versus22 _talk 10:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
18. Oppose per Useight. Needs to contribute in XfD discussions, CSD, UAA, and help out other users. Sorry. α§ʈάt̪íňέ-210 17:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
19. Oppose. Only became a regular editor very recently. More time and wider experience needed before adminship can be seriously considered. Potentially a good future candidate. Singopo (talk) 13:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
20. Per Useight. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 01:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

    Hmmm...can I ask for WP:NOPILEONS here? Matt (talk) 02:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

    Err, I'm not sure that essay applies; if it did, though, one could argue that it applied to all !voters, aside from the first in each category. –Juliancolton 02:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

    Well, I appreciate everyone's feedback here, and will take it to heart, but I see a lot of "Oppose per Useight"'s here, which doesn't really tell me a whole lot or make me feel any better. Kinda makes me feel like those people read his argument and said "yeah, that sounds good, I'll just agree with him." Matt (talk) 03:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

    I fully understand that RfA can be stressful. Heck, I've failed two of my own! Even so, RfA is a community discussion, which needs a fairly high level of participation in order to come to a consensus. I do agree, though, that "per User:X" comments should be avoided, or at least clarified with a rationale. Best, –Juliancolton 04:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

    Agreed. I'd like to see more thought put into it than just "per <insert username here>". Matt (talk) 04:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I would like to support, but I do not see enough recent participation in the project for to me to give my support. You have been contributing consistently since December, and racked up 500 edits that month. However, since you are doing antivandalism work, I request that you get at least 3-4 more months of work and some broader experience with other areas of the wiki first, such as perhaps with writing a few DYKs or assisting at Third Opinion. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 01:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Neutral - You do fantastic vandalism-reverting. MG Wallace F. Randolph looks really good, but I don't see much Misplaced Pages-related spaces, except for WP:AIV or when you are reverting vandalism there. That's the only drawback, sorry. You should participate more in WP:AN and WP:AN/I. Simon 01:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Neutral Per NuclearWarfare and SimonKSK.--Giants27 /C 02:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Neutral - Won't break the Wiki, but I'd like to see more than just automated tools being used - whilst we do need anti-vandal administrators, I also would like a demonstration that they can work in other areas, as adminship doesn't come in parts. — neuro 03:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
5. Neutral - From what I can see, you will be a good vandalism based admin (if you stay in that area, a good admin) in a few more months. I will happily support you. I am currently leaning support, but I would honestly like you to have a little more time to develop first. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Neutral per Neuro and Ottava Rima. You're a great editor, but you need some more experience in areas outside vandalism reverting. LittleMountain5 00:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
7. Neurolysis hit the nail on the head. I stand by my oppose rationale (now struck), however. –Juliancolton 04:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
8. Neutral, leaning support - I doubt that Mikaey would cause irreparable harm to the project, but I think that the user could use a bit more exposure to other areas. Should this RfA fail, however, please don't get frustrated and stop contributing with your anti-vandal work. Give it some time, learn the other areas of Wiki, and I'll support you on your next attempt. —Archon Magnus 18:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
9. Neutral per Little Mountain 5, Ottava Rima and the WP:SNOW factor here, it seems that this rfa is set. Please try again soon, though, I believe this was a good faith nom and don't want to discourage the candidate. Spinach Monster (talk) 15:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
10. Neutral - I am tempted to support, but it is difficult to judge you against quite a few of my criteria as you are quite low on experience at present, even though you technically meet key criteria 1. I would like to see a bit more general experience yet, I wish you luck. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
11. I considered supporting despite your experience, but when I looked at your edits at AFD I decided I could not. Most of your comments were "agree with x" or "Per nom." While this is not really bad, I like to see a bit more thought put into your work there. I also looked at your last 50 edits to talk pages and I didn't see any meaningful discussion with other users. Based on these I cannot support you, but I urge you to try again in six months. Maybe try reading WP:ARL. Malinaccier (talk) 22:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
12. Neutral I like a lot of what I'm seeing, but some of the CSD issues brought up by SoWhy are troubling. I do a lot of speedy tagging myself, and I've found that increasing my participation at AfD has helped me increase my understanding of deletion policies and therefore have a better eye for when it is and is not appropriate to place a CSD tag. I'd personally like to see more thoughtful contributions at AfD/ MfD. Great anti-vandalism work so far, in a few more months I'll be likely to support. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 05:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Bettia

Nomination

Final: (83/0/2); closed as successful by Kingturtle at 13:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Bettia (talk · contribs) – Bettia first came to my attention at his first RfA (link below, of course) back in September 2008. I supported early and took a real interest in the candidacy because I felt that too much attention was paid to edit count, and not enough attention was paid to quality of edits. I'm not trigger-happy to grant the bit, but I do feel that sometimes we overlook fine candidates just because we haven't seen them around "enough".

Well, that shouldn't be a problem this time around. Bettia did just what I expected; he went off and kept doing what he'd been doing, only more of it.

It's time to cast a good look over this fine, well-rounded editor and grant the bit. I'm not going to cheat and provide the same diffs I provided in support of that RfA; you're all capable of finding them yourselves. I will, however, provide several examples of more recent activity:

• Good explanation on a weak keep AfD.
• Here's a deletion rationale
• And a keep
• And back to delete... - we usually don't like a "per <so-and-so>" candidate - but how about when others are saying "Per Bettia"?

I think the point is clear; I'm not going to claim I looked through literally hundreds of edits at AfD, but what I have looked over seems to be spot-on. As before, he knows how to properly evaluate whether articles should be kept or not.

OK, so what else? Bettia has put in some work at third opinion, a useful corner of the project where folks who are consensus-minded but nevertheless haven't found a way to reach consensus go to ask for a neutral evaluation. He has kept a short log of 3O contributions, and they look great to me (even if there is sometimes a tendency on the part of others to continue discussions long beyond necessary). Again, you can click the links yourselves; if you want to see a particular dedication to achieving consensus in the face of adversity, check out the one at Power Rangers. (This is also not one of Bettia's normal editing areas; how's that for well-rounded?)

"What about content", you ask? Again, look to Bettia's user page for lists which I won't bore you by repeating. I will point out just a sampling of high-quality content (again, you can look for yourselves, and I want to leave him room to pick out his own best contributions): Peterborough Saxons, Economy and industry of Cardiff, and templates British American Football and American football club. While I admit I'm lukewarm about lists in general, List of people from Cardiff is the epitome of what a good list should be. (And who can resist a list that includes Dame Shirley Bassey?)

Finally, please take notice that Bettia has been contributing to the project - including the Misplaced Pages space and template content - for a considerable period, not just the few months prior to this RfA, and not even just since his first RfA. We have here a candidate with varied and long experience, who will be an asset as an administrator.

Thanks for your consideration.  Frank  |  talk  02:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I happily and humbly accept, and give a gurt big diolch am fawr (thank you very much) to Frank for his glowing recommendation.

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: As stated in my first RfA, I would initially be working on the anti-vandalism side of things, checking in on WP:AIV and blocking any persistant vandals that I come across during the course of my own patrolling. I'd also be working on speedy deletions and proposed deletions (two areas which I've improved upon since last time around), as well as deleting pages where a clear consensus has been reached. As time goes on, I'd expect to get to grips with other, perhaps more contentious areas such as addressing unclear AfDs and DRVs.

As a vaguely relevant analogy, I've recently started officating American football where my favoured position is umpire, a position which requires me to be in the thick of things, sorting out any nastiness on the field before it starts, and generally keeping the tempo of the game going at a nice steady pace. That's more or less what I want to bring to Misplaced Pages - keeping things flowing by clearing backlogs in places such as WP:AIV and WP:CSD, and giving persistent troublemakers a thumb over the shoulder.

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

A: Since my first RfA, I've managed to get Andover F.C. up to GA-standard, which I'm very pleased about - I may even try to get this up to FA (or at least A class) if at all possible. I've also been working on BAFL team articles, some of which I've been able to improve substantially. One example of this is Colchester Gladiators which, before I got involved, was an out-of-date one paragraph stub . So far I've got two of these teams onto the main page as DYKs. As Frank has pointed out above, I've also been active on the AfD side of things. This has helped me to get a real handle on notability guidelines, and in particular deciding whether published sources on a subject are enough to establish notability or not.

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

A: Pardon my laziness but I'll have to paste what I wrote for my first RfA because my situation is still more or less the same. The nearest I've come to an edit war was very early on in my time here on Misplaced Pages. This was a disagreement regarding a single statistic used in the lead for Cardiff. At first, this consisted of simple reverting and counter-reverting (thankfully not regular enough to threaten the 3RR), but we moved it quickly to the talk page where we were able to discuss it properly and come to a decent solution. Since then, I've been involved in very few disagreements, and any that have come my way have been minor, short-lived, and kept as much as possible on talk (or AfD) pages. It's just a matter of learning when to detach yourself from a subject, and of course frequent reading of WP:LAME keeps me from getting involved in anything petty!

Optional questions from Shapiros10

4. What is your view on article writing experience in administrator candidates? Do you feel featured content and whatnot is required?

A: Having some article-building experience shows an understanding of what mainspace editing and the Wiki guidelines that go with it (for example, the importance of providing references) as well as giving some insight into a particular person's philosophy, character and their dedication to Misplaced Pages - it certainly tells you a lot more than how often they click a Twinkle link. However, I wouldn't say having featured/GA/DYK content is essential when it comes to dishing out the mop and bucket. Different 'pedians have different strengths, and writing a featured article only demonstrates a person's knowledge on a particular subject and how well they can put it into written words - it doesn't really show their suitability as an admin. After all, the most prolific writer could very well abuse his/her priviliges without a second thought and it's only by taking ALL of their work into account that their suitability can be gauged.

5. What is your view on underage editors editing Misplaced Pages in general? Not as admin hopefuls, just editors.

A: There's certainly nothing wrong with kids editing Misplaced Pages - I believe anyone with computer access and a bit of knowledge can bring something to this table. My only reservation is that underage editors can have a very hard time understanding Wiki guidelines. Indeed, this is something I've seen in the past - a while ago, a well-meaning editor caused a fair bit of disruption on Cardiff by adding numerous unsourced (and often wildly incorrect) claims and uploading copyrighted material, although he did make some constructive edits which could expanded upon. Unfortunately, the repeated addition of the incorrect claims led to a number of blocks, and he was eventually indef-blocked for sockpuppetry after creating a new account to get around the block, probably out of ignorance of the rules rather than a deliberate block-evasion.

I guess in this situation, dealing with such a user calls for a lot of patience, civility and careful explanation of the rules, and hopefully they'll cotton on and become long-standing members of this project.

Optional questions from User:Carlossuarez46

6a. A user creates a page for a web-company and the contents are no more than a link to its website and {{underconstruction}}, and another user tags it for speedy deletion; how long in its current state of construction would it be before you decided to grant a speedy deletion request?

A: Firstly, the mere presence of an underconstruction tag would have no bearing on the deletion process - after all, the template text itself states "Please consider not tagging with a deletion tag unless the page has not been edited in several days or the page has no content at all".

Before deleting though, I'd make two quick checks; first, a search for any indication of notability - if none can be found, it's a valid candidate for speedy deletion and I would do so if no hangon tag was placed on the page. The onus on any article creator is to establish the subject's notability. On this occasion, it may be worth dropping the user a note suggesting that if they wish to build a proper article, it would be a good idea to use a sandbox. I would also take a look at the article creator's contribution history - if this page was their first edit, that would ring a few alarm bells of the COI variety. The username could be a major clue here as well - for example, a page called "Webdesignsolutions" created by 'User:webdesignsolutions2009' would be a dead giveaway. If that was the case, I would suspect the user was trying to game the system by using the tag to keep a spamlink on the system (completely futile - as we all know, Misplaced Pages uses 'nofollow' tags and would therefore has no effect on search engine rankings). It might be worth watching the user for a while to check that they make no attempt to recreate the same page.

However, if I thought there was any chance that this article could be saved, I'd decline the speedy request, mark it as a stub and perhaps try to wikify it a bit just to give it a start (and perhaps spur our friend into more constructive action). An example of this is Paul G. Boyle - this was marked for deletion back in November, but I was able to stay the hand of execution, tidyed it up and added a couple of references. Unfortunately the article's creator hasn't done much on it since then, but the intention was there!

6b. Would your answer be different if there were no link to its website, and the contents were only the underconstruction template; if so, what say you?

A: In this case, I would speedy it immediately as CSD:A3 (no content).

Optional questions from Deacon of Pndapetzim

7. Why is enforcement of WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:VER not exempted from the 3 revert rule? Should it be?

A. It shouldn't be exempt from the 3RR because, unlike bad ol' fashioned vandalism, those guidelines are rarely black and white and often require some degree of discussion. For example - Is that statement neutral or not? Can it be verified or not? Is that cited source reliable or not? Simply reverting someone's edits citing those reasons will more often than not escalate into an edit war and would quickly promote bad feelings between users.

8. Explain why this edit is or is not a violation of WP:BLP.

A. If that kind of statement were to appear on an article (rather than a Talk page as this example does), it would definitely violate BLP simply because the source cited falls under those listed as unreliable ("Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, and blogs as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material..."). Such a claim would need to be worded much more neutrally and backed up with a more reliable source, perhaps even from the subject himself.

If that comment were used on Talk:Thane Rosenbaum or the talkpage of a similar biographical subject, it might also be removed (also as recommended by WP:BLP) unless it formed a useful part of a discussion. In my opinion, the wording as it stands here seems to be implying an ad hominem argument - not really the sort of thing that would encourage constructive discussion.

Optional question from Keepscases

9. Would you delete the main page for a lump sum of one million euros?

A: Gasp! Are you seriously suggesting that I could be bribed into committing such a wanton act of vandalism for one million euros? Shame on you sonny Jim, that's a fifteen yard penalty right there! Now, if you had offered me one million pounds...

Seriously though, I certainly wouldn't do anything like that - it'd be a major betrayal of trust if nothing else.

General comments

• Requests for adminship/Bettia
• Requests for adminship/Bettia 2

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

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

Discussion

• Seems someone forgot to accept their nomination SoWhy 12:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Nah, I didn't forget it, it was just cunningly hidden in a comment tag! Fixed it now. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 12:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh, so you had a cunning plan! (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 00:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• Particularly impressive answers to Q's 4 & 5 I'd like to say. Pedro :  Chat  15:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Answer question 9 with: Of course. Then I'd donate it to the WMF. Synergy 18:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

RE Q9: I'm pretty sure you and every other admin on this project would delete the main page if offered a million euros. If adminship means that much to you, you could just create a sock and start again :P--Patton 19:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Beat-the-nom Support. Stifle (talk) 11:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Strong support Having crossed paths with Bettia on several occasions, I believe he would be a great asset as an admin. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Weakly Supported last time but I see no reason not to support strongly this time. Excellent nomination statement, nothing further to add. A good all-rounder who will use the tools actively and wisely. Pedro :  Chat  12:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Support. I supported last time and I see no reason not to do the same now, just more so. His speedy work is impressive (the last decline is from December) and he seems competent and helpful. Regards SoWhy 12:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
5. Support, Bettia's contributions seen at the last RfA were very good, with the primary objection from many people being that there weren't enough of them. They're still very good, and I am happy to support - I really can't see any reason at all not to. Best of luck! ~ mazca 13:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Support, yeah, he was perfect last time too Tombomp (talk/contribs) 14:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
7. Support, excellent candidate. Ironholds (talk) 15:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
8. Support. I spent about 15 minutes looking over Bettia's speedy deletion history. It looks like he's getting at least 98% of his nominations deleted which is a very good track record. --A. B. 15:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
9. Support Looks fine to me. LittleMountain5 15:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
10. Impressive NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 16:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
11. Awesome work. Ceranthor 17:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
12. Support Loved the userbox in the candidate's profile (you can guess which one). Also enjoyed getting a chuckle out of the bizarre vandalism examples (I don't think it encourages vandalism to have a laugh about it now and then). Keepscases (talk) 18:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
13. Support Great work in a variety of areas. -download | sign! 18:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
14. Support The answers to all of the questions indicate a very high level of clue. This is what we need. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 19:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
15. Support Like the AfD work, like the CSD work, like the anti-vand work... really, nothing I didn't like. Xymmax _{So let it be done} 19:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
16. Support per User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards as candidate has no blocks and no memorable negative interactions with me; rather, the candidate does have some barnstars and did you know credits on userpage. Best, --A Nobody 20:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
17. Support - Great attitude, dedicated, good work in admin areas. What do you call a suitable admin candidate from Cardiff? Leisure centre Bettia. — neuro 20:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
18. Support - I like everything I see here - particularly seemingly level-headed maturity, both in answers and in edits. FlyingToaster 21:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
19. Support Trust? Yes, Problems?, no, Will he delete the main page?, probably not, support.--Giants27 /C 22:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
20. Support I have seen him around, a trustworthy editor with a good knowledge of policy. King of the North East 22:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
21. I know it may seem a bit cliche, but I kind of thought Bettia already had the bit. Excellent candidate and excellent nomination, I sincerely doubt he will abuse the tools. Master&Expert (Talk) 23:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
22. Support Looks good to me! I don't think he'll abuse the admin tools. Best, Versus22 _talk 00:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
23. Support Very good editor, has large amounts of clue, won't misuse the tools. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 00:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
24. Support -- Fastily (talk) 01:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
25. Support. An excellent candidate, knowledgeable and clueful. You do have a misspelled word on your userpage, though, that you might want to fix. Useight (talk) 01:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

    I definately definitely have a preferance preference for correct spelling as well! Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 09:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

26. Support No problems here. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 01:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
27. Support per above. Spinach Monster (talk) 02:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
28. Strong support. Wizardman 03:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
29. Support -- Great user who knows how to use the admin tools and has the attitude of an admin. Upon seeing his experience in vandal fighting and at AfD, he will benefit from these tools, as will the community.--₮RUCӨ 04:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
30. Strong Support Per above comments. No reason to think that he would abuse the tools. Until It Sleeps 05:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
31. As Pedro notes, answers to questions are particularly revealing. —Anonymous Dissident 05:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
32. Support Anybody who can merge West Country English and Welsh into an acceptance of nomination gets my vote! More seriously, excellent answers to questions, has certainly taken on board concerns from last RfA and developed as an editor; an ability to listen is a vital skill of an admin. --GedUK  08:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
33. Support, I supported last time, and as far as I can see this candidate has only gotten better! Lankiveil 08:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
34. Support, very helpful and constructive on Wales articles with which I've been involved. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
35. Support, Browsing through his contributions and from his in-depth answers to the questions it is obvious, to me and all previous voters, that Bettia is a highly trustworthy candidate and will benefit wikipedia with the mop. I Grave Rob_«talk» 11:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
36. Support, will be a good admin. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
37. Support. Seems like a nicely rounded candidate who was easy to work with during Andover F. C.'s GA review. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
38. Support. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
39. Lean Support nomination was tl;dr. The individual in question seems to be okay. Ottava Rima talk 18:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
40. Support good answers to questions. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
41. Support No issues. America69 (talk) 19:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
42. Support of course, as nom.  Frank  |  talk  20:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
43. Support. Fully qualified candidate, no concerns. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
44. Support What else need I say???? α§ʈάt̪íňέ-210 20:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
45. Modern renaissance man (Aka EVula the second ;-))--Patton 21:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
46. Support Has been around since Nov 2007 and concerns raised in previous RFA overcame.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
47. Support. Last time I opposed for lack of experience and activity. This time around, the candidate has shown much improvement and I can comfortably support this time around. DiverseMentality 22:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
48. Support Seems a very good candidate, good luck. Dean B (talk) 02:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
49. Support Answers reflect on good knowledge of Misplaced Pages policy. Cheers. Imperat§ r 02:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
50. Support, obviously. Such a dedicated Wikipedian cannot possibly be denied adminship. –Juliancolton 03:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
51. miranda 03:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
52. Support Very good editor, will make a Great admin. Marek.69 04:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
53. Support I see nothing of concern, per my RfA criteria Foxy Loxy 07:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
54. Support solid work! Agathoclea (talk) 10:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
55. Strong Support Keep up the good work! Aaroncrick 10:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
56. Strong Support A very good editor...Good luck!  Badgernet  ₪  11:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
57. Full Support per the above comments. Good luck!  :) –BuickCenturyDriver 12:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
58. Support - meets my standards. I opposed the last time. I now support in part due to great AfD work. Bearian (talk) 15:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
59. Support as if there could be any doubt! (Except one. Would you trust someone to make wise decisions if they turned down a million euros offer for deleting the main page? The correct answer is, of course, "I'd delete the page, take the million euros, restore the page, and share the money with my good buddy RegentsPark!") --Regent Spark (crackle and burn) 15:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
60. Highly Strong Support Agreed with everyone else. You'd make a great sysop. Ginbot86 (talk) 18:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
61. Support per good answers. I'm also glad you're a content builder too.--Caspian blue 00:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
62. Strong Support - good answers to questions and good editing. You'll do great as a sysop! Cheers, MathCool10 06:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
63. Support yandman 08:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
64. Support—S Marshall /_Cont 09:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
65. Support Per good reputation. MBisanz 02:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
66. Support because you're lacking in the support column. Tavix (talk) 04:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
67. Support, as you obviously need it. Good candidate all round, I think. Faultless. - Jarry1250 10:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
68. Support. Listening to My IPod (talk) 19:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
69. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 01:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
70. Support - iMatthew // talk // 16:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
71. Support: Everyone else has said it well enough. Maedin\ 16:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
72. Support No issues. Looks good. hmwithτ 17:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
73. Synergy 20:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
74. Support Erik9 (talk) 20:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
75. Support No problems here.--Res2216firestar 21:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
76. Support undoubtedly fr33kman -s- 03:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
77. Support. Singopo (talk) 13:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
78. Support - Looks good to me, passes User:Camaron/Requests for adminship/Criteria with no concerns. Good answers to many questions too I must say. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
79. Support. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 20:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
80. Support. No problems. Good luck, Malinaccier (talk) 22:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
81. Support. Even if I did find something wrong, I'd be scared of the 80 editors above me =p §hawnpoo 23:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
82. Support. Excellent nom, excellent experience, and a excellent job with Andover F.C.. Gears of War 2 03:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
83. Pile-On Support Got into this one late, but I see no reason not to give this candidate the mop. ArcAngel (talk) 06:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

We can't have this section going un-edited. :) –Juliancolton 06:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought the minimalist look rather suited it! Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 11:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Per "bring on the trumpets" in the user's sig, I hate that ad :P--Patton 20:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. If you ever do get the opportunity to delete the mainpage for one million euros (if that were technically possible) do it without hesitation and donate all those funds to the WMF. Yes, it would spark a huge drama-fest and thousands of our visitors would be met with a blank page few minutes and our reputation might take a hit but the benefits outweigh the negatives so ridiculously there is no question. The foundation needs money and doing without our mainpage for a few minutes would be an easy way to raise it. Icewedge (talk) 06:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

   Oh, damn my integrity! I can see where you're coming from though, it would be a nice little earner if someone had that sort of money to dish out. Unfortunately I'm just not the sort of guy to do that - we'll just have to find a more legitimate way of raising that million! Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 11:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

2. I've looked through this candidate's history and to be honest I was bored. There is very little there other than vandalism reverts - I'm sure I've seen this user around but can't place him (or her) on a particular article right now. I'm not knocking the anti-vandalism stuff, it is of course valuable work, but in most cases it hardly demonstrates sounds judgement. Similarly I find the cases presented in the nomination less than compelling. There is nothing wrong with them but a simple application of policy with no real judgement required doesn't really impress me.
   There's no evidence he would do any harm but on the flip side there is little evidence of good judgement. I've no grounds to oppose him but at the same time I am not comfortable supporting him. CrispMuncher (talk) 22:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC).

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

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

Mufka

Nomination

Final: (57/3/2); closed by bibliomaniac15 on 20:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Mufka (talk · contribs) – Today I am nominating Mufka for adminship. He has been an editor since 2006 and is a consistent contributor to the project. I met Mufka at his first RFA when I expressed concerns over his communication skills. However, I saw that he was a serious contributor who is dedicated to the project, so I decided to quietly follow him and see how he took the criticism of that RFA. I am pleased to say that I have seen much growth in him since that RFA.

Specifically, at his prior RFA issues with poor communication and trigger-happy CSD tagging were brought up. Watching Mufka, I see he now communicates much better and is not trigger happy in dealing with other editors. The incident I ran across at his prior RFA was more of a one-off situation that involved a sockpuppeting administrator refusing to communicate with Mufka (or anyone for that matter), which was unknown at that time and should not have been held against him.

Mufka understands the full range of administrative tasks, including AN, AIV, SPI, and is a strong asset in performing gnome-work in tagging, catting, and cleaning up articles. Also, he is a voice of reason in WP:DOY, helping to standardize a vital area of the wiki. In my work at AFD, I see strong, concise, policy-based comments from him, such as at Gramsci melodic.

I believe if you find Mufka able to perform admin tasks, he will continue to assist the Misplaced Pages community with AIV patrolling, and housekeeping backlog tasks. MBisanz 07:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. -- Mufka 16:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: My primary area of interest here has always been in janitorial type work. I enjoy cleaning up vandalism and helping to keep the encyclopedia free of disruptive content. My administrative focus would be in the areas in which I currently participate: CSD, AIV, UAA. I would participate in other areas as I became confident in doing so.

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

A: Most of my time is spent in an attempt to keep the project free of things that are generally considered unacceptable. I think my strongest contribution is in that area where most visitors don't even know that people are working. A lot of work goes into keeping the encyclopedia free from vandalism and unconstructive contributions. My project work has focused mostly on WP:DAYS and I'm happy with the work that has been done there.

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

A: I don't think that any experienced editor has not had some sort of conflict along the way. I generally do not look at conflict in a negative way. Discussion of differing viewpoints is a valuable part of the process that is used to construct the encyclopedia. I have dealt with trolls, children, new users, old users, and users that just don't understand the process. I've worked in high pressure environments for many years and I tend not to get "stressed" in such a way that would negatively impact performance. I haven't come across any situation here that would cause me to feel stress. This environment is actually a good stress relief for me. I do, however, recognize that other users do get stressed and emotional about their contributions. In cases like those, I know that I need to be tactful in how I approach discussion. It's pretty tough to get me ruffled, so my effort is usually, and will be going forward, to find ways to foster constructive communication with editors who are much more ruffle-able.

Q's from flaminglawyer

4. Explain your alignment on (some of) the conflicting Misplaced Pages philosophies.

R. Reading through all of those philosophies, I found myself thinking that I agree with some parts but none completely. Every one seemed to have one deal-breaking statement in it or too many "ifs" or "buts". It's kind of like trying to align oneself with a political party. I guess I would have to classify myself as a Thoughtfulist. Every issue requires thought.

Question from Ottava Rima

5. If you saw another admin breaking various rules and acting disruptive, would you block them? If so, would you discuss it with others before blocking? How much leniency would you give that admin? Also, how would you answer these questions for respectable editors with various histories (some with clean block logs and being here for an extended time and those who have messy block logs)?

A. A lot depends on the nature of the disruption. If the admin was abusing tools or creating widespread havoc, I would do a lot of things at once - all of which could occur within about 2 minutes of noticing the behavior.

1. A personal note on the admin's talk page.
2. poke some other admins on IRC. They may know something I don't.
3. Investigate the admin's edit history to see if the account has been dormant (suspect compromise)
4. If I get no response and no assistance from other admins and it is clear that the admin is off-the-rails, then a block may be warranted. There's an awful lot more to it, but yes admins can be blocked. The only difference is that followup in various other channels is required.

Once an admin blatantly violates the trust given by the community, that person is subject to the same rules as everyone else as far as discipline. Experienced editors are no different. We have efficient processes here that make dealing with disruptive behavior reasonably clear cut. Every case is different, but the process is the same. When dealing with established editors, you have better context to their behavior. That doesn't mean that they get a pass for being disruptive. Maybe just a closer look.

Question from Patton123

6. In your opinion, which is worse; edit warring or incivility?

A: Edit warring is more disruptive, but generally more identifiable and therefore more easily dealt with. Incivility undermines progress within the project and it can be hard to identify sometimes. Incivility usually involves a disregard for WP:AGF. It makes editors not want to participate. IMO, incivility is worse.

Optional questions from Aitias

7. Is there any circumstance in which you would delete a page despite a Hangon tag?

A. Yes. The hangon tag is frequently used to prolong the game of seeing how long someone's joke can stay on Misplaced Pages. Every time the hangon is placed, it must be investigated. Some are more obvious than others. It all comes down to a claim of notability.

8. What would your personal standards be on granting and removing rollback?

A. If asked, I would grant rollback after investigating the editor's edit history to see if they have engaged in a significant amount of vandalism fighting. I would revoke rollback if I found that an editor was using rollback for edit warring or for reverting edits that are clearly not vandalism or disruptive.

9. Under what circumstances may a non-free photograph of a living person be used on Misplaced Pages?

A. I'm no expert on the complexities of image policy and while I could go and look it up, I think that would misrepresent my current knowledge level. If faced with an issue involving image policy, I would ask for help.

10. An IP vandalises a page. You revert the vandalism and give the IP a final warning on its talk page. After that the IP vandalises your userpage. Summarising, the IP was sufficiently warned and vandalised (your userpage) after a final warning. Would you block the IP yourself or rather report it to WP:AIV? Respectively, would you consider blocking the IP yourself a conflict of interest?

A. The fact that the IP vandalized my user page after a final warning would not constitute a COI. Any activity that was disruptive after the final warning would warrant the block. The fact that the target of the vandalism was my user page (which wouldn't be terribly uncommon) is immaterial.

11. Under what circumstances, if any, would you block a user without any warnings?

A. Most circumstances warrant the execution of the warning process. One circumstance that would warrant a block without warning is gross violation of WP:USERNAME

Optional questions from Looie496

12. Looking over your statistics, I see a huge number of article edits, but remarkably few article talk edits. How does that come about?

A. The majority of my article edits are vandalism reversions or basic cleanup. Vandalism reversion rarely requires discussion on an article talk page.

Optional questions from User:Carlossuarez46

13a. A user creates a page for a web-company and the contents are no more than a link to its website and {{underconstruction}}, and another user tags it for speedy deletion; how long in its current state of construction would it be before you decided to grant a speedy deletion request?

A. If the article was created, then tagged, and then I came across it, it is likely that the article was at least a few minutes old. Blank articles serve no purpose and if someone is going to create an article, the first step needs to be a claim of notability. This does not exist in the example. The underconstruction template isn't meant as a placeholder for empty articles. I wouldn't let the article sit for very long in its current state. I'd delete it unless I had reason to believe that the company had notability, or if it was a redirect candidate. In any case, I wouldn't leave the article as-is. Some of the decision depends on the author and the situation. If I noticed that the author was a new user struggling to get stuff copied from his sandbox, I would likely cut some slack and offer to help, maybe move the article to user space - at least to get the article to the point to meet minimum requirements. I've seen editors get frustrated and quit because they felt like the process of getting started was a bit like Whac-A-Mole.

13b. Would your answer be different if there were no link to its website, and the contents were only the underconstruction template; if so, what say you?

A. The same process applies.

Optional questions from Dylan620

14. What is the difference between a block and a ban? Please answer in your own words, no copy-and-pasting.

A. The way I look at it, all blocks are bans, but not all bans are blocks. A block creates a technical impediment to editing while a ban is a community imposed limitation on where an editor is allowed to contribute.

15. This is normally Xeno's RfA question, but I like it too. As an administrator, you will come across some extremely vulgar language and often come under attack for your actions. You will most likely have to deal with some fairly troublesome users. The users you block will sometimes ask to be unblocked. Please review the very NSFW scenario outlined at User:Xenocidic/RFAQ and describe how you would respond to the IP's request to be unblocked.

A. In this case, unblocking does not reinforce the message that disruptive behavior cannot be tolerated. The first block wasn't taken seriously enough. One apparently good edit in the middle of blatant vandalism doesn't justify a leap of good faith in this case especially considering the unblock request 4 minutes earlier. I wouldn't remove the block. I would leave a message explaining my rationale and encourage the editor to contribute after the expiration of the block.

Optional questions from Deacon of Pndapetzim

16. Does the content of a policy page constitute proof of wikipedia policy?

A. The fact that something exists on a policy page at any given time is not "proof" of policy. Things like how it got there and demonstrable consensus for the content of the policy are proof that the policy is valid.

17. There's an edit war on a page about ancient Egyptian technology. There are six participants:

1) an admin with some user boxes claiming he is an Egyptology masters student

2) another user with 2 FAs about ancient Middle Eastern topics

3) a red link user, begun one week ago

4) another red link user, begun two months ago

5) an IP coming out of Tacoma, WA

6) an IP coming out of Puyallup, WA

Over the past two days 1) has reverted 11 times, violating 3RR twice, 3) and 4) have reverted four times each, but haven't broken the 3RR. 5) has reverted four times, and 2) has reverted once. The dispute concerns a paragraph introduced by 5) claiming that the Egyptians during the reign of a certain pharaoh were sailing to the Americas, cited to a popular book by an ex-submarine officer.

There is discussion on talk: 1), who left the first message, says this is fringe nonsense; 2), after following a message left on his talk by 1), adds that he agrees with 1); 3) and 4) claim that it is cited material adhering to WP:VER and WP:RS, while 5) points out that WP:VER says The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth.

6) reports 1) for a violation of 3RR at WP:AN/3. On AN/3, 1) has had time to comment and says that he knew he was violating the 3RR, but says "this rule is not meant to cause harm to the encyclopedia" and he was following WP:IAR as it was the "only way to keep the fringe nonsense added by that bunch of socks out of the article". The diffs presented by 6) are accurate and formatted correctly.

How do you handle the report?

A. There is much detail left out of the scenario that is necessary to make a concrete judgment. For example, what is the tone and content of the talk page messages? What is the edit history of the involved parties? Warning history on other topics? Block history? Are there patterns that indicate sockpuppetry? What do the edit summaries look like? Does the cited source actually check out? In the context of the article, is the fringe theory dangerous enough to warrant violating 3RR per IAR (doesn't seem like it)? Without further information, which would be available in a real scenario, I cannot make a call on this case. Inference can be dangerous.

Question from Smallman12q

18. If an article is speedied but doesn't get deleted and is then prodded...should the prod be removed and an afd opened?

A. The prod doesn't need to be removed unless the reason for the prod is invalid or if someone thinks that the article should not be deleted. If the reason for the prod is insufficient, but an editor thinks that the article should still be deleted, then they can take it to AfD (or they could just wait and see what an admin thinks of the prod). I look at prod as a mini-AfD. One argument is made, it can be reviewed for not less than 5 days, and then if no one objects (and an admin finds the argument to be valid) it can be deleted.

General comments

• Requests for adminship/Mufka
• Requests for adminship/Mufka 2

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

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

Discussion

• The candidate's talk page and the talk page for the DAYS project provide excellent evidence of how the candidate handles situation-specific disagreements and policy arguments. With that in mind, what is the point of Question 17? Townlake (talk) 16:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Breaking the ice support.--Tikiwont (talk) 17:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Support, seems fine. Stifle (talk) 17:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Support Looks like a good editor. I liked seeing lots of friendly and helpful talk page communication with newer users in your contribs. FlyingToaster 18:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Support Odds are that you're not going to delete the main page or go crazy and block everyone who you hate, so support.--Giants27 /C 18:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
5. Support Will use the tools well; good contributions so far. -download | sign! 18:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
6. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 18:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
7. Support - Not found any issues so far. — neuro 18:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
8. Support Concerns of previous RFA overcame and user has been around since Nov 2006 and see no concerns as per track.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
9. Strong support Wizardman 19:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
10. Support -- Seems like the editor has learned from past RfA, especially seeing your answer to the last question about conflicts.--₮RUCӨ 19:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
11. Support Master&Expert (Talk) 19:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
12. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 20:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
13. Support - Support (per Giants27) :) - Fastily (talk) 20:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
14. Weak support. Low content worries me, but besides that looks great at the boring lame admin tasks. Bsimmons666 (talk) 21:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
15. Weak support per Bsimmons. I think Mufka will be ok. Atlantic Gateways (talk) 22:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
16. I trust him to do good admin work, though I suggest he get more article writing experience.--Patton 22:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
17. Support No problems here. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 22:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
18. Agreed with nominator.  GARDEN  22:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
19. I liked the response to Question 5. Those going for a future RfA, take note. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 23:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
20. Support Also agree with nominator. This is a very helpful user to Misplaced Pages. Best, Versus22 _talk 23:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
21. Support "Content" criterion doesn't bother me. It's a different field from admin work. And admin work is where this user is suited. Fribbler (talk) 23:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
22. Support Caspian's neutral logic has merit, but on the whole I like the candidate's contributions; I don't care about DYK at all, and I know Mufka's created an article or two among the many, many other edits. Also really like the direct-to-the-point talk page correspondence. Townlake (talk) 00:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
23. Support. While I'd like to see more content-creation like a GA or FA, I find that more than 35k total edits and a strong record in other areas balances out the lack thereof. Cool3 (talk) 00:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
24. Support I agree with Fribbler, article building doesn't have much to do with adminship. This is a great editor who will be a great admin. LittleMountain5 00:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
25. Support Good answers, good contributions, good editor. Will make a good admin. SobaNoodleForYou 02:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
26. Support Looks good to me. Also, good answers to my questions. — Aitias // discussion 02:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
27. Support per User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards (candidate has no blocks, does have various awards on userpage, and I do not recall any negative interactions between us). Sincerely, --A Nobody 02:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
28. Support No reason to oppose. User already acts like an admin J.delanoy_adds 03:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
29. Support While I have had my disagreements with Mufka in AfD discussion, I respect the work he has done. He seems to be fair in his approach and did help me (a novice editor) strengthen my articles through his criticism.Abtmcm (talk) 03:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
30. Support fr33kman -s- 04:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
31. Support. Fully qualified candidate based on overall record, no issues. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
32. Support A review of your contributions turns up nothing bad, also per my RfA criteria Foxy Loxy 05:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
33. Support The responses to the questions were spot on, and they show that you know the relevant policies here. Cheers, Razorflame 05:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
34. Support - Much improved from last RfA, will do well. Xclamation point 06:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
35. Support I'm running late. MBisanz 08:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
36. Support Lectonar (talk) 08:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
37. Support - Response to question 5 was key. iMatthew // talk // 11:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
38. Support Sure! Why not. ∗ \ / (⁂) 11:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
39. Support Very sensible answers to the questions, no apparent issues in editing. --GedUK  11:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
40. Support - His first RfA was one of the first I ever watched, and I saw how badly it went. It seems to me that Mufka has very much improved since then. →Dyl@n620 14:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
41. Support - I see no problems. Simon 14:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
42. Supported last time around, no reason to change Keepscases (talk) 18:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
43. Support -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
44. Support Per great editing and thoughtful answers to an inane amount of questioning. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 00:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
45. Support. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
46. Support - We can definitely trust this user to not abuse the tools. –Juliancolton 18:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
47. Support good answers to the questions. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
48. Support No issue from what I have seen. America69 (talk) 19:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
49. Support I nominated him last time and was stunned at the outcome. IMO, he would be a great admin. Cool, calm, knowledgeable, meticulous, willing to take on endless tedious tasks. At least for a while he was adhering to a self-imposed limit of 1000 edits per month indicating to me he is unlikely to get sucked in so much he'll burn out. There is no requirement admins work on content. I would personally vastly prefer users who can create great content to do that rather than spend their time here cleaning up after vandals. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
50. Support. This user would be a great admin and I'm suprised he wasn't successfully nominated before. MathCool10 04:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
51. Support - meets my standards. Bearian (talk) 15:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
52. Support - After seeing Mufka's handing of a situation involving myself, I can do nothing but support! Jenuk1985 | Talk 22:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
53. Support Not every candidate needs article-building skill. By requiring article-building, we severely limit the candidates for administrators who would otherwise be a benefit to the community. Strong support. --Neskaya _talk 05:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
54. Weak SupportCotton gin, and Pearl Harbor satisfy my doubts on article editing (although talk pages are useful) - The Weak part of my support stems from answer 17 A. While I appreciate the caution, Admin (WP:SELFPUB expert or not) is not a free pass to violate the basic rules. A calm down block and conversation on the users talk page would be more in line. That said, I think Mufka will do fine with the mop. — Ched ~ 10:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
55. Support Seems trustworthy to me. hmwithτ 17:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
56. Synergy 20:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
57. Meant to do this earlier: very good user. Acalamari 19:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
58. Support. The supporters are more persuasive. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 20:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
59. Weak support. Though this AfD does bring concern, I see the candidate as a net positive. DiverseMentality 20:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose. Article building is atrocious. Tin Whistle Man (talk) 10:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Indef blocked sockpuppet Secret 14:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

1. Oppose. Building of articles is basic if not practised. More skill should be required to become an administrator. Neu_tralle 10:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Oppose. I have only looked at a few of Mufka's recent contributions, but in a few of these I detect a parochialism that I do not think would be a good trait in an administrator with the capability to delete things and, well, generally radiate "authority" towards other, and particularly new, users of diverse cultural backgrounds and interests beyond Mufka's own:
   • In Scandinavia, a julkalender (Swedish) or julekalender (Danish, Norwegian) is a term for a series shown on television during the 24 days before Christmas (see section in Advent calendar). In Sweden at least, these have been around for nearly 50 years and have a certain cultural significance (some are now classics of children's television). Somebody started an article at the term Julekalender, but Mufka made it into a redirect to a Norwegian TV-series (one particular case of such a series). At Talk:Julekalender, Mufka argued that "if there are no English sources of information about it, perhaps it is not notable to English readers." Many significant things outside the English-speaking world are naturally only going to have sources in other languages, and I believe that readers of the English Misplaced Pages are not all so narrow-minded that they completely lack interest in anything outside the English-speaking world.
   • Another example of the same attitude was flagging Anna Depenbusch for speedy deletion seven minutes after the article had been started, despite the fact that it already had a link to a fairly substantial article in Der Spiegel. Mufka later moved on to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Anna Depenbusch, where he explicitly stated his reason as "No reliable sources in English provided". --Hegvald (talk) 06:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Oppose for now on the basis of that deletion rationale at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Anna Depenbusch, is clear contrary to established V and RS policy, and is only a month ago. What are the nominees current views on this? What are his views about finding out about policy in unfamiliar areas? Or about willingness to follow policy with which he disagrees?DGG (talk) 22:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

My intention in nominating the article for deletion was to establish that a sufficient claim of notability existed and that the article was, in fact, supported by verified sources. Since I could not verify the sources, it caused a problem as far as WP:V as well. I understand completely that English sources are not required per WP:VUE, but the claim of notability within the article was (and remains) very weak. Once other editors verified that the sources were valid and established notability, I promptly withdrew the nomination. If there was a sufficient claim of notability in the article from the outset, I would likely have tried to verify the sources through the article talk page or WP:RSN. I don't believe that this case illustrates any area in which I did not understand policy or an area in which I disagreed with policy. If I happen to disagree with policy, I will make my views known in the appropriate forum. If consensus supports a policy that I disagree with, then my role is to see that the policy is applied - not circumvented. I'm pretty sensitive to suggestions that I have weakness in my understanding or interpretation of policies. My ego isn't so big that I would dig in and defend what might be just my own ignorance. Even just a passing suggestion will usually lead me to spend a god-awful amount of time reviewing the policy to make sure I know what I know (and also to be sure that no new consensus or subtle nuance exists). I think that's a duty of any responsible editor. -- Mufka 02:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral per his poor article building. Since his claimed "expertise" is doing for CSD, I believe he should have more content-building. I don't require RFA candidates to acquire FA or GA. However, how come hasn't he even have any single DYK for over two years? He has created very short 9 stubs" and I see his top 10 edited articles are "date list"s except Cotton gin and Pearl_Harbor: November 5, September 16, September 1 etc. In Cotton gin, his 99 edits are mostly reverting vandalism. I'm leaning toward oppose, but have not founded any critical faults in his contribution yet, so I stay here.--Caspian blue 19:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

   To be fair to the candidate, I didn't even know how DYK worked for months here. I rescued an article and someone pointed the queue out to me. Though I see your point. Protonk (talk) 05:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

2. Neutral per Hegvald (who opposed). I think the statement "I would think that if there are no English sources of information about it, perhaps it is not notable to English readers" was a little alarming in itself, but the moving in and incorrectly redirecting on a topic which Mufka admittedly knew little about is an error which, when all put together, makes me a little unsure as to whether serious damage could be caused once the ability to delete is also available. My decision to not oppose is because the level of support clearly shows that the user is a good editor, and with it being clear that the nomination will pass, I hope that these views are taken onboard for his adminship. Esteffect (talk) 04:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Admiral Norton

Nomination

Final: (81/2/0); closed by User:Kingturtle at 16:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC).

Admiral Norton (talk · contribs) – I would like to submit for your considerations Admiral Norton. Admiral Norton has edited since August 2007 and is active in Croatia-related articles and translation. I had the pleasure of coaching him (which can be viewed here, and saw that he is fully knowledgeable of the tasks admins do. I feel he can lend a different perspective in a time where we could benefit from more voices and more participation. Cheers, bibliomaniac15 03:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I'm honored by this RfA and I readily accept. Admiral Norton 17:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: I am going to start out with basic maintenance work (WP:PROD, WP:CSD, WP:AN3, WP:XFD, repairing technical issues with articles and page moves etc.). When I get the hang of it, I'll dive into harder parts such as dispute resolution. As I know a lot about the Balkan region, I intend to mediate disputes that arise in the Balkans, Central and Eastern Europe (of course, that doesn't involve disputes such as the border between Croatia and Slovenia where an average editor can't expect me to control my conflict of interest). Croatia already has two administrators (User:Dijxtra and User:Joy), but one of them is inactive and the other one edits only sporadically and I believe it would be useful to have a full-time administrator available for sorting out technical problems on Croatian articles.

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

A: I believe that starting the Zagreb task force of WikiProject Croatia was my worthiest contribution to Misplaced Pages. I have started more than 70 articles (most of which are still stubs due to their matter being obscure to an average Misplaced Pages contributor) and heavily contributed to 9 DYKs and 1 ITN about Croatia so far. If asked to highlight a quality article I've contributed to, I'd put Zaprešić, a good article, and Jastrebarsko, an article I'm currently expanding to make it a good article. The first good articles I was trying to make were Milan Bandić, which failed GAN mainly due to NPOV issues, and Šalata, about my neighborhood, which I abandoned after a peer review since I couldn't deal with slight WP:OR and maintaining the use of good quality sources, which would drastically reduce the amount of readily available material about Šalata. My long term plans currently include bringing Zagreb back to good article status and bringing Zaprešić to featured article status.

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

A: Yes, of course; I don't think I would value the abilities of an administrator who has never been in a conflict. However, I tend to take edit conflicts easy, as Misplaced Pages is a hobby for me, not a job. If I get in a conflict, I strive to maintain a professional tone and assume good faith to the highest degree. Becoming an administrator brings higher responsibilities, so in the future I'll take even more precautions to avoid getting into conflicts and behave in a way to solve them as fast and as painlessly as possible.

Additional question from Spinach Monster

4. Can you show an example of a conflict that you learned from and ended well? Spinach Monster (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

A: I'd like to point out the dispute I recently had about the article Alignment (Dungeons & Dragons). Although it started in a minor way (just checking an article's history and finding some edits I wasn't too thrilled about) and also played out in a minor way, I learned to remind myself to stop focusing on merely one source and disregarding the others. Although I've made the same mistake once more at a dispute about Eastern Europe—where I think I've been headed in the right direction, but pushed my opinion way too far, although it ended well with a compromise—I've from this point become even more careful about this. There is a saying in Croatia I know: "A person learns while he's alive." We can't become immune from errors, but we should do our best to minimize them to the furthest extent. Admiral Norton 17:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Additional question from Patton123

5. In your opinion, why do the notability guidelines exist?

A: One can argue that an encyclopedia does not and should not write about everything conceivable on this planet and then try to sell one book in two truckloads. This can be objected to on the grounds that Misplaced Pages, as an online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, does not have the need to limit its content to the extent of one book shelf. However, the true reason is the fact that, the less notable a subject is, the less reliable sources there are about him/her/it. This leads to the point where the subject is so non-notable that the best we can make out of his/her/its article is just a stub. Below that point, our only viable sources of information are either unreliable or revealing private personal information and the subject's article ceases to be encyclopedic and turns into a birth record or a cadastre entry. That's hardly something that anyone wants to read and even less of something that belongs to an encylopedia. Because of that, the notability guidelines were implemented. Admiral Norton 21:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Well that's an oer complex answer. They exist so articles that can never be reliably sourced can be deleted ;-).--Patton 22:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

That's what I tried to say (I got this text-spamming habit from high school essays). Admiral Norton 14:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Additional question from Spinach Monster

6 To address the anon's question below: would you be willing to abstain from admin decisions regarding any Balkans related article or could you show an example of how you've kept your cool in regards to Balkans related articles in the past? Spinach Monster (talk) 00:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

A A recent example of a Balkan dispute I've participated to is the dispute about naming the city of Split, accessible at Talk:Split (city)#Requested move. Although I don't like the way the move turned out, I retracted from the discussion following counter-arguments I could not respond to without turning the discussion into a COI farce. Unfortunately, the dispute continued in my absence, due to users with a greater COI becoming involved. Of course, although I intend to continue participating as a normal user in these discussions, I do not intend to use my admin powers and status in Croatia-related disussions, or any other discussions where I might have a conflict of interest. Admiral Norton 14:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Q(s) from flaminglawyer

7. Explain your alignment on (some of) the issues listed at meta:Conflicting Misplaced Pages philosophies.

R. I'll explain my stance only on the first few: I'm a moderate eventualist, moderate anti-statusquoist and an article rater, because I believe that 90% of edits that aren't vandalism are either useful, or can be made useful by copyediting, etc. However, GA- and FA-class articles should be treated more carefully and edits that don't provide references should be treated with much more scrutiny to avoid the quality degradation. As for communityism and encyclopedism, I adhere more to the second view, as co-operation is necessary when building a good encyclopedia and seclusion can lead to WP:OWN and similar problems. As for communalism and authorism, I lean toward communalism, but I think that, although this is a GFDL encyclopedia, every author should be credited for his work, although a major author of an article shouldn't have any precedence over people who have made few edits to that article. Regarding the next choice, I'm divided between rehabilism and politicism, but I definitely reject "sysopism" (what an irony as I'm trying to become a sysop myself), because I believe that every user can be persuaded to do something constructive and that (almost) every dispute can be solved, if time and effort are invested. As I see there are some more choices and I don't want this answer to overshadow the rest of the page, I'll stop here. If you need my opinion on any other choice, please note here. Admiral Norton 14:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

7a. On communityism v. encyclopedism, you said you were the second (encyclopedism), but in your (brief) explanation you described the characteristics of communityism. Can you elaborate upon this?

A. Sorry, I really meant communityism, but I accidentally typed "the second view". Admiral Norton 18:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Optional Q(s) from Regent Spark

8a Could you please explain what a neologism is and why it is generally considered undesirable to have articles on neologisms?

A. Per WP:NEOLOGISM, a neologism is a relatively new word that has or has not caught general use, but whose existence can't be verified due to a lack of secondary sources. Therefore, neologisms are not acceptable for Misplaced Pages due to our WP:RS policy.

I was hoping you could explain why articles on neologisms are best avoided (what you think/theorize the philosophy behind the guideline might be). (To the best of my knowledge, there is no policy restriction against articles on neologisms.) Please treat this as a completely optional follow-up question!--Regent Spark (crackle and burn) 23:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no specific policy restriction against articles on neologisms because neologisms are by definition not verifiable through reliable sources and therefore one can't write an acceptable article about them, nor use them as their use constitutes original research, which is necessary to describe the term on Misplaced Pages. IMO, the MOS guideline is here just to remind us about that. If an article doesn't abide by that guideline it will probably be deleted for other reasons sooner or later if the term doesn't become notable in the meantime. Admiral Norton 17:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

8b Could you please comment on what special care should be taken when creating articles that use terms translated from foreign languages? (Thanks!)

A. I'm not sure if I provided the answer you expected as I typically don't spend much time choosing titles for a translated article on WP:PNT or WP:TRANSLATION, but I believe that caution should be taken when choosing one out of several terms which are often used in the article one is translating into for one specific term in the source language. Admiral Norton 16:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Optional questions from User:Carlossuarez46

9a. A user creates a page for a web-company and the contents are no more than a link to its website and {{underconstruction}}, and another user tags it for speedy deletion; how long in its current state of construction would it be before you decided to grant a speedy deletion request?

A: I would make sure the creator has been notified of the CSD tag and I'll delete it per A7 if a {{hangon}} or an indication of notability doesn't appear in the next 30–45 minutes at most (maybe more if the tag wasn't added by a new page patroller). There is little harm done if the contents get deleted as they probably weren't too hard to remember anyway and I would userfy the article if the author requested undeletion. Note that a G11 tag isn't appropriate in this situation and that I would change it to A7 if I encounter it in such a situation.

9b. Would your answer be different if there were no link to its website, and the contents were only the underconstruction template; if so, what say you?

A: Most probably not. An {{underconstruction}} template definitely shows that the author isn't a total newbie with intents to market his new web domain, but someone who has at least some insight into the quirks of Misplaced Pages. However, this is applicable to both cases you presented and as such it wouldn't change my decision in this case only. Admiral Norton 17:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

General comments

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

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

Discussion

Comment This candidate is apparently strong supporter of the Croatian nationalistic line. Giving him/her the administrator's privileges will be very bad service to Misplaced Pages.--141.156.253.196 (talk) 19:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Uhm...being a Croatian nationalist doesn't really affect his/her administration skills. In fact, it doesn't really matter what his stance on any matter is... Cheers. Imperat§ r 21:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

YOu obviously haven't heard of the eastern european and balkan disputes. COuntless arbcom cases, blocks totalling thousands of hours, multiple bannings and lots of edit warring. It would indeed be very bad form to promote a balkan nationalist pov pusher to adminship, but not a balkan nationalist.--Patton 23:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Admittedly, I do lack expertise, or for that fact, any knowledge, in that area, so pardon my comment. However, this specific editor seems to be respectable enough, so my original point stands. :) Cheers. Imperat§ r 01:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The user's politic party doesn't matter on Misplaced Pages, honestly --Mojska (m) 13:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• I don't know how to say this, so I'll be blunt. Stop the whole crat nom business please. If you're going to write that you trust my nom, at least mention it from the perspective of an admin coach who's come to understand their coachee. My physical ability to hand someone a mop does not equal awesome powers of admin potential comprehension. bibliomaniac15 06:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Could not agree more. User:Archtransit was nominated by User:WJBScribe who had 'crat rights at the time. Need I say more....? Pedro :  Chat  22:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Quite true; I suspect that !votes based solely on the fact that the nom is a 'crat will be discounted. Even so, I don't think it hurts to mention that fact as part of a more in-depth rationale. Bureaucrats are expected to have excellent judgement, so it seems reasonable for people to think that you'd know what makes a good admin. –Juliancolton 02:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Votes are discounted? I'll believe that when I see a bureaucrat actually note that he probably won't count a vote and not get beaten with a stick for it. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 03:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Beautifully said, biblo. I understand the constant misperception that ArbCom, crats and others are "in power", because no one with a business degree thinks it's possible that the highest-traffic non-portal internet site in the world got that way by self-assembly, with no real power structure, but that's how it is. People keep looking behind doors trying to find out who's pulling the strings, and there aren't any strings, just a large, enthusiastic, knowledgeable bunch of middle-managers (or middle class, if you like). - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 16:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. My Very First BTM Support!. Great contributor, no reason not to give him the mop. Jonathan321 (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

   BTM? Beat The Mominator? Useight (talk) 18:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

   Yep. Juliancolton (talk) 06:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

   I suppose I really am a maternal figure around here... bibliomaniac15 21:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

   I'm supporting largely on the basis that when you said in your nomination statement "we could benefit from more voices", you meant "we could benefit from a greater variety of voices". ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 21:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

2. Absolutely. Master&Expert (Talk) 18:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. bibliomaniac15 18:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
4. Support - Hell Yeah!. Simon 18:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
5. Support Majorly talk 18:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
6. Support – has a long history which reveals the qualities and reflects the dedication needed of an administrator. Caulde 18:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
7. Support No problems.--Giants27 /C 19:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
8. Support. Took a sizeable random sample of his XFD and CSD contributions. The only one I had any minor qualms with was that this (admin only, sorry) should have been tagged as an attack page, rather than pure vandalism, but I'm not one to nitpick over excruciating minutiae. Useight (talk) 19:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

   You might want to fix that to refer to the actual diff. bibliomaniac15 19:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

   Whoops, linked the wrong page. It's here. Useight (talk) 20:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

9. Support Yes. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 19:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
10. Strong support Wizardman 19:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
11. Support - Seems good, not found any major issues so far. — neuro 19:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
12. Support Does good work both in mainspace and behind the scenes, and has a head on his shoulders. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 20:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
13. Support Can't find any legitimate issues. User is unlikely to break the Wiki or delete the mainpage. Shows good faith and seems open to criticism, that all works for me. Trusilver 20:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
14. Support Will do well with the tools. -download | sign! 20:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
15. Support --Ex13 (talk) 21:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
16. Support. No problems here. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 21:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
17. Support Wide range of good work, don't see any red flags. FlyingToaster 21:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
18. Synergy 21:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
19. Support I trust Bilbiomaniac's judgement. Looks fine. Sam 22:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
20. Support --Roberta F. (talk) 22:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
21. It took you this long to run why :) I kept anticipating this RfA for ages. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 22:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
22. Support. I see no reason to oppose, and certain advantages to having an administrator with an interest in Balkan topics. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
23. Support, Misplaced Pages can always use more competent admins who focus on the often difficult area of articles relating to the Balkans, and as such I feel Admiral Norton can be a great asset. No evidence he will abuse the tools. Lankiveil 23:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC).
24. Support, I've seen AN and his work in several areas, and those experiences have always been positive. Spencer 00:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
25. Support fr33kman -s- 00:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
26. Support — Jake Wartenberg 02:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
27. Support Net positive. LittleMountain5 02:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
28. Support - Good user, trusted. Xclamation point 03:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
29. Support - It's a good sign when your nom is a bureaucrat. Seriously, though, I've seen your work in various places, and as far as I can tell, you seem to be a nearly perfect candidate. Juliancolton (talk) 06:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
30. If bibliomaniac15 (who is a Bureaucrat that can actually upgrade other user accounts to admin status) supports him, he must be a very good editor :) –BuickCenturyDriver 09:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

    I trust your support will be discounted as without value, as it appears to be based on the nominator not the candidate. Pedro :  Chat  22:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

    Methinks the smiley denotes sarcasm, since he made the comment after I made mine. bibliomaniac15 04:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

31. Support - this editor appears to be genuinely interested in admin work and seems to have a solid reputation. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 09:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
32. Support --Igor Windsor (talk) 13:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
33. Support Maybe he doesn't need the tools, but he won't delete the main page if we give them to him. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 14:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
34. Support Seems to be a sensible and well balanced editor. If this passes though, needs to be careful about using the mop around the Balkan area articles to avoid accusations of favouritism. --GedUK  15:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
35. Support Answered my questions to my satisfaction. I feel he won't abuse the tools. Spinach Monster (talk) 15:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
36. Support: As per conflict resolutions he has been involved in. There is also no apparent reason why Admiral Norton would misuse or abuse the mop, and a lack of subjectively decided need is ridiculous (as no one NEEDS the mop) --Carbon Rodney 15:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
37. Support. Erik9 (talk) 15:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
38. Support User has been around since Aug 2007 and while the user has heavily edited Croatia which is a high dispute area.I Assume Good Faith that the user will not user his tools in any dispute involving Croatia and will use uninvolved admins Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
39. Support, but recommend steering well clear of Eastern European/Balkans topics with the admin buttons. Stifle (talk) 17:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
40. Support Solid contributor and I trust biobliomatic's judgment. I see no reason to oppose and opposes based on WP:NONEED do not convince me. SoWhy 17:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
41. Support I work in Croatia-related articles a fair bit and thus have seen the Admiral around. I've got no doubts that he'll make a fine admin. Regarding the concerns expressed at the top, I'll also add that I've never noticed a strong 'Croatian nationalist' or any other POV in the candidate. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 18:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
42. Support Have fun! :)Synchronism (talk) 18:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
43. Support -- Qualified candidate, will benefit from tools.--₮RUCӨ 19:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
44. Support Looks good to me. — Aitias // discussion 19:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
45. Support Seems to be a qualified candidate. - Fastily (talk) 20:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
46. Support Looks good (i.e. - doesn't look bad!). Bsimmons666 (talk) 21:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
47. Support - iMatthew // talk // 21:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
48. Support Clearly should be able to use the tools, works at contentious areas without problems, dedicated and clueful. Good luck. Pedro :  Chat  22:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
49. Support Will be even more helpful with the bit. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
50. Support Looks fine to me. -- Avi (talk) 22:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
51. Support very good contributor. I don't think he'll abuse the admin tools. Best, Versus22 _talk 23:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
52. Support. Solid record of contributing. I always like to see an admin candidate who's written a lot of articles, and has shown an understanding of dealing with conflict. Cool3 (talk) 00:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
53. Support No serious concerns, has earned community trust, appears well qualified. Townlake (talk) 00:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
54. Support Woooooooooooooooh! LetsdrinkTea 01:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
55. Support Good editor. America69 (talk) 02:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
56. Support per User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards as candidate is a good article contributor who makes good arguments and has never been blocked. Sincerely, --A Nobody 02:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
57. Support, fully qualified candidate, no issues. The first opposer's rationale is without merit and the second appears to have been superseded by the candidate's answer to Q6. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
58. Support per the answers to the questions. They show that this user has good foundations in the policies required for administrator here and they definitely show that this editor knows the policies here. Cheers, Razorflame 05:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
59. Support Nothing concerning discovered, per my RfA criteria Foxy Loxy 06:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
60. Support. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
61. Support with a note that, in my opinion, your English is indistinguishable from that of a native speaker. Keepscases (talk) 18:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
62. Support. Nothing wrong with holding strong position on some topics as long as they don't interfere with admin work. Good work so far so I believe admin tools can only benefit. Cheers! --Tone 21:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
63. Support. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
64. Support I haven't run across the Admiral before, but the reasonable answers to questions show little reason for worry here. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
65. Support - Everything looks good. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
66. Support. Candidate will be a benefit with the tools. DiverseMentality 21:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
67. support I have slight concerns about how he might use the tools in regard to Croatia articles and related articles. However, as long as he is careful about not using the tools when he is involved or has a strong POV there shouldn't be any issue. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
68. Support - No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 03:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
69. Support - meets my standards. I've run across this user, and while very opinionated, he(?) can be logical. Bearian (talk) 14:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
70. Support - not sure he understands the dangers of neologisms (and, Semi-highway worries me!) but everything else that I see shows a reasonable and dedicated editor so that doesn't worry me a whole lot and I'm sure he'll be a fine admin. (Thank you for answering my questions.) --Regent Spark (crackle and burn) 15:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
71. Support - impressive record and very satisfactory answers to questions. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 20:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
72. Support As always, I read and considered the non-supporting voters, but the supporters are persuasive. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 16:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
73. Support Húsönd 21:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
74. Support I've encountered Admiral Norton a few times now on a particular, recurring, somewhat controversial issue. He remained civil with those with whom he disagreed. I also suggest to refrain from using the admin buttons on Balkans-related articles. Parsecboy (talk) 00:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
75. Excellent editor; I too, thought he was already an admin. Acalamari 02:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
76. Support -excellent, neutral editor with required qualities.--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 09:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
77. Support: Clearly aware that he has a conflict of interest in certain areas and I trust that he will refrain from exercising administrator power in those areas. I liked the thoughtful answers to the questions and recognise a very intelligent, dedicated contributor. I also find the translation abilities a huuuge plus. Maedin\ 09:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
78. Support (moved from neutral) After sending more time in looking into his contribution, I'm convinced that he is a sensible editor and would be a good admin far from abusing the admin tool.--Caspian blue 16:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
79. Sure.  GARDEN  22:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
80. Support All adds up for me. — Ched ~ 10:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
81. Support yep. Jauerback/_dude. 12:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Dispute resolution doesn't require tools. This seems to be the primary "goal" area of interest, so tools wont be needed for this user at all. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

   Apart from "I am going to start out with basic maintenance work (WP:PROD, WP:CSD, WP:AN3, WP:XFD, repairing technical issues with articles and page moves etc.)" Did you ignore that part? Majorly talk 18:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

   Off topic discussion moved to talk page. iMatthew // talk // 22:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

   Majorly, that seems to be a temporary thing at best, and doesn't necessarily require the tools. You can work on Prodding, CSDs, etc, without tools. I don't really see the need to let him test things out for a few months before moving onto dispute resolution. The whole basis seems to be unnecessary. This seems to be another hobby admin request and not something serious. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

   As was, rightly, pointed out to me WP:NONEED is a poor argument and one to avoid in RfAs. Regards fr33kman -s- 00:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

   People may use whatever arguments they please. Live with it. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

   That's a little unfair. Instead, the above user is mistaken. I am not arguing "no need". I am arguing that they have not provided a legitimate reason for why they need it, thus there is no serious application to consider. Without a reason for the tools, the application can be seen as "I want it because I want to be an admin", which suggests that they see it as a status symbol. I will oppose anyone I feel will treat it as a status symbol, as those are the types most likely to abuse the authority of adminship. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

   We have been over this so many times that I lost count somewhere in the triple digits. As we learned from Kurt Weber, everyone is entitled to their opinion. If someone wants to oppose because the candidate drinks coffee instead of tea, and coffee drinkers are just so damned untrustworthy, then it is their right to oppose on those grounds. Likewise, it is the 'crat's right to throw out arguments that they feel are irrelevant to the RfA. Some incarnation of this argument has occurred hundreds of times, and we have come to no new conclusions this time than we have in all the previous times. (Oh, and Ottava, I'm not suggesting your argument is as trivial as tea v/ coffee, I'm just making an example.) Trusilver 03:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

   Kurt insulted a number of candidates by calling them power-hungry, and asserted that he didn't need any evidence to make the claim. Doggedly insulting people is a CIVILITY violation, and if it happens again at RFA, I'll try to talk through the issues with whoever's doing it, and if that doesn't work, I'll pursue a topic ban from RFA. Ottava isn't asserting a right not to have to back up what he's saying; he reads what's being said and thinks about it. I don't always agree with Ottava, but RFA absolutely needs him and people like him. Bureaucratic or political approval processes of all kinds have a tendency to degenerate into a "gentleman's club" where no one will say anything critical over time, so anyone willing to say something critical, if they're willing to keep it relevant and back it up, is always welcome as far as I'm concerned. I practice what I preach; I'm more negative than the average voter at RFA, even though I'm a conflict-avoiding weenie IRL. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 15:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

2. Oppose Intelligent, solid contributor, but I don't think user has a need for the tools. Very strong interest in Croatia articles is concerning for COI, and can probably help Misplaced Pages better as a contributor rather than being an admin. Doesn't seem particularly interested in general admin work - little admin related work so far, and apparently never mediated or acted as a neutral party in a dispute, which is odd and concerning considering his stated desire to use the tools for that. The timings in this situation (user,contribs) makes me wonder how he would handle something similar as an admin. Looking through the edits, nothing bad sticks out, but I get a strong sense of ownership over Crotia related articles and facts (example ), which probably isn't best for an admin who ultimately wants to intervene in the kind of insane disputes that happen in these topics. I'd need to see FAR more admin related work, evidence of good dispute work, and indications of broader interests. Phil153 (talk) 02:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

   Oppose A useful editor, but handing them admin tools could be disastrous. This user has shown that they are constructive, but a few edit summaries and lack of good faith when handling other users suggests that this user would become something of a Nazi with those tools in place. Not a good idea. Tin Whistle Man (talk) 10:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

   I think the Nazi reference may be a little over-the-top! --GedUK  10:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

   Please note that the above editor Tin Whistle Man has been blocked as a disruptive editor. The Seeker 4 Talk 14:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

   !vote indented and stricken. SoWhy 14:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

Although I disagree with Admiral Norton about some minor things, such as his use of the word highway , I don't feel that is enough for me to oppose him. I admire most of Admiral Norton's contributions and his dedication to the project, but the few times I have interacted with him where we held different opinions have been a bit of a turnoff for me (see Talk:Semi-highway), so I am a little wary, especially since he wants to use admin tools in disputes about his editing interests. However, he stated above that he will keep his COI in check, but only in disputes about Croatia and Slovenia. It would be much more refreshing if Admiral Norton were to say he will always keep any possible COI in check and not primarily do dispute resolution in his area of interest. A good mediator does not have to be familiar with the subjects being mediated, it's often most preferable to have an uninterested mediator. I don't doubt that Admiral norton will use his admin tools properly, I'd just like to see more commitment to the admin tools and less focus on using admin status in dispute resolution. Synchronism (talk) 19:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Seriously. Does his use of the word "highway" affect how well he'll press a few extra buttons? :) Juliancolton (talk) 06:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

It seriously doesn't. I'm just pointing out my own COI.Synchronism (talk) 06:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I've changed my vote to support after reading the answer to question 6.Synchronism (talk) 18:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Neutral I totally agree with Phil153's concern because his edits in Croatia articles with the admin tools could be COI.--Caspian blue 20:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

After more research on his contribution, I change my mind.--Caspian blue 16:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

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

About RfB

• WP:RFB

Requests for bureaucratship (RfB) is the process by which the Misplaced Pages community decides who will become bureaucrats. Bureaucrats can make other users administrators or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here, and remove administrator rights in limited circumstances. They can also grant or remove bot status on an account.

The process for bureaucrats is similar to that for adminship above; however the expectation for promotion to bureaucratship is significantly higher than for admin, requiring a clearer consensus. In general, the threshold for consensus is somewhere around 85%. Bureaucrats are expected to determine consensus in difficult cases and be ready to explain their decisions.

Create a new RfB page as you would for an RfA, and insert

{{subst:RfB|User=Username|Description=Your description of the candidate. ~~~~}}

into it, then answer the questions. New bureaucrats are recorded at Misplaced Pages:Successful bureaucratship candidacies. Failed nominations are at Misplaced Pages:Unsuccessful bureaucratship candidacies.

At minimum, study what is expected of a bureaucrat by reading discussions at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship including the recent archives, before seeking this position.

While canvassing for support is often viewed negatively by the community, some users find it helpful to place the neutrally worded {{RfX-notice|b}} on their userpages – this is generally not seen as canvassing. Like requests for adminship, requests for bureaucratship are advertised on the watchlist and on Template:Centralized discussion.

Please add new requests at the top of the section immediately below this line.

Current nominations for bureaucratship

Related pages

• Requests for self-de-adminship can be made at m:Steward requests/Permissions.
• Requests to mark an account as a bot can be made at Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval.
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for de-adminship - Requests for comment on possible misuse of sysop privileges, as well as a summary of rejected proposals for de-adminship processes and a list of past cases of de-adminship.

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

• Matters related to requests for adminship
• Successful requests for adminship
• Unsuccessful requests for adminship
• Requests for adminship
• Misplaced Pages adminship