Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:47, 3 December 2006

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

Wikiwoohoo

Final (51/20/6) Ended Sun, 10 Dec 2006 01:50:31 (UTC)

Wikiwoohoo (talk · contribs) – I have been active on Misplaced Pages (as Wikiwoohoo) since August 2005, with breaks due to my work. I try to maintain a friendly and polite attitude towards all users and have involved myself in several WikiProjects which have taken my fancy. I have also joined the AMA and have become deputy co-ordinator where I recently organised the current ongoing meeting. This is my third attempt at RFA, though I accept my previous attempts were foolhardy; I did not have the experience I have gained since then. I would love to be able to serve the community in the more advanced form that adminship brings and will always remain completely accountable. Wikiwoohoo 22:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept Wikiwoohoo 22:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: The large amount of images and articles nominated for deletion either in the general way or through the speedy deletion channels grows more and more each day. I would work to alleviate some of this work away from the already established admins and work to reduce it. Admittedly, I have contributed to these backlogs in my nominations for the deletion of many images I have uploaded but that aside, I would like to help out much more. Recently I have also come into contact with several blatent vandals, as an admin I would be able to impose blocks on them and ensuring they are in fact vandals; currently I am only able to give warnings as a normal user.

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

A: My work on the BBC News, BBC News 24, BBC World and BBC One articles has made me particularly pleased but I would not take all the credit if these were to become good articles as I hope. I am merely part of a team that has worked, let's face it, extremely hard to get the articles were they are today. I have most recently devoted my efforts to the above articles in turn. My aim is to get these four to good article status followed by featured article status and then to move on to other related article. That would be very satisfying.

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

A: I would not say I have had any conflicts over editing. Recently I was accidentally accused of vandalism regarding the BBC News article by RoyBoy though this was accidental and was sorted out as quickly as it came about. I try to remain cool under pressure and pledge that I will never descend into making personal attacks, ever.

Optional question from (aeropagitica) (talk · contribs):

4. Can you provide some diffs for XfD discussions in which you have participated, so I can appreciate your applications of policies and guidelines?

A: The majority of my useage of the XfD pages has been with nominating images for deletion. I have also tagged images I have identified as copyright violations; informed the user and found the image on the internet to prove it violated copyright. Where possible, I have also replaced such images within their respective articles with generally fair use images. Some examples are here:

• Copyright problem, from September 2005 regarding Image:Huwedwards.jpg.
• Category deletion discussion for Category:Former BBC newsreaders and journalists.
• Copyright problem from 14th August 2006 regarding Image:Markatbbc.jpg and Image:Markatbbc2.jpg.
• Copyright problem, from 6th August 2006 with Image:RagehOmaar.jpg.
• I initiated the AfD for BBC Channels, an article I originally created. The discussion is here.
• My most recent image nominations for deletion, from 2nd December 2006.

Optional questions from Dlohcierekim (talk · contribs):

Hi, Wikiwoohoo, and thank you for submitting your RfA. I have taken the liberty of asking (after edit conflict) some optional questions that I lifted form User:Benon who got them from Tawker, JoshuaZ, Rob Church, NSLE.

They are 100% optional but may help myself or other voters decide. If I have already voted please feel free to ignore these questions though other editors might find them to be of use. You can also remove the questions you don't want to touch if you like. Thanks. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 23:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

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

A: I recall that Karmafist was found to have been using sockpuppets for vandalism and has since been blocked indefinitely. The first and most important thing would be to engage in discussion with the editor, questioning their motives but at the same time investigating what they have done with their sockpuppet accounts. It may be that at the very point of being caught out, they would apologise and make promises not to abuse the system as they had. This should be taken into consideration, but weighed against the harmful edits they have made and the context of such edits. In my view, if the editor was then found to have committed a wide range of harmful edits then they should be blocked, indefinitely at that. For the record, I can not understand why an editor would create harmful sockpuppets, communicating with some who do would help me to learn a little more about it all.

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

A: It is most important in these kinds of disputes to keep dialogue going between all parties. I would prefer that blocks were not imposed for as long as possible to be able to achieve this. If another admin were to block the two users concerned, I would contact them to explain in the full the problem and my efforts up until that point to sort things. I would encourage the admin to unblock the users, possibly also to involve themselves in the process as well to provide another viewpoint. I would make sure the other admin who had initiated a block knew exactly what was happening, even if I were to begin contacting the users by email. It would be gong behind their back otherwise, in my opinion.

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

A: That is a very hard question. It is very difficult to think of anything off-hand but I think although Misplaced Pages is a very good thing, there is always the problem that the moment somebody looks at an article, they may be looking instead at a vandalised version. A greater amount of anti-vandal techniques would be best to combat this.

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

A: Following confusion as to my stance on blocking, this is a my rewritten answer to the question. I find continued personal attacks to be extremely harmful to the community and rate them at the same level as continued vandalism in disruptiveness. Any user I discovered to be embarking on personal attacks or vandalism should be blocked, whether this be for a day or at the furthest point, indefinitely. I had stated that even an anonymous IP deliberately making personal attacks or vandalism should be blocked, even indefinitely, though I have been advised that this would be quite a heavy handed approach; the nature of IPs and how they are allocated to many users would mean many innocent people would be unable to edit Misplaced Pages. Showing a vandal that they have been noticed by adding test warnings to talk pages is good, and means that if they continue, we know they are not simply an innocent new user who does not know what their actions are leading to. Continued vandalism would require a block but possibly in my view beginning with the shortest amount and becoming progressively longer if vandalism continues. Showing a vandal that they have been noticed and that vandalism will not be tolerated by initiating such blocks could well discourage them from continuing. An indefinite block for vandalism should only be made after the use of all test warnings and several short duration blocks. It is extremely important to fully understand each situation to assess whether a block is really necessary, to prevent unnecessary blocks being handed out, innocent users being blocked, and extra work for admins to investigate.

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

A: Regardless of whether an AfD result was bordering on delete, keep or no consensus, the discussion should only involve actual users and not sockpuppets. I would leave a discussion as no consensus and make my concerns on the use of sockpuppets obvious on the discussion page. There can be no definite decision made if there is the risk of sockpuppets being used to further a vote one way or another. It is fraudulent and can mean an incorrect decision is made. I would not make any definitive changes to an article's state if there was the risk that this had happened.

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

A: I think at least three other users aside from the nominator and creator should be involved in an AfD discussion, preferably having had no other interaction with the article in question. They are then in a position to judge the quality of the article and the notability of the subject it addresses. The resulting discussion can then define whether the article is needed within Misplaced Pages, or possibly if it could be merged into another existing article. The five separate viewpoints are better than one or two.

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

A: The fact that Misplaced Pages is a computer based volunteer project to me provides ample opportunity to take a break from what is going on and take time out if required. I have always remained calm as an editor and do not allow stress, either from work outside the project or in the course of my editing, to impede how I operate here. If I were feeling stress, I would take a break and would make it clear exactly why.

12. Why do you want to be an administrator?

A: I enjoy editing Misplaced Pages as a user and being part of this community but I feel that as an administrator I have so much more to offer the community. The additional facilities that would become available to me would be put to good use, making deletion and administering blocks where appropriate and not without considerations of what were about to happen. Rest assured I will never rush into anything and will not abuse the trust of the community.

Optional question from Amarkov (talk · contribs) lifted from Malber (talk · contribs)

13. How would you apply the policy WP:IAR in administrative tasks?

A:Misplaced Pages and its policies will need modernising as the project ages and expands as it is now at such a high speed. It may be that some rules may need to be broken to allow this to happen and depending on which rule that it, I may be willing to do so.I would not do anything that is ultimately harmful to the community or the project as a whole and would think through my actions clamly before committing any actions.

Optional question from Amarkov (talk · contribs) not lifted from anyone

14. In what circumstances is a block for vandalism justified, excluding the full sequence of test warnings consecutively without vandalism stopping?

A:Vandals should be blocked for continued disruptive behaviour though test warnings are sometimes forgotten. Personal attacks should not be tolerated and if an anonymous IP address partakes in this activity then they should be blocked indefinitely. AOL IP addresses should be approached differently; a block could lead to hundreds of legitimate users being able to edit Misplaced Pages.

Optional question from T-rex (talk · contribs) (sorry about asking so many extra questions)

15. Of your articles or contributions to Misplaced Pages, are there any with which you are particularly pleased besides those relating to the BBC?

A:Almost all of my edits are related to the BBC, though I have contributed a great deal to articles on individual presenters, some of whom hold freelance contracts with the BBC and can therefore appear elsewhere within the media. I have devoted the overwhelming majority of my mainspace edits to BBC related articles but rest assured, I do my upmost to remain impartial.

Optional question from CheNuevara (talk · contribs):

16. According to your edit count on the talk page, you have very few talk edits compared to non-talk edits (just over 1 talk edit per 10 regular edits in most namespaces). What does this trend say about you as an editor? What does it say about the type of admin you will be?

General comments

• See Wikiwoohoo's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
• The two previous RfAs are here (1) and here (2). I have also had an Editor review - here. Wikiwoohoo 23:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• I have also asked for a review by AMA members into my actions so far in the role of deputy co-ordinator there. The current discussion can be found here. Wikiwoohoo 15:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

• I have rewritten my answer to question 8 to make my stance on blocking clearer. Wikiwoohoo 18:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Looks reasonable to me. I was hestitant given that this is a third nomination, but then I saw the second was about a year ago. (Radiant) 23:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
2. BBC Support Everything checks out here. Great article-builder (especially to BBC-related articles), knows policy, is civil, participates in project namespace, and has a great deal of experience with images. Should be useful with those image backlogs. :-P Nishkid64 23:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
3. Support Dedicated, responsible and friendly. Would make a fine admin. Dfrg.msc 00:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
4. Support Everything checks out. Sharkface217 00:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
5. Support Meets all of my criteria- that is, he's a very good editor who has been around for a while and expresses a need for the tools. The little I've interacted with this user before, I have found him to be quite kind and intelligent. -- Kicking222 01:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
6. Support. Claims of not enough edits are extremely ridiculous. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 01:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
7. Weak Support while the answers are a little short and the time you have been here is a little on the low side, I think you will be a fine amin.__Seadog 02:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

   Err, he's been here since August 2005. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

   Wow...I must of read that wrong...I thought it was August 2006 my mistake.__Seadog 04:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

8. Support I have to say that I'm disappointed with the editors who have voted "oppose" because of a lack of edits; it's ridiculous, as the guy has over three thousand edits! And even though his answers to the mandatory (not optional) questions are short, they're sufficient. -- P.B. Pilhet / Talk 03:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
9. Support His edit count is fine, and although he could have given lengthier responses to the question given, I have no problem with his being concise. TSO1D 04:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
10. Weak Support per TSO1D. Meets my Standards. Lapses adequately explained-- we can benefit from his use of the tools when he can edit. I would caution the user to be cautious at first as there is not a lot of *fD or RCPatrolling history. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 05:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

    Increased support per AuburnPilot. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

11. good luck ;) --dario vet ^_^ (talk) 09:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
12. Support You're on air in 5...4...3...2...1...action! Booksworm Hello? Anyone home? Vote! Vote! 10:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
13. Support fantastic work at AMA: shows the user can handle backlogs! :P Computerjoe's talk 11:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
14. Support Three questions are generally enough for any candidate, and I'm assuming good faith he'll do fine. --Majorly 12:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
15. What the heck, I was promoted with little more than 3000 edits; and I am more than willing to take Computerjoe's word; which gives an ample indication of knowledge of policies and guidelines; and Nishkid has already vouched for his editing skills on BBC related articles. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
16. Support adminship isn't a big deal and given that he hasn't been in any conflicts so far, I doubt he would misuse the buttons. Addhoc 13:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
17. Support Terrific user, has the qualities to become an administrator. Hello32020 15:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

    Support But please don't indef block any IPs - yikes! :) Switch back to neutral. riana_dzasta 04:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

18. Support Terence Ong 18:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
19. Support The only thing that really matters is if I believe this user will abuse the tools or help Misplaced Pages by using them. I see zero chance for abuse, so I must believe Wikiwoohoo will help. -- AuburnPilot 18:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
20. Support I do not see anything to lead me to believe that Wikiwoohoo will be a negative impact as an administrator, and he meets my RFA|standards.-- danntm _C 18:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
21. Support I'll support based upon answers to the questions above - adminship is no big deal, right? (aeropagitica) 20:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

    Wrong! - crz crztalk 20:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

22. Support I have seen Wikiwoohoo around and he is an excellent contributor with a lot of experience. Very unlikely to abuse admin tools, absolutely no reason not to support. ~ Mike (Talk) 21:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
23. Support Good question answers, particularly with the non-itchy trigger finger on the block button. Just H 23:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
24. Support. I see no reason why not, and we need admins doing images. Even though I don't agree completely with all answers (e.g., Q10) I have no qualms about giving my support; after all, I think there is hardly anybody whom I agree with on such a wide range of topics. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 00:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
25. Weak Support per Dlohcierekim. I don't see any reason why this user would abuse the tools, my only reservations are because of potentially controversial XfD closures and blockings. James086 02:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
26. Support No problems here. Unlikely to abuse admin tools as well. --Siva1979 03:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
27. Support I see no reason why Wikiwoohoo would abuse the tools. He will make a great admin! -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 04:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
28. Support. Good contributor, and answers to the questions look fine. utcursch | talk 05:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
29. Support Agree...disruptive editors should be blocked always.--MONGO 05:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
30. Support. Sufficient experience for me. I hate it when candidates are picked apart by this many questions... Nobody's going to agree with you on everything. Maybe I'll support anyone who answers 10+ questions from now on! Grandmasterka 07:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
31. Support. questions answered well, Gnangarra 10:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
32. Support. There's some room for improvement, but who's perfect? I'm satisfied by the answers to the above questions. SuperMachine 18:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC) #Neutral. I'm leaning towards support, but I'd like to see the rest of the questions answered first. SuperMachine 15:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
33. Support. I'm unconvinced by the oppose comments. The nominee appears ready for and in need of the tools, and there's no reason for concern they won't be used for anything other than their intended purpose. Agent 86 20:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
34. Support ---*- u:Chazz/contact/t:
35. Support -- ßottesiηi 00:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
36. Suport -- I've read the votes that oppose, and am totally unimpressed by the reasons given - quibbles about the number of edits, and objections to an initial answers to a one of the hypothetical questions, above. If an editor has been around this long, and contributed this much, and hasn't caused problems, and wants to be an admin, then more power to him/her. John Broughton | Talk 01:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
37. Weak Support Looks good, although a little more experience wouldn't hurt, either. Answers to the questions could be better, and I strongly advise the candidate to thoroughly research precedent and policy before participating in areas he's not familiar with. Other than that though... strong candidate who will zap image backlogs with a vengeance. ;) —Lantoka 04:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
38. Support --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 04:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
39. Support Lectonar 20:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
40. Support, No expectation they will abuse the tools. ⇒ SWATJester Aim _Fire! 18:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
41. Support I've seen some of his edits, good work. Seems like a good candidate. --Strothra 19:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
42. Support He has helped me with many problems and has great ideas. Thank You and Happy Holidays | Cocoaguy (Talk) 02:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
43. Support (Changed from neutral below.) Frankly I don't get the accumulating opposes here. OK, not the strongest candidate that's ever attempted to run the RfA gauntlet, but come on folks! Reasonable (not great, but generally good) answers to 15 questions (and counting), good demeanor here on this RfA despite being put under pressure, over 3,000 edits (maybe not the ideal mix, and an extended break, but still enough experience to judge). I just find it odd to have so much opposition. Mop-worthy. —Doug Bell  02:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
44. Support per Doug Bell Won't abuse the tools. As for the overload of questions, I remember when RFA had only three questions, this is getting silly frankly. edit posted by User:Jaranda
45. Support Must 11:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
46. Support Would Will make an excellent admin. –The Great Llama 02:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
47. Support, was not going to vote, but this is mainly to balance out Anomo's ludicrous and unfair reason for opposing. Will make a good admin. Proto::► 11:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

    What about the other reasons for opposing, do you believe they are invalid as well? Seems to me that with your "was not going to vote, but this is mainly to balance out" statement you should have voted neutral. Dionyseus 20:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

    First, this is a discussion, not a vote. Second, it is perfectly reasonable to register disagreement with the rationale of another's position in the discussion by registering your opposite position. This makes Proto's position and argument clear for the closing bureaucrat to evaluate. The action here doesn't need to be explained any further than it has been. —Doug Bell  21:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

48. Support Per all above. The Mirror of the Sea 01:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
49. Moderate support per John Broughton and Auburn and inasmuch as I think WWH's to be possessed of sufficient judgment to know whereof he is not well acquainted and where, in view of such non-conversance, he ought not perhaps to act prior to his gaining further observational experience, such that he should neither abuse nor misuse (even avolitionally) the tools, and thus that I can say with a reasonable amount of certainty that that the net effect on the project of his becoming an admin should be positive. Joe 17:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
50. Support Mahewa 17:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
51. Support -- Seems to have come a long way since the past nominations. Also, I'm disappointed in some particularly ridiculous oppose votes (too many similar usernames?) but encouraged by the nominee's calm and reasonable responses to such criticism. -- Renesis (talk) 19:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Just not enough edits. ... aa:talk 00:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

   For those of you who insist on my putting an exact number of edits on this oppose, please have a look at where it was already answered. I hope that is clear enough. ... aa:talk 08:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

   OK, I'll bite. How many edits would be enough? —Doug Bell  01:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

   One difference is that, in addition to the total number of edits, most of Wikiwoohoo's edits are from long ago. —Centrx→talk • 03:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

   Well, almost 2000 edits are in the last 6 months. But the point of the question is that if you're going to oppose based only on edit count, then I think when the edit count is clearly above where most people are not going to have a concern with it then you should provide more explanation. Particularly now that two other oppose positions are citing this one as their reason to oppose. These two things together make it so that I would like to hear the explanation from the opposers. —Doug Bell  08:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

   I agree - 3000 edits is hardly so few edits that we cannot judge whether he'd do a good job or not. I can't see any other reason why edit count would be a problem. riana_dzasta 08:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

   Edit count shouldn't be a problem. There have been many administrators made with fewer edits than this. --Majorly 12:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

2. Oppose I disagree with aa's rationale, but his answers are awfully short. KazakhPol 00:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose as per aa. --SonicChao 01:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

   OK, I'll bite. How many edits would be enough? —Doug Bell  01:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

4. Oppose as per aa. Michael 01:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

   Just a few days ago, we voted Renesis13 to adminship and he only had ~2000 edits. What's with all the oppose votes for a person with 3,000+ edits? Nishkid64 02:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

   Nish, I think they're just looking for a reason to oppose. Maybe some admins want to keep their club exclusive? Sharkface217 02:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

   Please don't turn into a flame war please don't turn into a flame war -Amarkov <;;;sup>blah_edits 02:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

   Actually, I used Occam's Razor and figured out the more likely theory: They were too lazy to see for themselves how many edits Wikiwoohoo had, so they just agreed. Nevermind, don't want this to blow into a flame war. Sharkface217 02:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

   OK, I'll bite. How many edits would be enough? —Doug Bell  03:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

5. Oppose. IPs who use personal attacks should be indef-blocked? The answer to 12 is questionable, and 9 seems too much like vote-counting over arguments, but that really is the decision maker. You still seem a bit too eager to block people who commit personal attacks, and that question 9 answer is a problem. Also per below. -Amarkov _edits 21:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

   I have rewritten my answer to question 8 regarding blocking IPs to make my point clearer. Sorry if it made you think I would be throwing indefinite blocks at any IPs that were doing something wrong, that would be the last thing I would want to do. It is also hypothetical, I doubt I would ever impose an indefinite block as an administrator. Wikiwoohoo 16:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

6. Strong Oppose. Ignoring pre-long-break contributions, only 2000 recent edits. (Ignoring old contribs makes sense since so much new policy was changed/created since then!). Insufficient projectspace experience suggest lack of familiarity with policy. Nominee also uploaded Image:BBC Matthew Amroliwala.jpg yesterday in violation of the first fairuse criterion. And of course the indef-block IP's business is decidedly not good. - crz crztalk 17:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

   I can assure you that I am familiar with Misplaced Pages policy, though as I have said in my message on your talkpage, the fair use issue with images is a mistake by myself. I should have made it clear that such fair use images of presenters are to only be used until a free use image becomes available. The indefinite blocking suggestion was also purely a suggestion for a hypothetical situation. I cannot see myself imposing an indefinite block on any IP. Wikiwoohoo 17:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

   It might be helpful if you can elaborate as to your understanding of why indef blocking an anon would be a bad idea. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 13:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

   Your understanding of fair use in that case is still wrong then. The unavailability of a free image now makes no difference, No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information ... However, if the subject of the photograph still exists, a freely-licensed photograph could be taken.. The replaceable fair use criteria is such that if an image can be taken then it is unsuitable for use. Not to mention the tag you've put on the image for a tv screen shot says quite clearly "for identification and critical commentary on the station ID or program and its contents", whereas you are using to show the presenter in question. Also see the counterexamples - Here are a few examples of uses that would almost certainly not be acceptable as fair use: ... 8. An image of a living person that merely shows what they look like. --pgk 13:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

   The issue isn't as black and white as you make it out to be, I'm afraid. I've seen different admins take different stances on how stricly FUC#1 should be applied. It's an item of hot dispute, and I don't find any fault on the part of Wikiwoohoo here. —Lantoka 03:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

   The issue is pretty black and white, if you are saying that this use doesn't understand it and rather than discuss with those actively doing this will just make an assumption, then I should run to oppose now. That aside, there is still the totally black and white issue of being tagged totally inappropriately, the image is being used to show the person not "for identification and critical commentary on the station ID or program and its contents" as it has been tagged. --pgk 07:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

7. Oppose Per answer to question number eight and nine. Indefinitely blocking ips. Ips can't be blocked indefinitly unless they are proxies unless I'm mistaken. There are more reasons for permanent blocks than ip vandals.--John Lake 20:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

   I was referring to indefinitely blocking IPs hypothetically. I do not think I would ever block anyone indefinitely. I would however use a sliding scale beginning with the shortest duration. Wikiwoohoo 20:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

   You don't think there is anyone so disruptive that they should be banned? That's not the reason why IPs are not blocked indefinitely. Also, by sliding scale do you mean you are going to start at some low block length for blatant vandalism and then slowly inch it up after continued vandalism? —Centrx→talk • 21:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

   I was thinking that the sliding scale could relate to the level of vandalism committed. I know I have worried some users by commenting on imposing indefinite blocks but in some cases that really is the best course of action. Otherwise I would exercise caution in who I would block. Wikiwoohoo 21:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

   No one is worried about you imposing indefinite blocks on people, but they are worried about your lack of understanding of basic policy and apparent lack of simple research to find out the reasons for that policy, even in explicit questions related to it: a disruptive person may be banned indefinitely, but IPs are not blocked indefinitely because they are re-assigned to different people, whether tomorrow or next year; an indefinitely blocked IP is an IP that innocent people will not be able to edit through, and which another admin will need to take time to investigate and unblock. —Centrx→talk • 23:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

   Oppose as above, copyright issues. Putting aside the issue of replaceable fair use the image is still tagged incorrectly, it is being used to illustrate the person not the program in question. I wouldn't be too worried about someone making a mistake or not understanding image issues fully (it seems to be one of those areas many find complex), what I am concerned about is representing (and I guess then truly believing) that your understanding is good, when clearly it isn't. Even something as simple as reading the generic tag attached has plain wording to say it is being used incorrectly. --pgk 07:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC) Switch to Neutral, issue with images appears to have been moved forward, it is important that admins are open to criticism and reasonable response to that, so withdrawing my opposition to the stance I'd have taken otherwise. --pgk 19:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

8. Oppose. This seems like a civil and helpful editor, but oddly ignorant of many policy issues. I'm afraid they might take misinformed administrative actions. Recommend getting more experience in project space and with policy issues, and try again in the future. --Ars Scriptor 18:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

   I can assure you know that I would not take any administrative action lightly, and would think my actions through very carefully before committing to anything. Also, the only policy issue I have made an actual mistake with is the fair use policy towards images of living people. My ideas on blocking were just a thought, a hypothetical answer to a hypothetical question. Wikiwoohoo 18:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

9. Oppose, does good work with image tagging, but not very many edits overall, and plus I would like to know why lied in the opening statement of his self-nomination. — CharlotteWebb 21:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

   What did I say that you think I lied about? Wikiwoohoo 21:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

   Above, you said: "I have been active on Misplaced Pages since August 2005". In early August 2005, you claimed to have been active much earlier than that: "it's been some time since I last used Misplaced Pages (under a different name)" . So at least one of these statements is deceptive. — CharlotteWebb 21:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

   Neither of these statements are deceptive. I am talking about my account now; Wikiwoohoo, which has been active since August 2005. In my first RfA, there was a great deal of investigating into my previous account, of which I cannot remember the username or password. At the time, Durin spent a great deal of time searching the lists of users to try to find a username that might match the sketchy points I could remember about it but to no avail. I did not mention any of this as I gave up trying to remember the old account, besides, all the communication regarding that can be found within my first RfA, linked to from here. I can assure you that I have not lied. Sorry for any confusion caused. Wikiwoohoo 22:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

   Would you be willing to change your statement to reflect the time that you actually began editing? How many active were you on the old account (rough number of edits)? And how does one forget a password? — CharlotteWebb 22:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

   And your username too? That's too much for me to believe, sorry. — CharlotteWebb 22:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

   If you feel it would clarify things then that's not a problem. I do not know what my rough number of edits were in my old account; it is very easy to forget a password. Many people do it. When you have no need to remember something like that then over a period of time with plenty of other work to do and many different things to remember, it is quite easy. To solve that problem with this account, I have had my username and password on a post-it note since I created it. Wikiwoohoo 22:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

   So if you don't remember the name of the name or password of the old account, or what time you were active on that account, or for how long, or the number of (or names of any) pages you might have edited... so I'm going to assume that you don't remember if you were ever blocked, put on probation, banned, etc. either. But you remembered Kelly Martin, and you remembered you wanted to nominate somebody's RFA. My head hurts. — CharlotteWebb 22:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

   I'm sorry to have to say this but you are confusing yourself unnecessarily with this. I did not remember Kelly Martin, I discovered her quite by chance. I also did not remember that I wanted to make somebody an admin, I was asking to find out where the RfA page was exactly. I think your accusation of lying was very much much extreme and unfounded, but if it was my fault by not clarifying the situation that made you feel that way then I can only apologise. Wikiwoohoo 18:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

   I'm sorry, but I fail to see the significance of the question or the need for an accusation of lying. A user can make a fresh start with a new ID. One can leave the old behind. Some of us have multi ID's. The only problem I can see would be if the user has multi accounts with admin tools. I could not tell you what my current edit count is without looking it up, let alone my alternate user, my ip's edits before I got a user acct, or my ip at work. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

   Re-read the above. Wikiwoohoo gave count for id seeking adminship. Admits to other ID. If he were hiding something, could just not mention other id. I don't see a problem. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

10. Oppose Lack of wiki-space edits suggests unfamiliarity with wiki-process. Xoloz 05:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
11. Oppose partly per Crazy, partly per blocking concerns and partly experience. The edit count and spread does not impress me and I fear Wikiwoohoo may not have enough experience to be sufficiently familiar with policy (and just for the record, I opposed Renesis13 for the same reason). Also, I must say that I find the responses to Charlotte regarding the forgotten username rather bizarre and quite concerning. Sarah Ewart 15:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

    I would not have thought my answers to the questions put by CharlotteWebb were either bizarre or concerning, I was simply telling the truth. Sorry if this made you think otherwise. Wikiwoohoo 18:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

    I find it bizarre that you could forget roughly how long you used the account for, roughly how many edits you made under it (1 or 10,000?), roughly when you used it, all of the pages you may have edited (did you edit the BBC pages?) and not even be able to remember enough details of the username for Durin to narrow it down in the log. And I find it extremely concerning: if you could forget all this, what else will you forget as an administrator? There's an awful lot of damage you could inadvertently do just by "forgetting" important details. I'm sorry, but I'm quite resolute in my oppose. Just for the record, if you had abandoned the account for privacy reasons or to make a new start, I would have considered that a perfectly acceptable response. In fact, I defended Future Perfect's decision not to reveal his previous username during his RfA because it was his real name. Sarah Ewart 19:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

    The only reason why I forgot my username and password was that I had not used them or had reason to for a while and so they went to the back of my mind. This would not be the case with being an administrator and I find that suggestion quite unfair. I could only forget Misplaced Pages related details by being away for another large amount of time, which I do not see happening at present. You are welcome to oppose me however, I welcome everyone's feedback on my actions and my suitability as an admin. Wikiwoohoo 19:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

    Okay, I appreciate you taking the time to reply to me, but unfortunately your replies only leave me increasingly dissatisfied. I can understand forgetting some details and I can understand forgetting specifics, but I cannot understand forgetting everything even in the most general terms. I guess, for me, the matter is black and white: we either have an admin candidate who has an unbelievably appalling memory or we have an admin candidate who is deceptive. And neither are qualities I find acceptable in a candidate. I know that sounds mean and I really don't intend it to, but I feel I have to be honest. Regardless of which way your RfA goes, I wish you well for the future. Thanks, Sarah Ewart 20:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

    You are very welcome to your own opinions. Thank you for taking the time to vote and make your concerns heard. Wikiwoohoo 21:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

    Oppose Been sitting on the fence on this one for some time but I'm now ready to vote. The answers to the questions are unimpressive. The whole confusion over indef blocking vs. not indef blocking seems to be a bit of muddled thinking about or understanding of policy. Also, I think I agree with Sarah Ewart. The accusation of lying made by CharlotteWeb was perhaps a bit extreme but as Sarah points out the failure to remember any details about the previous username are also a bit bizarre. Surely, Wikiwoohoo must have SOME recollection of what he did with the "lost username". What articles were edited, about how many edits, approximately when was the account created and approximately when the last edit was. How can you remember that you had a username but not any of the details? What brought you to Misplaced Pages in the first place? No recollection of this experience at all? It's a bit incredulous and leaves one with a lurking sense of disingenuousness. (yuh, it's a fancy word for "sort of lying" or at least "not telling the whole truth"). --Richard 19:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

    It may seem bizarre but yes, I do not remember my old username or password, other than that the username had my first name in it. Looking back, and hazarding several guesses, the account was probably last used around two years ago from now; two years ago I was working at ITN so it is possible my edits are based on related articles to the organisation. All usernames checked with my first name in did not seem to be anything that would have been me. Apart from that, I can't help you I'm afraid. Wikiwoohoo 19:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

    OK, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on the old username question and go back to "sitting on the fence". --Richard 22:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

12. Oppose The answer to question 14 disturbs me. You repeat that IP's should be blocked indefinitely. That does not show a basic understanding of policy. --Dakota 07:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

    I will rewrite my answer to question 14 to clarify what I mean. Please read my answer to question 8 to see my stance on blocking; I am no longer in favour of IPs being indefinitely blocked having heard reasons why this would be an incorrect course of action regarding IPs. Users though are a different matter and if found to have used their account for solely malicious intent, they should be blocked. Wikiwoohoo 11:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

13. Inexperience, per Xoloz. Not now, sorry. - Mailer Diablo 12:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
14. Oppose Candidate does not have a strong grasp of the policies and the candidate's resposes to the oppose votes only made this clearer. I particularly have an issue with the candidate's claim that he thinks he would not indefinitely block anyone. We don't need soft administrators, an administrator should be capable of indefinately blocking a user when it is necessary. Dionyseus 20:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

    Well I can't say for sure as to whether I would ever be the one who indefinitely blocks anyone; if the situation required it then I would though. Wikiwoohoo 18:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

15. Oppose at this time, per inexperience. There are a lot of interesting things you can delve into without admin tools and which you should explore. —Centrx→talk • 22:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
16. Oppose due to inexperience/inability to communicate experience adequately. I'm not sure which it is, but I'm not comfortable enabling this person with additional tools until they can answer the concerns outlined above. -- nae'blis 05:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
17. Oppose Too many admins already have corny names like Wikiwoo, Wikithis, MyWikiBiz (well not this exact name), etc. The candidate should file a request to rename their name. Anomo 08:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

    Comment Of course everyone has the right to their own opinion. However, it seems to me that a "corny name" is a weak reason to oppose an RFA. Perhaps you have other reasons for opposing this RFA that you didn't take the opportunity to mention?--Richard 07:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

    I like my username but won't rule out changing it in the future if I get bored of it. Thank you for giving your opinion though. Wikiwoohoo 18:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

18. Oppose, per concerns by Crz and Xolox. I am just not comfortable with the user having the tools at this time. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 17:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
19. Oppose, I oppose because our paths have not crossed and I am unable to speak from firsthand knowledge. However, a wikipedian with barely 3500 edits to be making his 3rd RfA is a red flag. I am not sure how well you appreciate the responsibility you covet. Furthermore, all your mainspace experience seems related to the BBC. I would like to see more diversity. TonyTheTiger 21:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

    I will diversify my edit topics as time goes on; my present target is getting BBC related articles to good article or featured article status. Consider this my first serious RfA, my previous two were much too early, as I mentioned in my paragraph at the top about my nomination. Wikiwoohoo 18:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

    I would like to see the diversity before I support your adminship. TonyTheTiger 19:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

20. Oppose per above comments. teh tennisman 13:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

The answers to the standard questions weren't really very good, so Neutral pending replies to mine. (Maybe only half a neutral.) On another note, I've never heard of an edit count standard higher than 3000. -Amarkov _edits 01:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC) (Changed to oppose per answers)

Neutral pending answers. —Doug Bell  01:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)Change to support. —Doug Bell  02:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

1. Neutral per Doug. Give me some good answers and I'll give you a shot. --Daniel Olsen 05:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
2. Neutral pending answers. Switched to support. Indef blocking IPs still doesn't sit well with me. I'm going to sit on the fence with this one. riana_dzasta 04:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
3. Neutral per concerns about his blocking ideas. First he talked about indef blocking IPs, then says, "I do not think I would ever block anyone indefinitely." There are many reasons to block usernames indefinitely; this is a basic point of blocking policy which I feel should be fully understood before giving someone admin tools. I do however want to say that he has contributed much to Misplaced Pages, is civil, and is unlikely to abuse admin tools purposely, should he receive them. --Fang Aili 21:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

   With regards to my ideas on blocking IPS, I have suggested that continued personal attacks on an editor by an anonymous IP could be considered to be worthy of an indefinite block. However, I would always be very cautious of imposing any block of any duration longer than 24 hours. As I said, I doubt I would ever impose an indefinite block, at least I hope I would never need to. If my answers to the questions are not clear, then I apologise. I will clarify them if that is wanted. Sorry for any confusion. Wikiwoohoo 23:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

   If you are involved with any blocking you are likely to encounter user accounts that need to be blocked indefinitely. —Centrx→talk • 22:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

   In cases that did require an indefinite block, I would impose one. I would not go throwing them around at any user though which is possibly what some people were worried about. Sorry if there was any confusion. Wikiwoohoo 22:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

   Some of the answers to questions worries me. Not at the moment, may support later. - Mailer Diablo 10:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

4. Suggesting indefinitely blocking IPs is pretty disconcerting. I bet Wikiwoohoo will be pretty careful about it from now on, and it's not as though we don't have a mechanism to reverse blocks. But the issue is not only whether he'll permablock IPs, but that he apparently didn't understand why not to do so until this RfA. Neutral.--Kchase T 18:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
5. Neutral Probably would make a good admin although the "indef block" discussion is still troublesome. I'm going to study this RFA a while longer before committing. --Richard 22:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
6. Neutral—Not a clean enough basis for support at this time. Williamborg (Bill) 05:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Stemonitis

Final (52/2/2) Ended 13:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Stemonitis (talk · contribs) – Stemonitis has been a solid and constructive user for two years. He has contributed mainly to geographical and biological articles, with a rather impressive list of about 180 articles started by him. Also, he's not averse from work such as stub sorting and categorizing, and has touched upon a wide variety of processes, as opposed to being a regular poster on any single one. Such a diverse user is definitely a good candidate for adminship. (Radiant) 16:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept. --Stemonitis 12:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: On several occasions in my editing career to date, I have found it slightly frustrating that I have had to call in an admin to do my bidding. Examples include things like speedy deletions, blocking persistent vandals, deleting pages (that I) created in error, and even once protecting and later unprotecting my user page. All these activities cost the admin in question time, and are an extra load on the servers, since each involves at least one extra edit, and many extra page views. That's not to say that that's all I would do. I already often perform the menial or repetitive tasks that garner little praise, and I would expect that tendency to expand into the sphere of adminship. Depending on where the backlogs are, I will address different needs. Currently, there seems to be a backlog of proposed deletions, but all that could change before this RfA is over. --Stemonitis 12:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

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

A: The bulk of my writing has dealt with carcinology and geography (mostly mountains). I brought crustacean up to good article standard, and effectively wrote Carcinus maenas, which is also listed as a good article. Similarly, edible crab was unreferenced and written in a parochial, non-encyclopaedic style before I started work on it; it is still under-referenced and incomplete, but vastly better. I believe that there is a balance to be found between depth of coverage and breadth. The many short articles about significant taxa that I (and others) have started are an important addition to the encyclopaedia; featured content is not the be all and end all. I couldn't justify to myself the effort of writing 48 kB about just one species, summit or whatever when there are countless thousands that aren't even mentioned. I also have a suspicion that a lot of readers stop after the first paragraph or so anyway. --Stemonitis 12:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

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

A: I have been involved in a few disputes, mostly over a couple of small but contentious topics. The main cause of acrimony has been the question of the use of accented letters, ligatures and other characters that are considered by many not to belong to the "English alphabet". It seems unlikely that a good consensus will ever be reached on the issue, so all sides, myself included, have adopted a live-and-let-live policy, whereby neither the pro-diacritics users nor the anti-diacritics editors move articles created by the other side to a title that the creators would disaprove of. Skirmishes are rare now, and die down quickly with the restoration of the status quo. We are left with the inconsistency of having Vossstrasse (not "Voßstraße") but Wilhelmstraße (not "Wilhelmstrasse"), but it means that everybody involved has the time and the inclination to work on other things rather than getting bogged down in ill will. I was also involved in an argument about listing all Swiss municipalities via a template in a single large category. Having tried and failed to convince one user of my point, I eventually walked away from the discussion. Sometimes you just have to bite your tongue and allow things to be done "wrongly". I've also had a few misguided comments about category indexing, but in each case a calm explanation of my actions was enough. Basically, discussion and calmness seem to be the best approaches. --Stemonitis 12:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

General comments

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

Discussion

Support

1. Nominate and support. (Radiant) 16:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
2. Support Lycaon 11:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
3. Support per Radiant! Doesn't indicate a strong need for the tools, but trusted and prolific editors can be trusted with tools that are no big deal. —Doug Bell  12:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
4. --dario vet ^_^ (talk) 13:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
5. Support Seems like a good candidate for the mop. (aeropagitica) 13:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
6. Support. Looks like a good user, who will use the tools wisely. NauticaShades 13:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC
7. Support per nom__Seadog 14:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

   Weak support. Edit count isn't incredible outside of the mainspace, but it's kinda hard to ignore 28,000 edits. -Amarkov _edits 15:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC) (Changed to neutral, see below)

8. Support per nom --Tone 15:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
9. Support looks good to me.-- danntm _C 17:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
10. Support Despite lack of participation in AfD's and such, this user definitely demonstrates that he/she has the experience and knowledge to handle admin tools. Nishkid64 17:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
11. Support, looks good. Terence Ong 18:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
12. Support, looks like a highly productive editor who would do well with the admin tools. shotwell 18:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
13. Weak support per Amarkov. Addhoc 18:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
14. Support I see no problems here. A good user. --Siva1979 18:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
15. Support. Nice work so far. Would also like to see him involved outside the scope of the main space. Lincher 19:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
16. Support. See no probs in this user getting the mop. Great work so far. ><RichardΩ612 20:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
17. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 20:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
18. By all means...Lectonar 21:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
19. Support. Go for it! Wikiwoohoo 21:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
20. Clear and present support. What were Radiant's words? "Solid and constructive user". Precisely. Grutness...wha? 23:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
21. support. Thanks for pointing this one out, Radiant. ... aa:talk 00:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC) (note to users who bitch at me about my votes: this is how you answer question #1)
22. Support He deserves the mop. Sharkface217 00:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
23. Support per nom. Michael 01:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
24. Support per nomination and questions. This user sounds good, especially when it comes to civility which would be neccessary when you get to block people. James086 06:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
25. Support - 180 article creations is impressive, and with almost two years of heavy experience I see no reson why Stemonitis should not be an admin --T-rex 06:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
26. Support - per nom. --Phenz 08:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
27. Support I know how you feel, having to go and bother an Admin to do your bidding, and then they may not do what you asked them to do after fighting the vandal for hours on end. Good Luck! Booksworm Hello? Anyone home? Vote! Vote! 10:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

    Support Madhyako Pradesh lo 12:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

    Sock of banned user. `'mikkanarxi 17:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

28. --Rudjek 12:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
29. Support despite essentially insufficient project-space participation. I am certain that there will be little abuse of the tools. - crz crztalk 18:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
30. Support. Doesn't look like stemonitis to me! NikoSilver 19:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
31. Support. Great edit count (no, I do not have editcountitis), excellent writer of articles, and lots of experience. —The Great Llama 20:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
32. Support. Steady ... Agathoclea 23:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
33. Support. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 00:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

    Support sounds very good. James086 02:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

    You already voted above. ;) —Lantoka 03:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

34. Support per nom. Acs4b 04:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
35. Support, good user. Kusma (討論) 07:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
36. Support —Quarl 2006-12-04 09:01Z
37. Support Good, good user. ← ANAS 16:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
38. Support would make a good admin. --SonicChao 22:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
39. Support--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 04:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
40. Support. I know it's a cliché but I tought he already was one. - Darwinek 23:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
41. Support a good candidate --Steve _(Slf67) 04:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
42. Of course. Lupo 10:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
43. Support -- ßottesiηi 16:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
44. Support. It'd be nice if Stemonitis would pin down at least one backlog requiring the tools that (s)he'd be willing to pitch in at consistently, but seems to be a reliable editor and unlikely to abuse the mop and bucket. GeeJo ⁄_(c) • 18:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
45. Support.Must 11:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
46. Support, seems likely to make good use of the tools (and unlikely to misuse same). Alai 15:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
47. Support Excellent editor, I trust he will not abuse the tools. Dionyseus 21:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
48. Support- XfDs are only a small part of adminship. Jorcoga 06:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
49. Support - Nice long history with WP, plenty of edits, seems like a valuable editor. Why not give em a mop? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
50. Support Sarah Ewart 15:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
51. Support Good guy. The Mirror of the Sea 01:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
52. Support  Nileena joseph  03:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - Simply not enough participation in XfD. --Elaragirl 00:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose- Seems to want to use adminship for the use of evil. I do not trust this person at all with adminship, I think that if this person became an admin, Misplaced Pages would be destroyed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Captaindansplashback (talk • contribs).

Comment account has less than 50 edits, so probably should be discounted. Addhoc 17:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Sorry, but I'm going to have to change my !vote to neutral. I have the same concerns as before, but this shows sporadic deletion discussion, at best. No XfD for the past 5 months? -Amarkov _edits 21:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

   His last AfD was on 11 November 2006. See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Fillgraderstiege. Nishkid64 14:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

   Okay, so there's that one, and another I found in August. I'm still seeing a lot less than I like. -Amarkov _edits 15:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

2. neutral Were there to be more AfD work, I'd be happy to vote support. ⇒ SWATJester Aim _Fire! 18:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Heligoland

Final (32/18/5) Withdrawn by candidate 21:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Heligoland (talk · contribs) – Hi, I've been around Misplaced Pages for around 18 months or so and humbly offer myself as a prospective candidate from adminship. I was shocked to notice the huge backlog at WP:AIV today and believe we need a few more admins from Britain and Australia to help look after Misplaced Pages when much of America is sleeping or working. I live in Scotland and honestly believe I can help Misplaced Pages in the role of an administrator. I try to split my time here between various tasks, I do build articles, and I'm proud of Alliance Boots, Professional Diving, Alan Titchmarsh and the British Rail Portal, all of which I've either created or done serious work on. I also add sound files and try to find and add Creative Commons or GFDL licenced photographs from Flickr for my various projects. I'm most active looking for and repairing vandalism, and whilst I do realize many editors will likely be put off by this, I find articles needing a little attention or tagged for deletion that can be saved this way, and I've done so, also adding infoboxes to articles, correcting Wikilinks, making sure photographs display correctly, that sort of thing. I run an IRC Bot for User:Eagle 101 - I'm normally the backup and I believe there is talk of porting the bot over to Commons too, checking for vandalism and spam being added to the Commons site. The bot looks for links added to articles and is useful in spotting spam or unnecessary links, something I also link tidying up or removing. I've not yet written a Featured Article and I perhaps lack the confidence to nominate a couple of my articles for review as I'm not entirely sure my writing is good enough for FA status. I would like to think I am civil, certainly I've never been warned or had WP:CIVIL posted in response to anything I do, I do make the occasional mistake, but I like to think that when people tell me I've made a mistake, I'm responsible enough to accept what I've done, apologize, take on-board what has been said and move on. I would also like to think I'm fair and flexible when dealing with suspected vandals and suspected link spammers, directing them to the relevant policies if necessary and trying to explain to them calmly and politely why I've performed an action, and like being accountable for my actions. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 15:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I withdraw, many thanks to those who supported my RfA at this time. Your trust is much appreciated but I doubt this RfA is likely to reach a consensus especially as the usual Oppose pile on is now in full flow. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 21:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: I anticipate dealing with the following :-

1. Image backlogs : There are a lot of images that need deletion and have been waiting for a considerable period, many have totally incorrect tags and there are so many images that have never been used.
2. I also envisage spending a great deal of time at WP:AIV - It's on my watchlist at present and it does fill up, it is often quite full with backlogs before all of America and Canada comes online, so I would like to help deal with the backlogs there. I'm not a frequent visitor to WP:AIV, I usually call on an admin through IRC as it's often a lot quicker and prevents edit conflicts, as anyone who frequently visits AIV will know, the more vandals there are, the less you can report.
3. And of course, dealing with those who ruin all of our hard work, sadly, it's quite difficult to find an admin on IRC or at WP:AIV during the daytime here and this does allow a lot of vandalism to go much further than it really should.

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

A: I'm particularly proud of Professional Diving - it was an article I spent a great deal of time on around Christmas and with Uni work (I've now left, hence all the extra time I know have) it took me quite a while to finish it, during which I uploaded several good quality photographs from the US Navy site. I'm also happy with Alliance Boots, indeed, I tracked down a couple of suitable Creative Commons licensed photographs for that article too from Flickr which saved me a trip to my local Boots with digital camera in tow. I started Signal Tower Museum and took a couple of photographs for that too, and I've rewritten the biogs of a couple of famous British TV hosts, Alan Titchmarsh and Tony Robinson. I try to find either a stub that I can expand or a untidy article needing a few hours of work sort of once a week to once a fortnight, just to keep my writing skills rust free, so to speak.

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

A: I'm not prone to getting stressed, thankfully, I've never lost my temper with another Wikipedian and I don't feel I've ever been uncivil towards another editor. There have been the occasional conflict over something I've deleted or added and another editor thinks it does or doesn't belong on the page, and rather than get into a conflict, I prefer to explain in as detailed a way as possible my reasoning behind my decision. I really don't like pushing my point across regardless and I tend to stay away from editing contentious issues, preferring to edit out of the way articles that could do with a little work rather than big, important articles really likely to upset someone no matter what you do. Throughout vandal patrolling and removing spam, I've frequently come across users who are unhappy about what I've done, but again, accounting for my actions, apologising if wrong and helping with articles is my way of countering any mounting conflict.

Completely optional question by Addhoc

4. Have you been involved any form of dispute resolution?

A: Yes, nothing major that involved RfC or ArbCom, just trying to find ways to keep editors I've reverted happy, usually over external links or vandalism, suggesting compromises such as the use of the Open Directory Project rather than a large number of external links. Disputes are something I do try to avoid as they are a distraction from writing Misplaced Pages, and I much prefer sitting down and being able to write/rewrite an article over a day not having to worry about Edit Conflicts and potential disputes. I've tried to help with dispute resolution on a couple of articles, nothing huge and probably of no importance, but I did try to offer a suggestion for the Gay Nigger Association of America AfD, a compromise for Singapore Changi Airport and tried to offer some thoughts in the recent Esperanza MfD debate. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 22:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

General comments

• See Heligoland's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
• Edit Count : ~5,200 | Edit Count
• Edit Summaries : 100% | Edit Summary Usage
• E-Mail Address : Yes - Checked frequently
• User Page : Yes.
• Signature : Meets WP:SIG guidelines in that it's suitable for those with visual impairments
• Blocked : Nope | Arbitration : Nope

Discussion

• I think You should have mentioned, that You have been active for 2 months (since October 2006). feydey 18:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Also a bit in July and December 2005, and January 2006. --Majorly 18:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought I had mentioned that, my apologies for not. I intended to mention that I have been studying for a degree in Chemistry and as such my contributions over the past 18 months have been a little sparse and why it has taken me almost a year to complete the major re-write of Professional Diving. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 18:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• You say you run an IRC Bot for User:Eagle 101. Can I ask what bot this is? --SonicChao 19:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

  It's the SpamBot that runs in irc://irc.freenode.net/wikipedia-spam - It makes no edits to Misplaced Pages, it's very similar to pgkbot, except it locates links being added in realtime, allowing the users in the channel the ability to click on both the link and the diff. It's especially useful in spotting people adding lots of links to the site, example.com being added to articles, or editors trying to use an image hosted off Misplaced Pages. It's also fairly useful in spotting vandalism where people add links to websites, change existing links, and people creating attack / vanity pages where they link to images on Photobucket, that type of thing. I had nothing to do with the programming of it, I just run the bot. It's a very useful resource and I'm happy to help host it. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 21:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• It seems there is some confusion about the length of time I've been here on Misplaced Pages and how active I've been, so I'd just like to clarify for all those who seem to think I've only been about for a couple of months. That's simply not correct, I've been a registered user of Misplaced Pages since July 2005, and have edited on and off since then, using Misplaced Pages as a reference tool, making a number of edits along the way, both logged in, and a fair amount of anonymous edits before I started regularly editing at the beginning of October under my account.

If anybody is concerned about any perceived lack of experience, why not ask additional questions before commenting here Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 21:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. Yey I'm first! Excellent vandal fighter, been here long enough, and answers tell me he knows what he wants to do, and what adminship is all about. Good luck! --Majorly 17:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
2. Support - Been here a while and a great vandal fighter. Good answers to the questions. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
3. Support - Favorable impression from AfD discussions, thought he was one. --Groggy Dice T|C 17:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
4. Support excellent vandal fighter, courteous and patient. I'll miss the dry wit of your edit summaries after you recieve the rollback button. Accurizer 17:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
5. Support Looks good. Grab a spare mop and start swabbing the decks! (aeropagitica) 18:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
6. Support Time making major contributions (2 months) has been fairly short, but considering the account has been open almost 2 years, I think makes this an exception. User's contributions are good and has always stood out as being level-headed when I've seen him/her around. -- Renesis (talk) 18:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
7. Support - I won't claim I "thought he already was an admin," but I have thought for awhile he would and should be one soon, and now here we are. Strong record, no concerns. Newyorkbrad 18:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
8. Support Per Renesis13. Rettetast 18:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
9. Support for the outstanding overall impression left by his contributions. Sandstein 18:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
10. Support. Experienced; good attitude. Mopworthy. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

    Support, lots of experience, high edit count, AFD, and pretty much everything else! —The Great Llama 21:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

    Hi llama. Am I missing something? ~2700 is really not a high edit count. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 13:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

    Sorry, I thought this was someone else's RfA. The names sound similar to me. For this, I've !voted neutral. —The Great Llama 21:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

11. Good user. We definitely need more people clearing out backlogs. --Slowking Man 22:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
12. Support. Excellent, well articulated nomination, instills confidence as to qualifications. Agent 86 23:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
13. Support Great work, will make a fine admin.--Húsönd 00:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
14. Support Definitely a great Wikipedian, and courteous vandal fighter. In fact, I though he was an admin already. –- kungming·2 01:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
15. Support Good work, I have faith candidate will make a good admin.-- danntm _C 01:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
16. Support A very capable editor. --Siva1979 04:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
17. Support. A spotless record of doing great work for our encyclopedia. Will do the tools proud. —Lantoka 04:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
18. Support Although you're relatively green, Misplaced Pages needs Admins and more meet for the grinder! You are qualified to be an admin in every way except your time on here. But I can overlook that due to the quality of your work. Sharkface217 04:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
19. Support - relatively new, but has gained much experience during that time and can be trusted with the tools. Warofdreams talk 11:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
20. --dario vet ^_^ (talk) 13:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
21. Support Terence Ong 18:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
22. Strong support. Great user. --SonicChao 19:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
23. Support. This user shows dedication to Misplaced Pages, and therefore won't abuse the tools. That's my only criterion, mainly because - and I don't mean to bruise people's egos here - It's not exactly difficult to be an admin. All that's really needed are basic personal skills, and the ability to read. If you don't understand or know how to do some admin action, there's WP:AHTG. We're not certifying someone to fly an airplane or perform heart surgery on our encyclopedia - we're giving them a few extra buttons. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 20:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
24. Support per RyanGerbil and Sharkface. User is awfully new, but qualified. Becoming an administrator is no big deal, while not a blanket to let anyone become an admin, applies very well here. -Patstuart 22:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
25. Support - looks fine to me. Deb 14:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
26. Support User seems dedicated, and is qualified to become an adminstrator. Hello32020 21:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
27. Strong Support Heligo has been a very effective spam and vandalism fighter, as kind of evidenced by the volume of oppose votes by users with few contribs. He is more than just a spam or vandalism fighter though - he has proven to be a thoughtful and intelligent user who has always dealt questions posed to him well, and aided in resolving several disputes and problems on the Misplaced Pages. I can think of few others that I would support as an admin more than he. ✎ Wizardry Dragon 22:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
28. Full support -- This guy is as trustworthy as they come. He is currently hosting the anti-spam monitoring bot in #wikipedia-spam on the irc network. He has done so faithfully for quite some time now. The ability to rollback and block will be of great use to Heligoland for fighting spam. I have never had one problem with him. 0% of admin tool abuse. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 22:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
29. 100% Support It irritates me to see all these oppose votes. People should be granted adminship based on their trustworthiness. This guy has TONS of edits in the short time he's been here, which shows a dedication to Misplaced Pages that's rarely matched. We need sysops like Heligoland. -- P.B. Pilhet / Talk 04:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
30. Weak Support Two active months is enough with a long hisory of passive reading to back it up. I would like to see more Misplaced Pages and Talk edits though. There's more to adminship than fighting vandals. Eluchil404 07:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
31. Weak Support Good edits but not too many of them and needing more talk page edits. —¡Randfan! 16:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
32. Strong support. Great vandal fighter. ~ crazytales_{-Stalk My Contribs!!!-} 21:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: The following supports were inserted after closure of this RfA.

1. Support. Great at fighting vandals. Bart133 21:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Despite all that's been said, two months experience on Misplaced Pages doesn't cut it for me. Also, I need to see more activity in AfD's and Misplaced Pages policy discussions (4 Misplaced Pages talk edits). Nishkid64 02:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose. User has only been active since October 1st. Give it a few more months. --Wafulz 03:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
3. Two months activity is not a long enough period of time and not enough involvement with Misplaced Pages-space. Otherwise, productive, reasonable contributor. —Centrx→talk • 09:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
4. DEFINITELY NOT - per above and ridiculous allegation here: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_adminship/Hello32020_2 - not something I want from an admin, making baseless claims. – Chacor 13:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

   Chacor, I'm sorry you felt those comments were an attack against you, that was never my intention. I was simply trying to convey my thoughts, namely that I think questioning or criticising another editors reading or writing skills can be insulting and that was why I was supporting the candidate. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 13:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

5. Oppose - lack of experience, also per Chacor. And the amount of code in that sig is just ridiculous. Please read WP:SIG and then cut it down to size. Moreschi 14:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose. Needs more experience (particularly in the Misplaced Pages space) and more time as an active, regular contributor before becoming an admin. A promising candidate for the future. Zaxem 17:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose: Not enough time, too little projectspace paricipation. Will be prepared to support in three months. - crz crztalk 00:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
8. oppose. I'm most active looking for and repairing vandalism. I find it disturbing that somebody who admits to going out looking for a fight wants to increase their firepower. ... aa:talk 00:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

   Forgive me if I'm reading too much into your comment, but does this mean you oppose everybody who does RC patrol, because they're "actively looking for vandalism"? —Lantoka 03:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

   aa - If you would please re-read my comments, I look for and repair vandalism, I DO NOT go looking for a fight. I could of course stop finding and repairing vandalism if you so desire, but that would leave Misplaced Pages open to inaccuracy and ridicule and that is not something I want. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 05:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

   If it makes either of you feel any better to believe I just hate anyone who reverts vandalism, so be it. I read the questions answered (in some case asking my own), and the reader's history. From that assessment of the users attitude, I decide whether to vote. If I don't feel I can make that assessment I don't vote. I don't see you interrogating any of the support-voters, asking why they dared support you. ... aa:talk 08:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

9. Unconditional Oppose: Too little page discussion, too little maintenance, too much time lost for this opportunity. Another go-around would be appreciated by next summer. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 00:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

   I've edited over 6000 pages at this point, doing everything from repairing the work of vandals, removing spam, a bit of WikiGnoming, fixing image copyrights and of course, creating and uploading new content. I'm rather unsure what more I could have done. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 05:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

   There are many areas that demonstrate understanding of Misplaced Pages and administrative tasks (no admin bit necessary), which some users will naturally get into with more time and experience. There is a vast world inside Misplaced Pages. Even on the pure article side, you appear to have almost no experience dealing or collaborating with other article editors or any sort of content dispute, which naturally comes from longer involvement. Beyond that, vandalism reverting over 6000 pages is not in itself evidence of administrative experience. —Centrx→talk • 20:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

   I don't know if you've looked through all of my edits, but they're not all vandal fighting, I've corrected copyright tags on images, migrated userboxes, uploaded media files, uploaded free use images (including my own work), and most importatnly, actually created articles. If you look at WP:IAR you'll see evidence of a very real content dispute bordering on vandalism. With regards to your content dispute comments as I said in my reply to the standard questions above, I have focused on neglected articles and less contentious topics because that's where my interest has taken me, berating me for not getting involved in content disputes seems a little unfair, I edit what I want to edit, not what I think will earn brownie points when it comes to an RfA. Just because I've never actually been involved with a content dispute doesn't read that I don't know what they are or how to deal with them, I'm well aware of the rules when it comes to POV pushing, 3RR and moving up to RfC and RfArb. I find it ever so slightly disturbing that there is a sort of feeling that potential admins must have been involved in something first hand, especially content disputes and concensus building before they can be admins, it's a bit like saying a Police officer needs to have been involved in a fight before they get their badge. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 21:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

   It would be like requiring that a police officer has experience in dispute resolution or fending off an assault (which can be as an innocent defender, and is not in this case analogous to simple 'vandal-fighting'). These skills are taught and tested over the course of months in the police academy; on Misplaced Pages you can learn them and others can evaluate them by merely participating in different areas. There are also several other aspects to administrator, in which you do not happen to have any experience. Again, there is a huge number of administrative tasks you can do without being an administrator. Why skip all of them when you need to have experience with them anyway in order to administrate them? —Centrx→talk • 00:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

10. Weak Oppose due to the amount of time actually contributing, 2 months like that are great but I think more time (of contributions) is neccessary. The signature is fixed now (to a good length) so that's not a problem. James086 03:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
11. Oppose - not nearly enough time contributing to the project --T-rex 06:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
12. Oppose Sorry, but I think you need a bit more time of continous activity. (My standards are higher for self-nominations) CharonX/talk 12:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
13. Weak oppose less than 100 talk page edits shows insufficient experience of consensus building and mediation. Otherwise a very good editor and vandal fighter. Addhoc 15:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
14. Oppose for now, due to only 2 months on the project. If it had been 6, I would have supported, as he's clearly both sensible and knows what he's doing. Random point - I've been to Heligoland. Proto::type 10:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
15. Oppose Insufficent amount of time on the project. Try again in 90 days.--MONGO 18:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
16. Oppose 2 months is not sufficient time. Also needs more experience with WP and mainspace talk. Sarah Ewart 19:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
17. Too new; you haven't really yet had the opportunity to really mess something up, and if that was going to happen, I'd rather see it happen before you get the buttons. --Cyde Weys 19:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

    Would you like to tell people you were promoted after a similar edit history to mine with only 3 months solid experience, or shall I Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 20:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

    Sorry to nitpick, but Cyde had 4 months of solid experience before his RfA (plus some edits going back to 2002). You have exactly 2 months of solid editing, half of what Cyde had. Just pointing that out. SuperMachine 21:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

    I make that 3 months, I do of course have edits going back to July of 2005 (more 'older' edits than Cyde too not to mention more edits now than Cyde had when he was promoted). Tawker was also promoted after two months with a similar (if slightly heftier) edit profile. I know I'm taking this far too personally, but I'm not going to sit back and watch editors force down this RfA without trying to force some degree of accountability (Cyde is an admin, afterall) and trying to defend my position. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 21:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

18. Oppose. Virtually zero edits before October. The sample size is just too small (I'm not referring to the number of edits). I highly doubt that he'd abuse the tools, but I do believe there is real potential for misuse due to inexperience. SuperMachine 20:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral per the 4-5 line signature, admin candidates should know WP:SIG by now. Please read WP:SIG and reduce it. feydey 16:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

   I had planned quite a while ago to make it all different colours, but decided against it, and left a large amount of redundant code lurking about. It's all fixed now anyway. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 16:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

2. I think it is to your benefit to spend a month or two more as an editor for further experience, before retrieving the mop and bucket. - Mailer Diablo 20:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
3. Neutral. Two months activity isn't quite enough for me, and not enough edits in talk, Misplaced Pages talk, and Misplaced Pages namespaces yet. Other than that, though, an excellent contributor. —The Great Llama 01:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

   Llama Man see support #11. Please choose either support or neutral.--Húsönd 02:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

   Oh, my a double vote. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 13:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

   Sorry, accident, see the struck-out sopport after 10. —The Great Llama 21:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

4. Neutral good vandal-fighter, but insufficient participation on project space, and 2 months of such concentrated contributions leads me to worry about the possibility of burnout as an admin. I might try again in a few months time, Nick. riana_dzasta 03:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
5. Neutral. per above. So, so close to meeting my standards. Some free advice-- You may be a little quick on the draw based on some comments on your talk page. Slow down just a little and communicate a little more before boldly doing what you know is right-- a gentle reminder or explanation can save some aggravation later. I will look forward to your next try. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 13:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

MrDarcy

Final (61/0/0) Ended 11:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

MrDarcy (talk · contribs) – Well, here is another candidate that I am just really delighted to nominate. MrDarcy, or Fitzwilliam (:P), has been with us since the start of 2005 and has made some absolutely stellar contributions. He has a great ability with language (in communication, but also translates Spanish), is extremly intelligent, civil, and dedicated to Misplaced Pages. The list of articles on his userpage show that he is someone that is more than willing to give themselves up to better the project. But, more importantly for an RfA, MrDarcy has deep and great knowledge of policy and is willing to put it forth. There is no doubt in my mind that MrDarcy is needed by Misplaced Pages and he will help progress the overall goals of the project.

Rundown from RfA/Crzrussian/Gwernol

Edit Count? 4856

Time around? First edit in start of 2005, started heavily in September of that year

Edit Summaries? Batting 100%

E-mail enabled? Yes, sir.

Mistakes? Can make them, but nothing visible, strong positive user

Userpage? Pretty simple, shows quality of contributions.

Any edit warring/blocks? No

FA participation? Perhaps MrDarcy could answer this. Look at his userpage for some of the important articles he has given us.

MrDarcy is a great asset to Misplaced Pages, and he will benefit with the tools for the betterment of Misplaced Pages. Yanksox 01:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept and am grateful to Yanksox for the nomination. | Mr. Darcy talk 01:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Two things that voters may wish to know about me: I changed my username March of 2006 when a vandal whose edits I'd been reverting tried to connect the Misplaced Pages me to the real-world me. You will also see a slowdown in my editing in the summer of 2006, a period which started when I became a father for the first time.

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: I've become much more of a wikignome lately, and would certainly like to help more with vandal-blocking and page protections/unprotections. I've been rolling with VandalProof lately, so while rollback would be nice, I think I have 90% of the functionality I need (and just as much accountability too, since I presume my approval to use VP could be revoked at any time). I've also noticed backlogs over at copyvio and sometimes at AfD, and have wished I could help close them out.

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

A: It's tough for me to single anything out, because so much of what I do now is gnome-work or anti-vandalism work. I responded to an RfC a while back on Moldovan language and tried to help craft a more neutral and more concise version of the article; I know it's a never-ending battle there, but I think I helped. I really enjoyed working on Spanish cuisine, a Spanish translation of the week, and one I'd like to get back to and clean up so that it can go for good-article status. I also responded to a request for sourcing in Notorious B.I.G. and was able to provide a number of citations and to clean up the content there as well. In general, if I can use a {{cite}} template when adding content, I'm pleased with the contribution, and if I can't provide a cite, I nearly always decide not to add, only to edit or remove.

Addendum: I had to think for a moment, but I remembered one more example: African literature, this diff in particular. It was a request for expansion, and I was able to help.

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

A: I think my approach to Wiki-conflict is always changing, but at this point, I try to work under two guiding principles: Follow the policies and guidelines, and walk away if it gets hot. I might add a third principle to those - solicit an outside opinion, something I've found helpful in a few content disputes. I don't think anyone benefits when emotions start to run high. I ended up leading the charge against User:Mykungfu and his various socks after he tried to tag me as a sockpuppet and to have me blocked for 3RR violations (where I'd reverted his edits to my user page repeatedly), and I think that's an example of an extended conflict where I handled things well, incorporating lessons I'd learned along the way about keeping cool. Perhaps this isn't entirely relevant, but I do think parenthood has given me a good bit of perspective on Misplaced Pages - I'm a big believer in the project, but getting stressed or angry over conflicts here just seems silly to me now.

4. Question from Centrx: What is Misplaced Pages policy and how is it formed?

5. Question from Centrx: A user is blocked because "3RR" and requests to be unblocked because he did not ever revert more than 3 times in 24 hours. He was making formatting changes across several articles and reverting them severally despite many users disagreeing with his changes. The admin who blocked him is gone for the week. What do you do?

There's a good description of how to handle unblock requests on the blocking policy page. The situation you describe appears to fall under the primary exception; after posting to AN/I and trying to determine if the user in question is just forum-shopping, here's what I'd do. (BTW, I’m not sure what you mean by “reverting them severally,” but I’ll try to answer the question as best I can.) The first step is to investigate the actual charge of 3RR. If I determine that he didn’t actually violate the rule – e.g., he made many reverts to many articles, but never reverted any single article three times in a 24-hour span – then I’d unblock him, perhaps with a note asking him to consider voluntarily following WP:1RR on the controversial pages and working through the articles’ talk pages. I’d also put a note on the blocking admin’s talk page, asking him to review his block and my unblock when he returns. If he did violate the rule, and is adamant that he didn’t, or is trying to wikilawyer his way out of the violation, then I wouldn’t unblock him at all. If he did violate the rule, but is apologetic and offers to stop his frequent reverts and work through talk pages, then I’d try to get a discussion rolling on AN/I on whether and when to unblock the user in question (since the block in question would almost certainly expire before the blocking admin returns), and I'd go with the consensus from that discussion, leaning towards no unblock if we can't reach a consensus.

6. Optional Question from T-rex: Why did you feel that it was nessicary to change your username? (But if you feel this is a privacy issue for yourself I'll understnad if you choose not to answer, or to address the issue only vaguely...) --T-rex

A vandal whose nonsense edits I'd been reverting decided to Google me and discovered that there is a notable person with my name. He left a note on my talk page with heavy references to where that person works, which I considered a vague threat (why else would he be Googling me or trying to find out where I work?). So I went for the name change. I'm still email-accessible, and a few Wikipedians do know my real name; I just wanted to remain anonymous to vandals and other troublemakers. | Mr. Darcy talk 04:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

7. Question from Avriette: Ordinarily, I am not especially pleased when users come to RFA and ask for adminship so that they may better combat vandalism through blocking users and reverting. However, in your case, you seem to be more interested in contributing than regulating. As an example, a new user defaced the content of an article on my watchlist. The user then emailed a rather hostile message. Can you walk through the process you'd respond with here?

It's hard to answer that question without more details - user's first edit? vandalism-only account with several contribs? what was the nature of the defacement? As angry as you might get from one bad edit and a nastygram, I think you have to assume good faith for a little while, as long as the user isn't disrupting Misplaced Pages (e.g., with a vandalism spree, or with nastygrams to many editors). Many vandals here are just kids goofing off, and I think sometimes you can get a vandal like that to cool it without just slapping a punitive block on him. As I said, I'd be ready to block if there was a question of a wider disruption, but if it's contained, I'd make at least one effort to settle it without a block.

8. Question from Avriette: Can you estimate how much time you do now, and would as an administrator, spend on Main, Usertalk, and Misplaced Pages: articles, as well as on administrative actions?

The absolute amount of time I spend on Misplaced Pages each week is quite variable, and I don't think I can give a meaningful answer as a result. I participate in all three spaces, and would not expect administrator status to decrease my participation anywhere.

General comments

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

Discussion

Support

1. Support As nominator. Yanksox 04:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
2. Support As someone who was waiting for this one. riana_dzasta 04:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

   I am now furious that I was so excited to see this pop up on my watchlist, I neglected to make a Pride and Prejudice joke. But in vain I have struggled. It will not do. My feelings will not be repressed. You must allow me to tell you how ardently I support and endorse you. riana_dzasta 06:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

3. Everything seems to be in order. JoshuaZ 04:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
4. Support Notwithstanding that this user's answer to question two does not evidence a level of pride commensurate with his contributions, I think it quite plain that he is possessed of the deliberative disposition and cordial demeanor the presence of which in a prospective admin are rather auspicious and is well-acquainted with policy, such that the net effect on the project of his becoming an admin will surely be positive (the latter is my overarching RfA guideline; after all, success in adminship is not entirely a matter of chance); I should, then, be quite pleased to support, even were I not categorically prejudiced in favor of those candidates nominated by Yanksox. Joe 05:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

   Well played, my friend, well played. Yanksox 12:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

5. Support It is a truth universally acknowledged that a single editor in possession of ability must be in want of the admin tools. Any more cliches for support votes? (aeropagitica) 05:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
6. Support. (aeropagitica) summed it all up. bibliomaniac15 05:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
7. Support looks good. Strong editor -- Samir धर्म 07:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
8. I see no problems here. Go for it. (Radiant) 10:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
9. Support good candidate with a good history and valuable contributions. ← ANAS 11:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
10. --Dario vet 12:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
11. Support. Perfick. yandman 13:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
12. Support. As everyone else has said, he's knowledgable, civil, dedicated, and a good vandal fighter. As a side note, congratulations on your fatherhood. :) Srose (talk) 14:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
13. Support Great user. Nishkid64 15:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
14. Support, excellent indeed.__Seadog 19:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
15. Support - much as I would like to oppose based on my loathing of Jane Austen, that's not really on, and no matter how hard I search for a pretext there doesn't seem to be one. So here I am in the support column. Damn! Moreschi 19:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
16. Support great candidate.-- danntm _C 19:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
17. Support--Húsönd 20:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
18. Support per above Doc ♬ talk 20:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
19. Support Will make a fine admin. Hello32020 21:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
20. - crz crztalk 21:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
21. Support, though I would recommend stepping back when angry and waiting for the anger to pass before responding under stress. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 22:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
22. Support per all of above, and on the assumption that the candidate is not this Mr. Darcy. Newyorkbrad 01:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
23. Support John254 01:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
24. Support Great candidate. Give-em-the-mop JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 02:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
25. "Of course" support :) Daniel.Bryant 03:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
26. Yes. Khoikhoi 06:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
27. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 06:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
28. Support, user seems to like fighting vandalism, and isn't a grumpy old sod, so he's okay by me! Lankiveil 11:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC).
29. Support. Seems responsible and willing to fight vandalism. - Darwinek 11:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
30. Support purely on the grounds that anyone who chooses such a great user name must be in want of promotion - and because I enjoyed the jokes above. Deb 12:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
31. Support Terence Ong 14:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
32. Support I love me some wiki-gnomes. IronDuke 15:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
33. Support a father-image for fighting vandalism.qualifications is impressive. - RebSkii 18:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
34. Support No problem here. Rettetast 18:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
35. Suport. Looks good. NauticaShades 23:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
36. Support There is no major concerns here. --Siva1979 04:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
37. Support per all of the above. Make us proud with your use of the mop! Sharkface217 04:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
38. Support, but nothing original to say at this point, so..."per all of the above". Doc Tropics 05:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
39. Support per nom. utcursch | talk 11:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
40. Support per above. There doesn't seem any reason not to. He's good, too good. James086 15:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

    Support Terence Ong 18:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

    You already supported this candidate. =P —Lantoka 20:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

41. Support Looks like a great candidate. Dina 02:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
42. Support, looks good. —Doug Bell  02:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
43. --Rudjek 12:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
44. Support—Observed MrDarcy's work for some time. Absolutely comfortable with both the skill and the maturity. Tools are in safe hands here. Do us proud - Williamborg (Bill) 15:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
45. Support per nom. Acs4b 04:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
46. Support —Quarl 2006-12-04 09:01Z
47. Not that this RFA needs any more support, heh, but I'll throw my two cents in. User looks like a rational, intelligent individual with a level head. Set 'im up! ♠PMC♠ 16:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
48. Support No evidence this nominee will abuse admin tools.--MONGO 19:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
49. Support per nom. Sarah Ewart 19:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
50. Support per nom --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 04:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
51. Support. DarthVader 23:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
52. Support - per consensus.Bakaman 02:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
53. Support a good candidate --Steve _(Slf67) 04:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
54. Support --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 05:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
55. Support, Close to 5000 edits and participation in many Wikiprojects - Go Futurama! User:Sp3000 07:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
56. Support--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
57. Support MrDarcy will be a great addition to the administrator community. ⇒ SWATJester Aim _Fire! 18:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
58. Support =) -Advanced 20:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
59. Support a prolific and valuable editor. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
60. Support. Nice candidate - no comment really needed. --PaxEquilibrium 23:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
61. Support per quality of user. Jorcoga 07:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

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

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

Amalas

Final (46/1/2) Ended 02:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Amalas (talk · contribs) – It's my pleasure to nominate this user for adminship. Amalas has been contributing since the begining of April this year, has made over 18,000 edits, and in addition to the proverbial metric truckload of stub-sorting work, has helped out immensely on the 'janitorial' side of Misplaced Pages:Wikiproject stub sorting and Misplaced Pages:stub types for deletion, doing non-admin closures, and an enormous amount of archiving and general cleaning up after other people's messes. WP:SFD doesn't have a lot of admins active in closing discussions, and what's more, those that are, are often also those arguing on one or other side of the debate: so further such assistance is very welcome. Furthermore, I've noticed on a couple of occasions discussions closed by Amalas (on a perfectly reasonable basis) but awaiting admin completion, have been reverted by users unhappy with the outcome; so I think it would make simply sense for someone already doing the work, to have the tools to complete the task. (In some cases such actions also needlessly clog the job queue if repeatedly done and undone.) Let me confess to a degree of unoriginality here: Crzrussian offered to nominate, but as he's now on wikibreak, I thought it was better not to leave the (pre-)nominee hanging; and besides which, it prompted me to recall my own intentions to do so. At the risk of straying into "beans" territory, I imagine that this user's profile may be a little 'low key' for the taste of some, but I submit that by the criterion of risk:benefit, this user's enmopment ought to be a sure thing: it would be useful to the functioning of at least one small corner of Misplaced Pages (and likely to grow over time), and Amalas' exemplary record of helpful and uncontentious behaviour argues for extreme unlikelihood of misuse of the tools. Alai 01:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Crzrussian was going to co-nominate with me (hence the cryptic messages we've been sending back and forth), and was going to let me know when this was up and running - which he didn't, because in the end, he didn't do the nominating. I even had some comments written out ready. So therefore: Amalas has done a considerable amount of work on the stub-sorting wikiproject and has shown herself to be a conscientious, diligent, and above all friendly Wikipedian. Many of the tasks she has performed would have been eased by the admin tools. She interacts well with other editors as a glance at her talk page shows, and those of you with editcountitis might like to note that her 18000 edits include around 1000 spread between article talk and user talk spaces. I am very happy to co-nominate her for adminship. Grutness...wha? 04:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. ~ Amalas rawr 02:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Candidate statement

I would like to go ahead and say this ahead of time, but I do not have the so-called requirement of 1 FA. In fact, I don't even have a GA. I will admit that I do not contribute much written material to the encyclopedia, but I feel that I improve the overall experience by cleaning up existing articles and make processes easier for other Wikipedians.

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: Like Alai said, I will mainly be doing a lot of SFD closures. I would also like to get involved more in the AFD process, since it is very similar to SFD. When I first started on Misplaced Pages, I put a lot of {{prod}} tags on articles, so I have a fairly good idea of what should stay and what should go.

I have been closing discussions on SFD for a few months now, and I would like to take those skills over to AFD as well to assist in any backlogs that can and will occur there. Most of the time it is very obvious whether a stub (or an article) needs to be kept or deleted, and I would like to be able to deal with the "delete" closures as quickly as possible to reduce backlog.

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

A: I am most please with the templates I have created to aid in the closure process of the Stub Sorting Proposals and Discoveries pages: {{sfp create}}, {{sfp nocreate}}, {{sfdisc sfd}}, {{sfdisc list}}, etc. I dislike large backlogs on these pages and I felt that by creating color coded templates, it would make things easier for people to know what to do with a discussion once it had been completed.

As I said in my statement, I don't contribute a lot of material, but I feel that my process improvements have really benefited others. I've cleared out a ton of backlog from the discoveries page, but I have balked on clearing out more, because most of it needs to be sent to SFD. I am hesitant to put a ton of things on SFD, knowing that they will sit there, waiting for someone to delete them. Having the tools to do this myself would reduce the time things sit on SFD in addition to clearing out more backlog from the Discoveries page.

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

A: In my early days, before I found WP:WSS, I dabbled a bit in the Mediation Cabal and 3rd Opinion. I ended up getting too drawn into the cases and I didn't end up helping that much. Now, I try to stay away from controversial debates and instead focus my energies on things that are simple, but just aren't getting done.

I think what I am trying to say here is that mediation is not one of my stronger skills. When closing SFDs, I will always try to determine consensus (most of the time it's a clear runaway), and if I can't determine consensus, I will usually leave the SFD alone. I'd rather deal with a clear-cut consensus quickly, getting it out of the way and taken care of. I don't feel that any users have caused me stress lately, but if it happens, I usually step away from WP for a couple hours and come back to the situation with a clear head.

Optional Question from Yanksox

4. Can you state specifically how you will use the sysop tools? In other words: Can you elaborate on what tools you will mainly use? Can you also expand on how and why you would use them, also taking into account your understanding of the tools. Sorry if the question is wrapped up in itself.

A: The tool I would use most often is simply the ability to delete pages. I will spend most of my time cleaning up after WP:SFD, but I will probably also branch out to WP:AFD, WP:TFD, WP:MFD, etc. Right now, I already close SFD discussions that have clear consensus, so as an admin, I will be able to go that extra step to actually delete the things that were decided to be deleted.

Questions from Avriette:

5. Could you elaborate on how you would have been a more effective stub-sorter, archivist, etc.?

A: Like I said before, I already close almost all the discussions on SFD. I also orphan stubs that will need to be deleted. The next step before archiving the discussion is to actually deleting the template/category. That's the only thing I can't do. Instead of bugging an admin to do it for me and waiting for them to do it, I could complete the process (of which I am already doing most of) by myself.

6. You said

I would like to be able to deal with the "delete" closures as quickly as possible to reduce backlog

Do you feel that administrative processes need to move as quickly as possible? If so, why? If not, why?

A: I personally do not like large amounts of items left in the "old business" section of a page. If it's old, then deal with it. I feel that once a decision has been made, the solution should be executed right away, not the next day or the next week, etc.

7a. What are your largest areas of interest in the main namespace?

A: My interests are kind of over the place: Buffy/Angel, sociology, gaming, movies.

7b. If you were to instantiate a featured article today, what do you suppose it might be?

A: I would probably finally kick the Killobyte article into decent shape. It's been on the back burner for a long time, but I haven't gotten around to it.

General comments

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

Discussion

Support

1. Support Per nom, but could you please expand your answers a little bit more --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 02:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

   I have expanded my answers a bit. Let me know if you need any more information about something in particular. ~ Amalas rawr 02:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

2. Yes, please, with a cherry on top. I missed my chance - but Alai is a better nominator, anyway. Excellent candidate. Thoughtful and uncontroversial. She has a wealth of experience and a narrow but well-defined needs for admin tools. No exposure to vandal-fighting etc. carries zero concern with this person because she is know for her good demeanor and there is no risk of misuse of tools whatsoever. - crz crztalk 02:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
3. Strong support as nominator. Alai 02:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
4. Support per nom. Amalas has done great work on WP:WSS, where she has always been both a competent and friendly editor. It has also seemed "unnatural" to me that she couldn't close debates completely which is a real problem since the admins normally closing debates also participate in many of them. The workload at WP:WSS is often pretty big and more active admins there will be very welcome. I see no reason at all not to trust her with the mop. Valentinian 02:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
5. Support Hard worker and friendly, per nom. Wiki Warfare to Infinity 02:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
6. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 03:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
7. Support Have seen this candidate around and am always impressed. Clearly defined need for tools. Good luck! riana_dzasta 03:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
8. Support rawr.--Húsönd 03:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
9. Support --Terence Ong 04:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
10. Strong support as eventual co-nominator. The problems when someone goes on wikibreak half-way through these things... Grutness...wha? 04:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
11. Support Very industrious editor. I don't see the process-oriented admin tasks as too much of a challenge. (aeropagitica) 05:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
12. Support per others. No concerns here, and I particularly like the process improvement work! -- Renesis (talk) 06:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
13. Hard work on stub sorting is appreciated. Good luck with the mop. (Radiant) 09:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
14. OMG, this user definitely has a great WP experience, and 18K+ of useful edits is no less valuable contribution than 1FA. MaxSem 10:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
15. SupportDolive21 10:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
16. Support - plenty of experience, a good Wikipedian and hard worker. Amalas was actually one of the first Wikipedians I saw at work; she kind of cleaned up after me by sorting the first stubs I made! --Gray Porpoise_{Your wish is my command!} 11:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

    Ahem. "She" ;) ~ Amalas rawr 13:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

    I'm sorry. --Gray Porpoise_{Your wish is my command!} 19:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

17. Support - Looks like this editor would make a great administrator. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
18. Support I'm not particullary wild about the response to my question, but I believe there will be no harm done by this. Yanksox 14:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
19. Support She is a hard worker and the tools will only help her in benefiting this project. ← ANAS 14:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
20. Support good contributor.-- danntm _C 14:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
21. Support - dedicated user, doing work that needs to be done but most of us wouldn't get around to, no issues or concerns. Newyorkbrad 19:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
22. Support seems to be an excellent contributor who could use the mop. Canadian-Bacon 20:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
23. Support Bucketsofg 21:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
24. Support. Looks like a quality, process-focused candidate. Not all admins need to interact with users on a constant basis and leave messages all over talk pages. She has a knack for doing (in my view) some pretty tedious stuff; let's give her some tools to help her out. Kafziel 21:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
25. Support - I don't normally do these and I hope I'm in good enough standing to comment, but I've seen her work at WP:WSS and she's one of the people I always assumed *was* an administrator already. Plenty of good contributions - in particular, it may seem small but the color-coded templates are great, helped clean up a very cumbersome page. Crystallina 21:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
26. Support Your stub sorting work is much appreciated. cøøkiə Ξ _(talk) 23:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
27. Support. Axl 01:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
28. Support I love editors who do boring stuff. IronDuke 04:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
29. Support per same reason as IronDuke. -Angelbo 18:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
30. Support Defintely meets requirments to beoome an administrator, and I think this user would make a terrific one. Hello32020
31. Support We need more admis willing to focus on specific areas. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
32. Support John254 01:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
33. Support. Great work! yandman 11:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
34. Support. I've seen her around at WP:WSS, and she's always making useful edits. I'm sure she will be a good admin, too. NauticaShades 23:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
35. Support A very hard-working contributor to this project. --Siva1979 04:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
36. Support per above. Sharkface217 04:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
37. Support sounds like a good contributer and it would be useful to allow her to delete things rather than just closing XfD's and needing someone else to do the dirty work, especially since she is willing to do the work. James086 07:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
38. good luck ;)) --dario vet ^_^ (talk) 13:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

    Support Bucketsofg 01:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

    One per customer por favor. - crz crztalk 02:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

39. Support We need more admins. And everything looks A-OK. With > 18k edits, Give-er-the-mop JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 02:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
40. Support.--Madhyako Pradesh lo 12:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
41. --Rudjek 12:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
42. Support — Williamborg (Bill) 15:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
43. troppuS. thank you for answering my questions. it's my feeling that you're much more useful doing what you've been doing, rather than the too-common admin descent into LARTing users. but, i of course can't compel you to do anything. i look forward to seeing more work from you. ... aa:talk 09:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
44. Support could always use more qualified help with AfD closings... but it is a tad different than SFD in that different policies are important and you might catch a bit more flak. You don't exactly see SFD closings on DRV every day :-) But nevertheless, candidate seems fine and if this nominator trusts him, that's a good sign. --W.marsh 17:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

    I think the pronoun you are looking for is "her". ;) ~ Amalas rawr 17:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

    Er, my bad. Further evidence that the devs need to hurry up and impliment the "Requests for CheckGender" feature we came up with on IRC. --18:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

    Not entirely a bad idea... =) I do mention my gender on my user page under "Amalas the person". I don't usually care about such things, but often people react differently and have different preconceived ideas depending on gender, so I try to make things as clear as possible. ~ Amalas rawr 19:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

45. Support per nom. Michael 04:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

    Support per nom --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 04:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC) Oops

    Uhh, you were already the first support position. One !vote per person, please. —Doug Bell  05:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

46. Support Great user with high-quality edits. — Seadog (Talk) 13:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. oppose - lack of experience with images --T-rex 05:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

   And experience in working with images is absolutely essential because...? Alai 14:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

   ...because I believe that admins should have a good understanding of the second most important namespace. --T-rex 16:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

   And "understanding of" means "lots of edits in"? The only real reasons to accumulate a large number of such edits are either doing lots of image uploads, or dealing with image copyright issues; which while important, are hardly vital things for every admin to be involved in. Alai 06:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

   Ok, I'll bite. Besides edits, how else is heshe to show that the has an understanding? --T-rex 16:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

   "She" ;) Also, I don't see how knowledge in the Image namespace is relevant to what I would mostly be doing as an admin. As I've said, I'm most interested in the *fD processes (specifically SFD), so I wouldn't necessarily need high knowledge of images. If something were to come up involving images, I would ask another admin more familiar with that area to help out. ~ Amalas rawr 17:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

   (ec)It would be more useful if you were to clarify what you meant by "a good understanding" of images, and why this should be required, since you're the person to introduce this concept into the discussion, rather than me trying to second-guess you. Personally, I don't think it's required that admins have any involvement with images, because I think it's pretty much inherently unhelpful to write a "profile" for the sort of work people "ought" to be doing, if they're in fact doing useful work of some other sort. The majority of most editors' interaction with the image namespace will be using same, not editing images directly; similarly it's pretty fundamental that editors have some idea of how to use categories, but it's hardly required the admin candidates have some magic number of category namespace edits. Are you planning to oppose every RFA where the nom has less than N image edits? Have you a value in mind for N? Alai 18:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

   I don't think my standards are that hard to meet. If it makes you feel any better this is nowhere near the first RfA I've opposed because of image experience --T-rex 19:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

   That's hard to verify, as you haven't said what your standards are. More than 10 image edits? More than 100? More than 1000? And on the contrary, it makes me feel much worse: one oppose probably won't do Amalas any harm (touch wood), but the more diverent criteria we get on RFAs in general (opposition on the basis of lack of FA, of lack of total edits, of lack of talk pages edits, or whatever else a particular editor decides on), the more spuriously difficult it becomes to get good candidates passed who're evidently doing good work in other areas. Eventually, we end up with the net effect of "all admins have to be exhausted generalist saints" (until there's a corresponding backlash and things get easier again for a while). Alai 21:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

   Alai (and others), please forgive me for saying this so bluntly, but I have a bad feeling you risk losing that war (although I hope to God I'm wrong). I've never been interested much in RfA debates but I followed some of them a few months back and I did get a few impressions from them (just for the record, I'm not trying to refer to any user(s) in particular here, it is just a few general impressions I got watching a few of these debates). To begin with the conclusion: uniform standards do not seem to apply, with the effect that a potential candidate has next to no chance of actually guessing what yardstick he or she will be measured by. Some editors demand a FA, others demand deep knowledge about a specialized field of policy, others demand posts on the Pump / talk space / project space. Some argue that "Adminship is no big deal" and cite WP:AGF while others argue for saint-like properties plus X,000 edits and/or Y months on the project. Some argue that Adminship is not a "reward" or similar and that an RfA is not a popularity contest. However, sometimes debates did remind me too much of the latter. Feel free to call me old-fashioned, but given that we are actually talking about people using many hours of their spare time doing unpaid volunteer donkey work, isn't the qualifications for adminship approaching a rather tall order? For what it is worth; whenever I feel a need to vote on somebody's nomination, I stick to three questions 1) "do I trust that this person would act fairly if he / she becomes involved in the capacity of admin in a dispute against me?" If I can answer "yes" here (remembering AGF), the same is likely to apply towards other users. 2) "do I believe that the person in question does this project a lot more good than bad?" and 3) "do I think there is a danger in giving this person access to these tools or not?" (again: AGF applies). If I can answer "yes" to the first two questions and "no" to the third then I'm happy. As I see it, the fundamental weakness of the current system is that admin powers are tough to remove since they are not open to automatic recall or renewal. In all other walks of life, if people don't live up to a job, they are removed or replaced. This is very difficult under the current system. Valentinian 01:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral Great editor, but I am worried about how she will handle dispute resolution or mediating disputes in the article namespace. Most of her edits are made using AWB or stub-sorting and I don't see that this user has had much discussion regarding articles and such. I was looking at her contributions, and I found that 99.7% (marked by VoA script) of her last 2500 edits have been marked as minor edits, and 1339 of them have been made using AWB. It's just a bit of a pet peeve when I see an excellent user who hasn't dabbed into the wonderful art of article-building. Nishkid64 03:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

   Regarding the minor edits: I am part of WikiProject Stub Sorting, and a lot of the tasks involved hundreds of tedious edits. Most of my recent edits have been updating stub templates after a decision to rename. I could probably get Alaibot to do most of that work for me, but Alai's not always around, so I take it upon myself to get that work done so that the SFD discussion can be closed quickly. ~ Amalas rawr 03:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

2. Comment. I'm neutral for this one too. Basically per Nishkid64, I kind of wonders if this user will be capable of interacting with users on constant basis. 251 User talk edits (41 in own page) is way too low for a admin candidate. The article talk page edit count is not that impressive either. AQu01rius (User &#149; Talk) 03:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

   Over 1000 of Amalas's edits are on various types of talk page - user talk, project talk, article talk - only a small proportion of admins would have that many talk page edits. I don't see any reason she should have problems relating to interaction with other users. Grutness...wha? 04:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

   She has over 850 talk page edits, with the last one being made on August 30, 2006 (3 months ago). Also, almost all of her talk page edits are as a result of tagging {{WikiProject Missouri}} on the page. Just look at . Nishkid64 15:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

   Not that it makes much difference, but 858 article talk + 263 user talk + 4 template talk + 59 Wikispace talk + 50 image talk + 23 category talk = 1257 edits on the various types of talk page, as I said. She has 21 user talk edits within the last week. Grutness...wha? 09:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Chrislk02

Final (15/17/16) Ended 01:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Chrislk02 (talk · contribs) – I would like to nominate Chrislk02 because he is a phenomenal Wikipedian and vandal patroller. He is courteous and helpful (his user page just exudes helpfulness) and seems to handle all situations admirably. He lives on here (member since April, 2006) and seems to know policy very well indeed. He is a member of many projects and is very knowledgeable in many areas, to boot. On top of this, two of the articles he created made their way to the "Did You Know?" section of the main page.

I am playing down his VP and NP duties, but just check his contribs and you will find he follows policy to the letter and would benefit from the extra tools to get the job done quick. Also contributes to AfDs, and is not averse to reforming opinion given new information or upon further reflection – debating the facts along the way.

This may be my first nomination, but they won't get any better than this one. Bubba hotep 22:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Co-nominated by User:Gdk411

All I would like to say is that he has fought vandalism more than anyone that I know on Misplaced Pages. He has helped me and many other Wikipedians. He deserves Adminship more than anyone.Grayson d. k. 23:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I humbly accept this nomination.

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: I would anticipate being the most help with WP:AIV. I am often on in the early mornings to late afternoons and very often run into WP:AIV backlog because there appears to be few administrators watching the page. I believe that I could be an asset to Misplaced Pages by being on Vandal patrol during these time. But, I think it is important to note that watching WP:AIV does not mean blocking everybody that is reported. When on anti-vandal patrol, I always make a point to always give an appropriate number of warnings, and sometimes extra if I feel that the edits are not malicious. When on anti-vandal patrol, I mostly patrol anon edits. I ,having my degree in Information Science, understand that IP address can very often repressent a large group of people and extra criteria should be taken into effect when blocking edits from anons. However, I would not limit my tasks to vandal patrol. I, also partake in new page patrol and marking pages for speedy deletion and so I would also assist with CAT:CSD. In all honesty, my strong points are anti vandalism and new page patrol. However, I am an overachiever and find fufillment in being a well rounded individual. Other areas that I have started dabbling in are WP:DYK and recently I ran into WP:AN3 which appears to have a backlog that could use some assistance. I belive that I could be fair in evaluating administrator notices for violations of the WP:3RR and imposing appropriate blocks. All of that being said, I would anticipate any tasks that I may or may not be currently aware of that could enhance overall enhance Misplaced Pages.

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

A: The articles that I am most pleased with are Joint Expedition Against Franklin, and my additions to the article on Franklin, Virginia. For these articles I actually went to the library, checked out books, read them, did the research and then put them in an article. Other articles that I am particulary proud of are USS Hunchback and Cessna 165 Now, Everywhere I see a book, or a magazine, I see it as a source for a Misplaced Pages article. I have recently started in the template space, especially associated with WP:AIRCRAFT. On the note of WP:AIRCRAFT, I have started working on that projects project pages, with categories and templates, trying to make the sections more informative and usefull. With a strong background in programming, I am enjoying creating templates and working on improving my template creating skills. However, I think that fun is important too so ,on a Slightly more humorous note, I think I have added some excellent questions to WP:HOLICTEST, not to give myself a better score (considering I am outside of the top 20) but because I thought that the behaviours exhibited were the behavior of somebody dedicated to Misplaced Pages (Yes, My girlfriend has asked if Misplaced Pages meant more to me than her.).

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

A: I think edit conflicts are kind of silly. I am always very appreciative of other editors edits to articles that I have created or contributed significant amounts of content too. I understand that there are 2 sides to every story and that it takes 2 people to have an editing conflict. I try to look at things through other peoples eyes and understand where they are coming from. That being said, the biggest conflict I have been in was really another user making a personal attack on me for creating the article on the USS Hunchback. I believe that I handled the situation humorously and appropriatley. I actually have the conversation at the top of my Talk Page just because I personally thought it was well handled. When it comes to stress, well, I dont believe that it serves that great a purpose. I am a firm believer that there is somebody greater than me out there and who is in control of my life. I just live my life to the best of my abilities. I believe that stress from anything, including Misplaced Pages, will not enhance my life and is really serves no purpose, especially for stuff that is out of my control.

General comments

• See Chrislk02's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

Discussion

Support

1. Support as nominator, of course. Bubba hotep 23:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
2. Support great vandal fighter. Good luck. --Majorly 00:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
3. Supportas co-nominator.Grayson d. k. 01:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
4. Support This RfA might have been a little bit premature, but I've witnessed this user's good work far too many times to refrain from supporting just because of a temporal sine qua non. Good answers, denote knowledge of Misplaced Pages's areas where he's willing to collaborate with the admin tools. I don't really expect him to run amok if promoted. If this RfA fails, I hope that Chris will not be discouraged and may continue with such excellent work in order try again in a couple of months.--Húsönd 02:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
5. Support Helps to beat back the ever rising tide of vandalism. Avoids edit conflicts. Wiki Warfare to Infinity 02:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
6. Support I count at leats 5,000 edits this month alone, I don't really care how few months he has spent on wikipedia, he has obviously spent many hours on here. I have many months in wikipedia, and have done knowhere near as much for wikipedia. Dolive21 11:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
7. Support Chrislk02 is a good editor and diligent vandal fighter. His activity might only have reached the current hights in the last two months, but evenso I believe (and have the gut feeling) that he would make a great administrator. CharonX/talk 12:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC8)
8. Strong Support: If I read one more comment about "He'll make a great candidate in another couple of months" I'll scream. Misplaced Pages needs admins outside America that can deal with vandalism while most of our present admins are either sleeping or at work. Just because someone has been here for 2 or 3 months doesn't always read that they haven't studied policies and guidelines too. There are also admins that have been promoted with less experience and less time on the project. For this reason I see no reason at all to refuse. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 16:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
9. Support. The combination of a dedicated vandal-fighter and a contributor of meaningful content in mainspace is always good to see and I have no qualms that the candidate would misuse the tools. The concerns expressed below about needing a bit more experience are reasonable and frankly this RfA probably will not be successful, but if that is the case I hope the candidate can build on his good record in the future and return here in due course. Newyorkbrad 19:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
10. Weak Support. An absolutely fantastic Wikipedian who has already done a lot of great things for our encyclopedia, despite only being here for two months. I personally loved his responses to the questions; they were honest and well thought out. Objections raised below seem weak as well. I would be doing him an injustice if I did not vote support, even if he could benefit from a couple months more experience. —Lantoka 06:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
11. Support, seems to know his way around vandal fighting, and doesn't seem to be a sullen killjoy. Would make a good admin, I think. Lankiveil 11:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC).
12. Support Is new but could use a mop well. Sharkface217 04:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
13. --dario vet ^_^ (talk) 13:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
14. While you are a relatively new user your hard work is very much appreciated and your mainspace makes up for it. If this adminship run fails please do not lose hope, you are a very good user and deserve this honor.__Seadog 22:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
15. Support Seems completely trustworthy to me. -- P.B. Pilhet / Talk 04:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong Oppose WAY too new and per Image:Cessna 165.jpg. Candidate has less than tow months active participation. - crz crztalk 23:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

   Woh! Seven minutes! A snap decision! ;) Bubba hotep 00:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

   And did you really need to do this so quickly? Bubba hotep 00:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

   Hold your horses Bubba. That first comment was neither nice nor useful and I fail to see what's wrong with that diff. CharonX/talk 00:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

   OK, I will bite my lip. Just asking for due consideration that's all. Bubba hotep 00:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

   It is ok! Thanks for the defence bubba! When it comes down to it I believed the image to be fair use. I have disputed it om the image talk page. I know the policy regarding fair use WP:FU and took that into account before uploading the image. If it is still believed that it is not fair use, I have no problem removing the image! Thank you for bringing it to my attention! Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

   Hmmm... I don't mean to be un-nice and useless... I am just a little blunt. What I mean to say is, Chris is fails my time requirements by a lot (active participation since Oct. 10) and the image shows that he is not up to date on changes in fair use policy. Image use and deletion policy is on the reading list for admin candidates, and IMO he clearly demonstrates a lack of understanding of replaceable fair use. - crz crztalk 00:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

   It is ok, stuff like that, for somebody with an RFA, you should be un-nice! It def does not fall under WP:BITE and i did not take it as uncivil.Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

   COMMENT -- Time spent should not alone be a reason to oppose. Check his merit in terms of how good his edits are, how good he is with the community, how well he seems to know the rules, etc. 170.215.83.4 04:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

   And why can't time spent be a reason to oppose? Sometimes, the amount of time spent is simply not enough to show someone will be a good admin candidate. -Amarkov _edits 05:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

2. Oppose. Seems like a great candidate for adminship in 2-3 months. However, since he's only been active since last month, I have to oppose at this time. Keep up the good work, though. It looks like you're on the right track! SuperMachine 00:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose. This is not vandalism. It may very well be wrong, but it isn't vandalism, and calling it such is a slap in the face to the person who added it. 4 WP talk edits is bad, too. -Amarkov _edits 00:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

   I looked at the of the article in question and it seems that User:207.54.102.45 has already blatantly vandalized that article earlier that day, then proceeded to add dubious and unsourced content. CharonX/talk 12:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

   If he has that rationale, it's even worse. People who vandalize once don't automatically cause subsequent edits to be vandalism. A user who thinks that is bad enough, without having the power to actually block. -Amarkov _edits 01:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

4. Strong Oppose- Too new, not enough Misplaced Pages discussions and edits (in my opinion, though you have way more than me.), and for other reasons stated above. Keep up the editing, though.--SUIT 05:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose per short active editing time, and not particlarly strong answers to questions (they don't really tell me much). Seems like a pleasant user and should be ready in a couple months, as others have said. -- Renesis (talk) 06:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose — per CrazyRussian. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose — per CrazyRussian. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 17:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
8. Weak Oppose - Your edit count is good, but if you maybe waited a couple of months (try late January or February) at this edit rate, you would most likely be accepted, since all of the oppose votes are on your 2 month active period. Diez2 18:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
9. Weak Oppose sorry, but I am uncomfortable with the way you are using test warnings. Take a look at User_talk:206.123.212.67. You issue a {{test1}} at 19:44, then a minute later you add another test1 (why not a test2?). A few minutes later User:Elkman adds a test3, then ten minutes after that you add yet another test1, when test4 would have been appropriate. If this was an isolated case I wouldn't worry, but the same pattern is happening a lot: User talk:165.155.128.134; User talk:64.213.196.4; User talk:81.187.253.225. I'm all for WP:AGF but its also important to ensure that warnings are given appropriately. I love the enthusiasm and hard work you are volunteering to the project, I just think you need some more time and sometimes you need to be a little more careful. I look forward to being able to support you in the future. Best, Gwernol 21:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

   I am reluctant to rebute a comment on my own RFA, I want to let it play out and not make it a mater of, "politics", or a test of my ability to cover my own ass. However, this is a topic I feel strongly on. Yes, I may be lenient on vandals. I, however, believe it is waranted, and my leniancy is dictated by my interpretation of Misplaced Pages policy. The first think I look at when warning a vandal is when were they last warned? when were they last blocked? I am very concious of what there last warning was the first think I look at is what the last warning was, what level it was and often what article it was. If I was the last person to warn somebody, and I feel that the edits, although vandalism, were made in good faith, I prefer to stronly err on the side of WP:AGF and give the user a second test1. I often very rapid at reverting vandalism, perhaps they did not see the changes, and they wanted to try again? I do not know. I generally only do this in cases of simple, non blatant vandalism. If any of the above cited sources were of blatant vandalism, then I am in the wrong. I will not claim that I am perfect and am always open for improvement. So, thank you for bringint this to my attention. I will take it into account, however, when appropriate I will contine to assume good faith per WP:AGF - Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 01:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

   Chris raises a very valid point here, does an IP vandal with a t3 warning 2 weeks ago get a t4 warning if they vandalise today, or do we go back to a t1, do we assume it's the same user or a different user who has been assigned the IP address, I've hunted high and low looking for a definitive answer for this predicament, but the best policy does seem to be WP:AGF here. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 03:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

   As I pointed out in my comment and the specific examples I gave, these are not cases where an IP had a test3 2 weeks before. Look at User_talk:206.123.212.67: the IP had a vandal warning a few minutes before and Chris went back to a test1, three times. The IP has a long history of vandalism and was vandalising the the same articles, pushing the same WP:POV. I agree that if there has been a significant gap, you WP:AGF and start the sequence again, but that's not what happened here. Always assume good faith but if a user clearly demonstrates they are not acting in good faith, take action to protect the articles they are attacking. By the way Chris, good faith edits are never considered vandalism, see WP:VAN. Gwernol 04:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

   I respect your opinion. Thank you for bringing that to my attention. I will work on that in the future! I am human, I make mistakes! Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 02:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

10. Oppose Looks like he could well be a good admin, but would like to see more. Perhaps late winter/early spring. IronDuke 04:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
11. Oppose, future support probable. Lack of experience, and it looks like when you got popups you stop writing articles. ~ trialsanderrors 05:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
12. Oppose per Gwernol. John254 01:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
13. Oppose per Crzrussian. You need more time here. - Mailer Diablo 20:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
14. Oppose. Holy shit, your nominator attempted to demonstrate how worthy you were by attacking crz? On top of that, too new, too belligerent. Find another nominator, and branch out to putting good work into articles, rather than inducing churn. I'd be much more inclined to support then. ... aa:talk 01:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

    Could you please elaborate when you call be, "belligerent"? It is not meant offensivley, however, I have made every point to respong tactfully to criticism and have had no problem admitting when I am wrong. If there is any particular behaviour that you particulary consider belligerent, I would kindly accept the criticism and work to improve myself. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 01:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

15. Oppose Just a little too new. About another month, month and a half is needed (for experience reasons). I would surely support then. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 04:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
16. Oppose per Crazy and Gwernol. Also, I'm a bit uncomfortable with your edit stats. I don't think there's enough talk:mainspace edits and the vast majority seem to be project tagging. We need to be able to see how you interact in content disputes and other article issues with people in groups, not just one-on-one on user talk pages. And as others have said, a month or two just isn't enough time to get a solid grasp on policy etc or for us or you to know if your editing is sustainable. I know some people will support after 3-4 months, but I don't think 6 months is too much to ask for and will rarely support anyone under that. Sarah Ewart 16:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

    Also, I must add that I'm not at all impressed by the answers, especially to question one. Sarah Ewart 16:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

17. Oppose Insufficient amount of time on the project. Try again in 90 days.--MONGO 19:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Weak Neutral. I was originally going for Weak Oppose, but this is a good candidate so I decided to just stay neutral. This user have really only been active for two months (97% of the edits), and it seems to me that he's rather inexperienced in many fields (image, category, template). The one that strikes me the most is a total 4 Misplaced Pages talk, which is not good. Good user, don't think he's ready though. AQu01rius (User &#149; Talk) 00:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
2. Neutral I agree with AQu01rius, I think that this user is a great candidate but hasn't been contributing long enough. Chris has recently spiked in edits from virtually none. I would definitely support in a few months. His personal anti-vandalism templates are good though :) James086 00:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
3. Neutral Although you're a fantastic contributor to Misplaced Pages thus far, I unfortunately have to go neutral on your RfA. There's no problem in what you're doing, but more of a concern regarding your experience on Misplaced Pages. I think if you re-apply in 2-3 months, you'll definitely get the support of almost everybody. Nishkid64 00:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
4. Neutral, leaning towards support. Plenty of edits racked up from reverting vandalism. However, I would like to see a few more months of activity, and more experience in other areas. --Gray Porpoise_{Your wish is my command!} 00:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
5. Neutral Superb vandal-bopper who continuously beats me to reverts, but this is slightly premature. I'd happily support in a few months' time. riana_dzasta 03:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
6. Neutral, good vandal fighter, but needs more time and experience in the admin proccess. It's not only vandal fighting that is in admin work, lots of administrative participation, xFDs etc, handling conflict (Mediation etc.) Terence Ong 04:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
7. Neutral. You're a great vandal fighter, but I need to see you participate in XfDs (WP:AFD, WP:MFD, WP:CFD, etc), and conflict resolution (WP:3O, etc). I don't DIStrust you, and therefore this is not an oppose, but you give me nothing to base trust on. Srose (talk) 12:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
8. Neutral There is obviously nothing worth an oppose vote, which is why my vote is neutral. Your contributions and vandal fighting are very valuable, but you only need more time around and participation in XfDs. ← ANAS 15:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
9. Neutral Excellent vandal fight, but just not enough experience. Give it a for more months, and some Project Space contribution and you'll have my support. Canadian-Bacon 20:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
10. Neutral. Hasn't been a lot of time since his editor review and this RfA. I suggest more time and experience on Misplaced Pages, this includes getting at least one article featured or at least a couple articles good status. Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
11. Neutral A good vandal fighter but the lack of experience is a concern here. --Siva1979 02:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
12. Neutral. I'd recommend that you withdraw because you aren't going to get it on this occasion. Esteffect 21:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
13. Pile on Neutral— There is virtue in exploring enough to understand Misplaced Pages well before becoming an admin. And many editors pass through like burning stars; admins need to demonstrate some dedication. See you back when you have a few more months with Misplaced Pages; with the number of edits you've accumulated, it should be easy - Williamborg (Bill) 15:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
14. Neutral He is an excellent contributor so I cannot vote against him, but I think he is a little too inexperienced. TSO1D 20:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
15. Neutral good contributions against vandals, yet I also think that time within in the community is a valuable as ones edit count. Gnangarra 10:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
16. Neutral - hoping to support in future. Chris is very helpful with setting up in the DYK process. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Gray Porpoise

Final (70/3/1) Ended 19:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Gray Porpoise (talk · contribs) – There has been one user who has helped me out since the time I joined wikipedia...It is of course the user who I am nominating. Gray Porpoise has displayed excellent civility and has never lost his cool. He is a common visitor to the Wiki-space by having 916 wikipedia space edits (that is - WP:MOTTO). Also a very good contributer to the mainspace. Other than that I have nothing else to say about this generally great wikipedian and I am honored to nominate him. Seadog 18:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination. --Gray Porpoise_{Your wish is my command!} 21:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: A frequent newpage patroller, I have an interest in helping with deletions, particularly speedy deletions and user categories for discussion. I will also perform regular editing on protected pages that need proofreading, and check deletion history to make sure pages have not been unfairly deleted. In addition to this, adminship will increase my regular editing activities in pursuit of bureaucrat status.

Not to mention, I won't have to bother anyone when I want to fix a copyright violation or clean up my user subpages.

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

A: My apologies to those who think this is important, but I have not expanded an article to featured status. However, I have started new pages, including a couple (such as Melanie Martinez) that have expanded beyond stubs, and some (such as Pandanus spiralis) that could quickly do so if they had more contributors. I have also completely rewritten Ahmed Faseeh, Cloak of invisibility, Oobi, and Quizilla, the former two of which were copyright violations and the latter two of which were just of poor quality. Though at first my focus was on creating as many articles as possible, I have come to pay more attention to writing more extensive and well-referenced articles. (Tickling is the fact that they still turn out short, but I guess writing an encyclopedia isn't just one organism's work!) Rewriting and starting articles is enjoyable for me, and I find it pleasing as my way of adding to our growing database of knowledge. (Sorry if that sounded awkward.)

I also contribute to Portal:Cetaceans, which was recently featured. Although I haven't changed its design or scheduled selected content for it, I've done behind-the-scenes work on it such as adding news and discussing the selected content.

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

A: No major conflicts have arisen during my editing in the past. I try to stay out of arguments, and when minor debates occur, I keep them at civilized debates, not edit or flame wars. Even then, I find Misplaced Pages to be a hobby, not a stress-causer. I plan to remain this way in the future.

Optional questions from Avriette (talk · contribs):

4. Specifically how will administrative privileges increase your editing throughput, rather than decrease? (given a fixed amount of time, any time spent on administrative actions necessarily reduces the time editing)

A: *rejoices at addition of questions* Though I'll actively participate in admin chores, I'll also keep up my non-administrative editing to remain a well-rounded contributor.

So you intend to spend more time on the project overall?

That is correct. I used to sometimes feel like I had nothing to do... but then I discovered the backlogs.

5. You mention you've had no "major" conflicts with other users. Can you show me a few of your "minor" conflicts?

A: I've never been right in the middle of an argument. I don't start arguments or edit wars, and other Wikipedians don't start conflicts against me. There are conflicts that could be considered major (e.g. Esperanza's deletion discussion and Minun's request for arbitration) that I have participated in, but I myself did not play a major role in them, just adding my outside opinion.

6. How are you like to react to a user who is not "civilized"?

A: I try to be more civil to uncivilized people than they are to me. If given the ability to perform blocks, I would try hard to calm down trolls before resorting to the ability.

I guess this is what I was getting at. How do you propose to 'calm down trolls' before blocking them? The general consensus seems to be that there is no negotiating with trolls.

When I say that, I mean that I'll give them a good deal of advance warning, and try to compromise. Of course, there are those who never give up, and those trolls will likely end up on the wrong end of the banhammer after awhile.

7. At what level of activity or amount of time do you estimate you would be fit for bureaucratship? (this question asked because the user mentioned "pursuit of bureaucrat status")

A: Since RfBs are not nearly as common as RfAs, I haven't had many opportunities to observe that kind of request, and so I'm not as familiar with it. I will probably try for at least another year of editing experience before requesting bureaucratship. My main interest in bureaucratship is helping with Misplaced Pages:Changing username. Thank you for asking these questions. I'll be glad to answer more.

You'll want to look here, here, and here. Good luck.

Optional questions from Serpent's Choice (talk · contribs)
I know I'm a little late to the party with these questions. Nevertheless, they are based on the concerns raised below, and I hope that a response might be valuable for many of the commenters. Fair warning, these are more complex that often-asked admin questions. Like many questions involving consensus-based issues, there may or may not even be "right" answers.

8. What is your view on the proper use of secondary accounts/sockpuppets? When, if ever is it appropriate for a user to employ multiple accounts? How does an admin determine when such use is "absusive"? Are any of these answers different for someone who is an admin on (presumably only) one of their accounts?

9. How does an admin determine the dividing line between prohibited "social networking" and beneficial "community building"? How, if at all, does that division influence wikigames, especially taken in light of recent activity at MFD? Are there different answers to these questions for User-space content versus Misplaced Pages-space content?

General comments

• See Gray Porpoise's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
• Feel free to leave optional questions. I'll be happy to answer as many as you provide. --Gray Porpoise_{Your wish is my command!} 21:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Support

1. Support as nominator.__Seadog 21:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

   Support. My only real interaction was during the Esperanza MfD discussion. This user was civil and reasoned, and that's enough for me. —Doug Bell  21:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
   <sigh>Changed to oppose per undisclosed secondary account mentioned by Moreschi. —Doug Bell  19:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

2. Support I haven't really had much interaction with you, but I have seen your edits on Seadog.M.S's talk page, and some of your contribs. A very high and balanced edit count, and a good job on the articles you created. On most users, I would make an oppose or neutral vote (that's the only word I can think of, even though this technically isn't voting) for no GA or FAs, but you've just done too many other great things! —The Great Llama 21:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
3. Support. G.He 21:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
4. A fine user - crz crztalk 21:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
5. Strong Support Uber awesome editor! He/she is a valued contributor on Misplaced Pages. Nishkid64 22:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
6. Kimchi.sg 22:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
7. Support I have seen Gray Porpoise contribute to many community discussions and I believe that GP will make a fine administrator.¤~Persian Poet Gal 22:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
8. Support Good user, knows what he's doing. --Majorly 22:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
9. 3x edit conflicted Support!! yesisupportbeforeigeteditconflictedagain.--Húsönd 22:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
10. Support Looks like a good editor, no reason to think that they wouldn't make a good admin too. (aeropagitica) 22:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
11. Support clearly a good contributor.-- danntm _C 22:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
12. Support Mop him! Sharkface217 22:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
13. Support. I've lost track of how many times I've seen you in seperate places, which is a very good sign. -Amarkov _edits 22:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
14. Cetacean support! (Radiant) 23:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
15. Support - fit for the porpoise Bubba hotep 23:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
16. Support I have seen this user in action, though never interacted. He seems to know what the guidelines for deletion are, and seeing as that would be his main area of admin-contributions, I think he deserves a support. James086 00:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
17. Support. Fun, friendly user :) AQu01rius (User &#149; Talk) 00:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
18. Support Friendly, easy going. Simply south 00:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
19. Support John254 01:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
20. Support Good user Tyson Moore es 01:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
21. Support I have seen Gray Porpoise around, always up to something good. Dar-Ape 02:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
22. Support Helps with maintenience and articles. Nice guy. Need no other reason. Wiki Warfare to Infinity 02:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
23. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - Mailer Diablo 03:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

    I'm this message and I approve Mailer Diablo! - this message 11:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

24. Support, yep. --Terence Ong 04:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
25. Support —Quarl 2006-11-29 04:58Z
26. Support Great editor with great edits! You will do well! Jam01 07:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
27. Supoort What do you think I'm going to do?  Jorcogα  08:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
28. Support Good, hard worker. And a nice guy to boot :) riana_dzasta 10:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
29. Support - Great wikipedian in my opinion. Would make a great admin. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
30. Support I've seen this user a couple of times around. He is a great candidate for adminship. ← ANAS 15:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
31. Support per nom. --Ars Scriptor 15:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
32. Support - Welcoming and helpful; I have encountered his useful contribs a number of times in my editing sessions. Katalaveno 16:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
33. Support per nom and comments. Good contributor, good welcomer, no concern candidate will misuse tools. Newyorkbrad 19:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
34. Support Responsible and dedicated. Dfrg.msc 21:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
35. Support You have beat me to reverting vandalism many times. Keep up the good work.Grayson d. k. 21:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
36. Support. Accuse the "crazy funlovers", but this guy just makes Misplaced Pages a nice place to be. bibliomaniac15 23:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
37. Support. I was originally going to support based on my experience of Gray's edits, then I saw the comments about the alternate account and wondered whether I'd still be able to support. I've read all the comments and GP's explanations are more than sufficient for me to support. Thryduulf 23:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
38. Support Nice vandal fighter, responsible. IronDuke 04:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
39. Support. No explanation is necessary, an extremely familiar name. Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
40. Support Good, responsible user, ready to have the tools. Hello32020 21:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
41. I've read this user's talk page, and I Support this RfA. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
42. Support. My familiarity with this user's attitude and demeanor, as well the fact that I've yet to see questionable behavior on this user's part, begs of me a definite support. - Che Nuevara 22:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
43. Support I don't see any reason to oppose here - the games are out of place, but I'm not that bothered by them. Otherwise this seems like a good editor who would do good things as an administrator - it seems like he will only help the encyclopedia. --TheOtherBob 22:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
44. Support Not only have you had only freindly interactions with me (or maybe I was just reading what you recorded) but also your edits have been very good and helpful to the community. I'm Randfan, and I approve of this message! By the way the 2nd Porpoise account is very thoughtful, and I think an Admin should be creative and smart that way. —¡Randfan! 00:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
45. Support User:Michaelas10 mentions the extremely familiar name. I, too, know that the Porpoise is everywhere and haven't seen anything that should prevent it from passing this RfA. WODUP /_contribs 00:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
46. Support passes my criteria †he Bread 01:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
47. Support Would be a great admin. --Siva1979 02:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
48. Support per nom. :) Switchercat _cont 02:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
49. Support I've never had any trouble with this user, and he is a contributer of the finest quality. If he had some FAs, my vote would be "Strong Support". Good work GP! | AndonicO 14:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
50. Support: Per nom.  ♪♫ĽąĦĩŘǔ_Қ♫♪  17:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
51. Support excellent user. Hut 8.5 18:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
52. Support - User:Gray Porpoise has always been very tactful and understanding in the edits that I have seen him make, and he has had good support for his positions. I believe that he would be an excellent admin. —Cswrye 19:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
53. Support. Looks good. NauticaShades 21:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
54. Support. I can't see any chance for abuse here, and really can't see how a second account (which has been clearly labeled as such since the very day it was created) will effect this user's abilities as an admin. -- AuburnPilot 02:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
55. Support - A good contributor who will be a good admin. Doc Tropics 05:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
56. good work!!!! I belive in you ;) --dario vet ^_^ (talk) 13:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
57. Support Bucketsofg 01:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
58. Support per nom. Michael 01:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
59. Support - duh. Great user and vandal fighter; I'm surprised xe isn't an admin already. - SpLoT _{(*T* C+u+g+v)} 05:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
60. support, per answers. I want to let you know that I'm still a little iffy. I really hope you do continue in the manner suggested by your answers. If you do, we really need users like that. Please don't hesitate to ask for help if you're even a little uncertain if a certain action is the right one to take. It's far better to ask somebody else than to risk being the tinder for a larger fire. Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. They are not intended to be a reflection of you. ... aa:talk 08:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
61. --Rudjek 12:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
62. ABITW support — Do well by us - Williamborg (Bill) 15:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
63. Strong Support - in my admittedly limited contact with the nominee and the answers above, I have had repeated contacts with the above editor and have never seen any reason to have a negative thing about him. I have every reason to believe that he will be as effective as an admin as he has already demonstrated himself to be as an editor. Note:only after starting the response did I note how often I have in fact encountered the nominee. I guess, because I never saw anything to question, the name didn't register as quickly as it should have. My apologies for my incompetent editing on the fly.Badbilltucker 18:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
64. Support per nominator and comments above. Sarah Ewart 16:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
65. Support per nom. Just H 22:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
66. Support -- ßottesiηi 00:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
67. Weak Support Think he should have disclosed other accounts without having users search for them, but he's still a great user. Tennis DyNamiTe 02:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
68. Support per nom --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 04:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
69. Support I believe this candidate will do a fine job serving Misplaced Pages's porpoise. Dionyseus 06:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
70. Support Great candidate and a fine editor. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. A whole alternate account for Games? Games like this stuff? That will help the encyclopaedia how? Just doesn't feel right. Not that I suppose it will make any difference. Moreschi 18:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

   I think he uses it for welcoming users and test purposes.__Seadog 19:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

   He may do. As the subpage shows, it is also used for other purposes! Ones which I find objectionable. Moreschi 19:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

   The wording on that page was intended to be humourous. I created it with RfAs in mind - I didn't want to make you guys/gals think that the majority of my edits are taken up by testing, etc. when you looked at my contributions, because they aren't. --Gray Porpoise_{Your wish is my command!} 20:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

   To tell you the truth, your comment here does not help your cause. Stating that the purpose (or is that porpoise?) of the alternate account was to segment off a portion of you edits for the purpose of creating a more favorable impression for this RfA makes it unlikely now that I will change my oppose below. I think you should consider why this comment of yours here is damaging, as this also reflects on your judgement. I truly am sorry to be opposing at this point as I have had only favorable interactions with you, so I hope if this RfA is successful that you will reflect on my comments here as you carry out your admin duties. —Doug Bell  21:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

   Doug: (1) You stole my pun, see below. (2) I think what GP meant was that not that he wanted to hide the "welcoming" edits from scrutiny on RfA, but that GP didn't want to be suspected of making them for the purpose of favorably influencing an RfA, nor get a reaction that "it's hard to see your substantive edits amidst all the welcomes and such" (the way vandal-fighters with lots of AWB edits sometimes hear "how can we see what else you're doing amidst all those reverts and warnings?"). Newyorkbrad 21:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

   Sorry about the pun theft, I didn't do it on porpoise. :-) What you say may very well be true, but concealing the edits is not the way to approach it. The candidate is given ample opportunity to point people to whatever they think is relevant and to discuss the points you say. I am, however, not at all fond of resumé grooming for an RfA, and that is essentially what GrayPorpoise is admitting to above. That combined with the lack of disclosure pushes this over the line in terms of judgement for me. I seriously doubt if my oppose or Moreschi's oppose are going to derail this RfA, so the purpose (I restrained myself) of this oppose is to impress upon the nominee the importance of full disclosure and exercising good judgement. —Doug Bell  21:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

   It's not so much the undisclosed account that I minded - though it isn't clever - but basically what cheesed me off where those Games in the subpage link that I provided. We are not here to play Games - we are here to write an encyclopaedia. The task of Wikipedians is to write that encyclopaedia. Everything else is secondary. Games are evil enough without the game edits disappearing onto an undisclosed secondary account. Moreschi 22:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

   You said that with real purpoise. Perhaps the nominee thought it was an all-purpoise encyclopaedia. :) Bubba hotep 22:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC) that's it from me!

   I am getting sick to my back teeth of these "purpose/porpoise" puns. It's just not funny and is starting to annoy. And no, it isn't an all-purpose encyclopaedia. It's just an encyclopaedia.

   To respond to Gray Porpoise below - well, you didn't exactly bring the existence of that account to our attention - AGF and all that. What is more, why not show a little faith and trust??? RFA voters are not, as a rule, stupid. Nor do they make snap judgements based on edit counts and nothing else. Moreschi 22:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

   I'm sorry that I forgot about the account when filling out the RfA questions. I am assuming good faith- no, the best faith possible- out of you, but I just believe there may be some misunderstanding. Your opposition is well thought out, and this confusion is my fault. Further explanation: That "Games" page was created before the recent deletion discussions concerning "games" on Misplaced Pages, and I now have a thorough understanding of it. My opinion on this matter is here, and I hope to propose a guideline based on it. --Gray Porpoise_{Your wish is my command!} 22:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

2. Reluctantly oppose per Moreschi (changed from first non-nom support<sigh>). It's much more because the nominee failed to disclose the use of alternate accounts, but also partly because of the content of the account. —Doug Bell  19:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

   Please explain? --Gray Porpoise_{Your wish is my command!} 20:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

   Unless I'm missing it, I don't see any mention of the alternate account you use mentioned on either your user page, nor on this RfA. I think that users need to disclose information about any other accounts they may use, and that especially applies in an RfA. In an RfA people need to be able to evaluate the user's contributions, and this would include all contributions regardless of account. The lack of disclosure is, I'm sorry to say, a significant lapse in judgement. Since the three cornerstones of admin qualification for me are maturity, civility and judgement, I'm afraid I have to oppose based on your judgement in failing to disclose. —Doug Bell  20:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

   There is a link, albeit not a prominent one, to this account from Gray Porpoise's userpage under the heading "My Doubles", which has been present since September 21. (The other "doubles" are non-controversial impersonation-prevention accounts.) While Doug Bell's comment is correct in theory, in this instance I see no motive to conceal the existence of a "welcoming" account that could only have strengthened the candidate's record of contributions. Newyorkbrad 20:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

   Well, I did miss that link because of the confusing formatting of the page. That does significantly reduce my concern. However, for the moment at least, I'm going to remain as an oppose because I think this should have been prominently disclosed on this RfA instead of being something people had to search for. It isn't simply a matter of motivation, and I assumed no ill motivation, but primarily regards judgement. —Doug Bell  20:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

   I also meant to point out that while I assume no ill intent, obviously the existence of the account did not strengthen the record in the eyes of Moreschi. That's why full and open disclosure is important. —Doug Bell  21:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

   I did not try to "hide" or "conceal" anything from RfA participants. What I meant was... How do I word this... Metaphor time! Imagine someone putting on a pretty mask to hide their ugly face. That is a representation of what some of these comments suggest. What I really mean, metaphorically, is that I made the account so that the ugly face could be seen, but the mask would not go unnoticed. Do you get the gist of it? I wanted to avoid inexperienced RfA participants taking one look at my contributions and saying, "Gray Porpoise fools around and never helps the encyclopedia." I did not want to throw you off. If you wish, and if this RfA is successful, I shall indefinitely block my alternate account and not mess around with the "games" on Misplaced Pages. As for welcoming, I didn't want to make it appear that I spent more time chatting with people than improving articles, which I don't. --Gray Porpoise_{Your wish is my command!} 22:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

   A few afterthoughts:

   1) I don't prioritize "games" above normal editing.

   2) I may or may not be male. You may refer to me by any pronoun you wish.

   3) I'm not "hiding" edits in the sense that I don't wish for you to see them. I'm:

   3.1) separating them so they are not misleading

   3.2) a very forgetful being

   3.3) one who reads and tries to obey guidelines and policies, but may interpret them differently from others --Gray Porpoise_{Your wish is my command!} 22:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

   Comment: Whether or not the alternate account is appropriate, I can't by any stretch of the imagination see it as "undisclosed". I, for one, knew about it already, but I think it's quite prominently displayed on the userpage -- most people with sockpuppets don't admit to them at all. - Che Nuevara 22:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

   Maybe I should rename the subpage, so others can easily notice it. If you support of or object to that idea, please say so. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gray Porpoise (talk • contribs) .

   To be clear, I never used the term "sockpuppet", because I in no way am trying to make any implication that sockpuppetry was the purpose of the alternate account. I'm sure you didn't mean to imply either that I had made that claim, nor that GrayPorpoise had that intent, but it pays to be careful with your choice of words. —Doug Bell  23:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

   Naturally, and I'm sorry for any potential misunderstanding. I don't actually consider "sockpuppetry" a negative term; I simply use it to mean any sub-account of an editor's main account. There's a general sentiment on Misplaced Pages that, if someone has multiple accounts, they're doing something underhanded. I don't make that assumption. I happen to think that WP:SOCK should undergo a massive overhaul, but that's a discussion for another place. Apologies again for any implications I accidentally made. - Che Nuevara 02:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

3. oppose - per Doug Bell, I had intially stayed away from this one as being neutral, but the idea of going out of the way to look good on a RfA doesn't sit well with me --T-rex 16:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Something doesn't quite feel right about this user, but I don't know what. Ral315 (talk) 05:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

   Just a comment, usually neutral or oppose votes have more elaboration than "something just doesn't quite feel right." You should show valid evidence as to what you might think would be an issue.¤~Persian Poet Gal 06:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

   If you can figure out what doesn't feel right, please let me know so I can improve on it. --Gray Porpoise_{Your wish is my command!} 20:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

   This neutral comment needs to be explained a bit further, or it will serve no porpoise at all. Newyorkbrad 21:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

   Hey, I have the copyright on the misuse of that word (see Support #15) ;) Bubba hotep 21:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

   I think the candidate should open another account just to deal with the pun-related issues. This would, of course, be a single-porpoise account. Newyorkbrad 21:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

   He would have to do it on porpoise. Would you forward him the porpoisal? Bubba hotep 21:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

   I am guessing the "something" is the temperament of this user. Humorous user may be distrusted by some people. That's just my interpretation of Ral315's comment. AQu01rius (User &#149; Talk) 06:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

   I don't know, Ral's a pretty humorous guy. bibliomaniac15 05:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

   I can see minor quibbles with alternate accounts, but this user's dedication to the project is clearly porpoiseful. IronDuke 01:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Biruitorul

Final (38/15/8) Ended 19:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Biruitorul (talk · contribs) – Biruitorul and I have about 2.7 languages in common, but have diametrically opposite politics. I'm a New York Jewish red-diaper-baby leftist whose guitar-playing father (due to the vagaries of New York ethnic politics) sang "Kevin Barry" with gusto; he may be the only Ulster Unionist Romanian monarchist in captivity. I have observed him to be one of the English-language Misplaced Pages's most excellent, erudite, even-handed, unbiased contributors; the only reason I even know his politics is from the Romanian Wikipedians' notice board, where political discussion is freewheeling. Of the many good contributors who have joined in the last year, I cannot imagine that any would be better qualified to be an administrator. Jmabel | Talk 17:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I humbly accept. Biruitorul 19:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

   A: I'd be most interested in WP:RCP, both fighting recent changes by vandals but especially in speedy-deleting nonsense pages. I would also like to close AfD disputes and help resolve NPOV problems. I plan to monitor the Administrators' noticeboard and help deal with WP:RM requests. More generally, I plan to be helpful wherever called on, both by other administrators to deal with backlog or by any user in trying to solve a problem, but the above would be my specialties. Biruitorul 19:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

   Q: What is your definition of "nonsense page"? `'mikkanarxi 19:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

   A: I don't have a hard and fast definition, but in general I know them when I see them. They're typically created by very new editors without user pages, are under 500 bytes in size, employ poor grammar and punctuation, etc. I'll give two recent examples. One was a page called "Nunn the gun" and read "Nunn The Gun, is a young influential musician. And a champion." Another was a page called "Jerry Tarkanian Court" and read "Named after the longtime head coach Jerry Tarkanian." That's the sort of thing I'm very eager to delete practically on sight. Biruitorul 22:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

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

   A: Well, I've listed my articles here and I suppose most of them are all right, but I especially like the ones in bold, plus these two. I'm also somewhat of a templates man, with my creations (mainly drawn from other language editions) ranging from this one to this one to this one. There are also certain pages I like to keep clean of recurring vandalism, like these two. I'm pleased with these particular contributions because I think they've helped make the encyclopedia a better one and because they've demonstrated the wiki process in action, often undergoing substantial improvement since I first submitted them. Biruitorul 19:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

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

   A I've been in debates and discussions over content, but they've never gotten heated. Some of the more excited debates you can follow here and here. Most of the time I've resolved matters through persistent discussion, sometimes calling on other editors who support my position. I plan to continue doing the same; I will not be trigger-happy when it comes to blocking and will not abuse my powers to push my own version. Biruitorul 19:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

   The links in your answer to question 3 don't work for me. I mean they don't function, not that I take issue with them. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 17:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

   Sorry. Fixed. Biruitorul 18:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

4. What is your opinion about letting banned users to be involved in discussions in wikipedia? `'mikkanarxi 19:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

   A It depends on the particulars of the case, but in general, a ban is a rather serious matter, so the user shouldn't be participating here until and unless the ban is lifted. Biruitorul 21:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

   Q: What particulars make it permissible to be engaged in discussions with banned user? (When answering this question please keep in mind that bans are not given lightly, are always preceded by other means of conflict resolution and lengthy litigation) `'mikkanarxi 16:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

   A: Let me give a concrete example. As I understand it, User:Anittas was banned for reasons that don't have to do with his credibility. If Anittas wanted to contribute an idea to an article, I would engage in discussion with him through e-mail and weigh what he had to say, possibly making use of his ideas. However, all discussion would be kept off talk pages. If a sockpuppet of a banned user wrote on my talk page I would delete that discussion and direct him to use e-mail. But Anittas' case is fairly special (see, for instance, Jmabel's post here); since most banned users are trolls with nothing valuable to contribute, my default would be to ignore them. Biruitorul 19:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

5. When faced with vandals or edit disputes, do you favor a hard-line, "zero-tolerance" approach or negotiation and discourse? Do you believe in punishment or rehabiliation? What is your user rights policy in regards to admin action and how will you ensure that there are checks and balances in the process and accountability for your own actions? Ronline ✉ 13:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

   A To some extent, it depends on the nature of the vandalism. If we're talking about someone blanking pages or writing "hkjsgdfskfsk" in random spots, I would give the usual series of warnings before blocking, etc. Edit disputes are quite another matter. My own credo is dialogue, dialogue, and more dialogue. I believe that the more debate we have, the better the results will be, so I will try to keep engaging with parties to a dispute for as long as is feasible. I believe that, within reason, rehabilitation should be the focus. For instance, if someone has shown that he has good ideas but also has a habit of making intemperate, abusive remarks, we should first try to get him to understand that those are unacceptable; only if he fails to grasp that within a reasonable time frame (maybe a week) would I support punitive action (unless the insults were truly egregious, in which case more forceful punishment would be appropriate). I'm not quite sure what you mean by a "user rights policy". As for accountability, to some extent it's a matter of trust with admins (though of course they too can be disciplined) but I think I've shown myself to be a rather conciliatory type and a good listener, so if my actions aroused opposition I would certainly take all complaints into account and pursue appropriate measures to ensure the best outcome for all involved parties. Biruitorul 19:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Optional question from Diez2 (talk · contribs):

Q. How long have you been active in editing Misplaced Pages? Diez2 05:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

A. Roughly three years; nearly seven months as a registered user. Biruitorul 22:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Q: Sample proof, please. `'mikkanarxi 23:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

A: This and this was me, for instance. Is that what you were looking for? Biruitorul 23:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

General comments

• See Biruitorul's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
• I would appreciate your support. I won't make any grandiose promises but I do intend to keep those I've made to the best of my ability. Biruitorul 19:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• I strongly suggest for Biruitorul to write edit comments for non-minor edits. `'mikkanarxi 19:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• And major edits aswell. HighInBC 20:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Normally, I'd agree with the edit summary issue. Biruitorul's edits, though, have been so uniformly good that I've come to view just his name as 99% assurance that it will be a good edit. There are all of about a dozen editors I could say that about to a comparable degree in 3+ years working here. - Jmabel | Talk 20:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• It appears that some people find my nomination comments off topic. Odd. I would think that a nomination coming from someone who is not of the same mind as the nominee on political matters would carry some weight: most of the complaints I've heard about administrators have been that they fail to be evenhanded politically. - Jmabel | Talk 04:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• I really don't see anything untoward in the nominator placing a notice of this candidacy on a board, particularly so when there's no solicitation/encouragement of votes in favour (or against). I think it's not that uncommon a practice. Also agree with Jmabel's point above.--cjllw | TALK 07:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Support

1. Jmabel | Talk 19:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC) - Pleased to be the first to vote for this worthy candidate.
2. Hear, hear. As stated before, although he and I disagree on almost everything political, I am yet to see as neutral an editor as Biruitorul. Dahn 20:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
3. In my experience Biruitorul is a friendly and knowledgeable editor. Appleseed (Talk) 20:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
4. Support. --Mihai - 21:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
5. Support, the mainspace edits make up for everthing else for me. But you really need to get those edit summerys up and also the wikispace.__Seadog 00:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
6. Support. Has the experience; is a helpful, reasonable and knowledgeable contributor; does not edit-war or allow his own views to intrude into articles. I don't need to see dozens of "delete per noms" from this candidate to accept that he's able to grasp the principles of XfDs and admin-worthy behaviour. Edit summaries are a nice-to-have (there are plenty of established admins out there using these sparingly anyways), which could presumably be improved. I don't see the downside in making Biruitorul an admin, the reverse in fact.--cjllw | TALK 00:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
7. Support no negative stands out, and I don't mind if the nominee for focusing on building articles.-- danntm _C 01:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
8. Support Good and helpful user overall, qualified enough to become an adminstrator. Hello32020 01:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
9. Strong Support We need more admins like Biruitorul who have experience in writing articles and getting into the trenches. The fact that this user has not been involved in "WikiPolitics" is a strong plus, not a minus. Instead of playing virtual cops and robbers in the Wikispaces, this editor has put in hard work to create articles and improve articles with information not readily available in the paper encyclopedias. That's been the purpose of Misplaced Pages, but I feel that many entrenched Wikipedians have forgotten this. Rather, they just get into a tizzy whenever a Stephen Colbert comes up with a term called Wikiality. WatchingYouLikeAHawk 05:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
10. Support. I met Biruitorul when he first came here, and I've seen nothing but good things since. He's proven himself to be a very neutral editor, plus I liked his answer to mikka's question. Khoikhoi 06:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
11. Support. - Andrei 13:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
12. Support. With more than 13000 edits, he deserve to be an admin.--MariusM 15:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
13. Support. NPOV, meticulous article improvements, modest, friendly and approachable, and, to comment on what I see is writen below by opposants, I would also add experience. Greier 20:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
14. Support. For the edit count, number of high-quality articles, a.s.o. Givig him responsibilities will also help moderate his political views. Dpotop 22:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
15. Weak Support. I'd like to address some of the points raised by those who have opposed you or have voted neutral. For one, I think that your work with Misplaced Pages so far has been grand. You've got all the signs of a good Wikipedian who would make a good moderator. There are some things, however, you are lacking in. As Nishkid pointed out, you have a lack of edit summary usage (something so minor keeping you from becoming an Admin!). Another thing pointed out was the fact that, although you are a great contributor to Misplaced Pages, you really don't need the tools. You're working well right now. Becoming an admin isn't everything. In fact, many admins eventually retire and give up the mop because they become too preoccupied with putting out fires, handling the vandals, and deciding policy. If you truely want to become an Admin, that's fine. However, you can still contribute above and beyond (look at User:Werdna, who is highly respected Wikipedian who isn't and chooses not to be an Admin) what is expected of the average Wikipedian without the admin tools. Sharkface217 22:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
16. Support I have yet to see an oppose vote that lists a legitimate reason for opposing him. He has always been productive. KazakhPol 22:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
17. Support The fact that this user spent most of his time building excellent articles rather performing petty bureaucratic tasks should not go against him. TSO1D 00:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
18. Strong support – despite his often-controversial talk page opinions, Biruitorul is a very neutral and professional main namespace editor. In particular, I believe his answer to question 5 above embodies the values all admins should have, particularly an emphasis on dialogue and co-operation. Even though some people have opposed his candidature because he "hasn't warned enough vandals yet", I don't think this should impact at all on his status as an admin. Giving admin status to someone costs nothing, but can bring about a lot of benefits for the project, and I think that with admin powers, Biruitorul can be become an even better contributor. I look forward to having you on the admin team :) Ronline ✉ 03:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

    I am not aware of any contributor who has improved his performance after obtaining admin tools. As has been demonstrated in previous discussions, it rather works the other way. There have never been contributors superior to Wetman, Giano, or Halibutt, who are all non-admins. Furthermore, I am alarmed that most supporters of Biruitorul are Romanians. More neutral opinions are appreciated. --Ghirla 09:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

    58% of my current supporters are not Romanian, so it is factually incorrect that "most" of my supporters are Romanians. Furthermore, I take issue with the notion that Romanians can't be objective about each other. Biruitorul 15:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

    To ghirla: Nothing strange that many suporters are Romanians: these are probably most common people he comes across in editing. To biru: The issue is not objectivity: it is only hatural that you are supposed to have less conflicts with Romanians than, say, with Turks, if you were to edit the Ottoman Empire topics. Therefore the desire to see more opinions outside the circle of most probable buddies is only natural. `'mikkanarxi 04:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

19. Support Very polite, very neutral, very trustworthy, very good editor, very nitpicky opposition. The man is sure to make a great admin. . That "bashing" comment would be: "Too bad the opposers can't assess the value of this nomination by someone with fundamentally different POV." (meaning the nominator Jmabel, as he explicitly states in his nomination comment). I find its removal and the addition of the bracketed text abusive. I stand by every word in my comment. NikoSilver 17:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
20. Support based on edit count and lack of incivility in talk pages Would recommend being careful about not blocking for newbie errors and going slow with closing to delete until you have more experience judging consensus. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 17:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
21. Support. I've collaborated and interacted with Biruitorul on several occasions and I've come to known him as a neutral and careful Wikipedian who respects the others' opinion. He would definitely be a good admin. Todor→Bozhinov 17:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
22. Support This users ideas for problem solving is great let him be a admin. Cocoaguy (Talk) 22:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
23. Support A thoroughly rational, level-headed editor. I cannot see how giving him the buttons would harm the project in any way, and it would undoubtedly benefit it.--Taxwoman 13:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
24. Support. This user's contributions in the mainspace will make an excellent admin willing to discuss issues rather than just block for them. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 14:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
25. Support I doubt he'd abuse the tools.--Euthymios 23:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
26. Support I see no reason to oppose. --Carnildo 01:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
27. good luck :) --dario vet ^_^ (talk) 13:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
28. Support - to those that are critical of the number of wikispace edits, please keep in mind that we're here first of all we're here to right an encyclopedia; users to become admins should be first of all good mainspace editors, and Biruitorul is a fantastic editor. I may be a wrong, but I've had the feeling that some admins tend with adminship to neglect what should remain their main work, writing sourced articles; with this editor I know this will not happen.--Aldux 21:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
29. Support, high level of experience, nothing in record suggests a problem. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
30. Support. Just like Dahn, I disagree with most of Biruitorul's political views, but I see him as a very valuable Wikipedian. We Hungarians often can get into wars with editors from neighboring countries, but I don't remember any of us getting into a conflict with Biru, he is one of the nicest Romanians I met here. – Alensha  21:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
31. Support - neutral and a person that give help when needed.--Roamataa 21:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
32. Support - Seems unlikely to abuse the tools. GeeJo ⁄_(c) • 00:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
33. Support.--Madhyako Pradesh lo 12:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
34. Support. Nominee has been much-scolded for lack of edit summaries, lack of participation in wikiprojects, etc. All of these are extremely valid concerns, and (significantly) would be fatal flaws 95 times out of 100. IMO, this is the one of the 5% of cases that I would trust the nominee with the tools, and to improve in the aforementioned offending areas. Trust trumps readily correctable flaws, in rare cases. --Ling.Nut 15:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
35. Support out of following reasons:

    • he is a good editor
    • he cares more to create content than to exert power
    • he expressed very strong commitment to dialogue
    • he is ready to contact anybody who can help the project, including banned users
    • he appears to favour mutual respect and cooperation rather than authority, coercion and confrontation
    • there is little risk with this candidate to become just another mediocre, hyperactive and latently abusive admin; it is much more likely that he will use admin tools with moderation and responsibility --Vintila Barbu 19:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

36. Strong Support This is someone that I respect, and will be an enormous asset to all good people, he's both creative and modest. Modernist 23:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
37. Support. Looks good to me. Puppy Mill 01:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

    Support. Serhio

    Cast by IP address . Redux 19:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

38. Support. Changed to support. I have seen less deserving candidates promoted last week. Adminship is no big deal, says Jimbo. --Ghirla 18:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. We don't "fight" changes. ... aa:talk 19:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

   Yes we do. We also read carefully what other people write (in this case, what exactly candidates write or mean to write). If we don't understand something, we ask questions first, then vote. And again, we do fight vandalism. `'mikkanarxi 19:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

2. Oppose. I would like to support this user, but I'm not so sure due to the lack of edit summary usage and the lack of participation in AfD's. Nishkid64 20:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
3. Reluctant Oppose Excellent mainspace contributions, however low use of project and project/user talk spaces as well as very low edit summary usages concern me. Canadian-Bacon 20:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose. Insufficient project-space participation suggests lack of familiarity with wiki-process. - crz crztalk 21:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose Sorry, I must oppose as well. You appear to be an excellent editor, but your Misplaced Pages space count is just too low, your edit summary usage is far below the least acceptable, and I see no recent countervandalism or participation in AFD (which doesn't really look good for someone who's willing to perform administrative tasks in those areas).--Húsönd 21:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
6. Strong oppose partly per Nishkid, Crazy and Husond and partly because I can't really see a need for admin tools. Most of the "specialty" jobs you say you'd like to be able to do in question one can be done without adminship, eg, helping resolving NPOV issues, RCP, closing (some) XfDs, helping out on AN, ANI and RM. These jobs really don't require the tools and many, many editors are doing them now without the mop. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 00:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC) Changed to strong oppose. I don't care how credible you think a banned user might be, no one should be acting as proxies for editors who are under bans. The policy is completely unambiguous on this issue: "Wikipedians are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user". Sarah Ewart (Talk) 20:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
   • I would think that the policy was unambiguous: "at the direction of" does not mean "after consultation with". If I have misinterpreted, I would (honestly) welcome an RFC or even a request that I be de-sysop'd on this ground, since I am in communication with at least two banned users and pass along messages when I think they are useful or on the mark. I don't intend to stop doing this, so if the community consensus is, indeed, that it should rule out someone being a sysop, then I no longer have that consensus, and I've long said that I (or anyone else) should be in this role only by clear consensus. - Jmabel | Talk 00:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
     • I concur, and I happen to know 3 other admins who would also 'hand over their badges' over this misinterpretation of policy. NikoSilver 11:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose. You need to warn vandals, and you definitely need to use more edit summaries. Your article contributions are great, but writing articles is irrelevant to admin tools, as they do not help you with article writing in any way. You don't seem to have much participation in other things, thus, I don't see that you have need of admin tools. -Amarkov _edits 02:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
8. Weak Oppose per all the above concerns. --Siva1979 02:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose, lacks of edits in several namespaces. Please warn vandals as much as possible, unless someone warned before you can. Don't be discouraged as you can still be a good editor without becoming an admin. If you want to, participate in xFDs etc. --Terence Ong _{(C | R)} 04:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

   Oppose He's my brother (really) and, seeing that this would be really bad for him, it's my duty to oppose.

   Struck, unregistered users are not permitted to comment in the Support, Oppose, or Neutral sections. -Amarkov _edits 02:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

10. Oppose per Crz, who has been reading my mind lately. Xoloz 06:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
11. Oppose, despite the (unintentionally?) romantic nomination from Jmabel. Needs to learn that we do warn vandals. Proto::type 11:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
12. Weak Oppose The level of wiki-space edits, talk pages (particularly vandal warnings) participation and edit summaries gets to me aswell as the decided lack of XfD discussion. Seeing as these are the areas of contribution this user will participate in as an admin, I think more experience in those areas is neccessary. The 12 000 mainspace edits is very good though. James086 13:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
13. Oppose He doesn't need admin tools to keep up the good work...(history shows that adminship is quite detrimental for Romanians) Anonimu 12:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

    Are you serious? Have you studied the effect of adminship on various nationalities? SuperMachine 17:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

    I've just observed its effect on the very few Romanians that became admins (because I'm a Romanian myself, not because i'm a racist). Anyway, i think it's better than supporting someone's adminship just because he adds useful information to articles. Anonimu 17:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

    Oh vey, a racist schmuck on Wikipaedia! WatchingYouLikeAHawk 04:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

14. Opppose. I respect JMabel's opinions, but I'm concerned about not enough project space experience. Come back in a couple of months. Jayjg 17:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
15. Opppose Wants to close AfD's but has two or three AfD contributions since October, 13 total? ~ trialsanderrors 07:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral You look like a really good editor and I can't see any problems with your encyclopedic contributions. I do see less than ten XfD discussion contributions and no vandal warnings from a random sample of your user Talk page edits, latest to earliest. I would feel confident in supporting you with more of the above in evidence. A minor point, do you have edit summaries forced on your preferences? If you don't then I think that this would be a good idea. If you do, then the gaps are probably where you have used the '+' link to add comments. Regards, (aeropagitica) 22:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

   Neutral But on an aside, I think you're airing some family's dirty laundry in one of your answers. If this is corrected, I'd be inclined to support because I value mainspace editing, and especially article writing, over participating in WikiBureaucracy. I think our admins should be in the trenches writing articles before they can oversee the writing of articles. WatchingYouLikeAHawk 04:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

2. Neutral. I don't want to pile on opposes, so I'll just remain neutral. Although this user has many useful edits, the extreme lack of edit summaries is worth noting, as is the lack of Wikispace talk eits. NauticaShades 07:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

   Neutral. I know this guy for some very minor, pedantic edits he makes to DYK pages. Since they are not accompanied by edit summaries, I have to check the page each time, which is sort of time-consuming. Reading the nomination, I hoped to learn why he would be helpful as an admin. Instead, I learned a lot about his and Jmabel's policial leanings. I don't care about political views of our admins and don't think that one's interest in politics is a sufficient reason to entrust him or her with tools. Sorry. --Ghirla 08:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

3. Neutral. You're a great contributor, but do you really need the tools? If you're dead set on becoming an admin, I'd recommend you get involved more in admin-related tasks and come back in a couple of months. I'll gladly support you then. —Lantoka 22:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
4. Neutral - not enough experience, but looks good. I see no reason why I wouldn't support in 3 months --T-rex 23:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
5. Neutral not comfortable with the amount of experience in project space. Also, this advertisement of this RfA by the nominator is a bit of a negative. —Doug Bell  04:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
6. Neutral no strong need for tools. ← ANAS 15:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
7. Neutral per Sarah Ewart. riana_dzasta 15:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
8. Neutral per Crzrussian. Try XfD for a start. Come back in a few months and I'll reconsider. - Mailer Diablo 21:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Daveydweeb

Final (72/0/1) Ended 12:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Daveydweeb (talk · contribs) – This user is basically anawesome editor. He helps out in all forms of Misplaced Pages & is always civil. Daveydweeb knows the site's protocol & would make a great administrator. I don't need to say much about this user, his efforts should do the rest of the talking. Thanks, Spawn Man 02:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Co-nomination by riana_dzasta

If Spawn Man doesn't mind, I'd like to co-nominate Daveydweeb for adminship (because I've been saying I will for a long time). Daveydweeb previously contributed under the name RandyWang, until concerns about the nature of his username came up in his last RfA. The other major concern which arose was misuse of speedy deletion tags; other editors were concerned that David tagged articles too hastily, and did not warn article creators enough. However, he is currently undergoing admin coaching from Yanksox, and even a quick overview of that page shows that he is willing and able to learn from past mistakes, and that his recent attempts at new page patrolling have been non-controversial and following policy.

Daveydweeb has over 4500 edits under his belt, well-distributed across the namespaces. His contributions to projectspace are particularly impressive - he is an active participant in AfD and WikiProject Computer and video games. He has also given multiple helpful editor reviews , regularly gives his opinion at RfAs , and is one of the Misplaced Pages Weekly podcasters, where - if you take a listen </plug> - he has consistently shown his ability to discuss policy, procedures and happenings in a calm and rational manner.

David doesn't do much recent changes patrol anymore, as his focus appears to have shifted to NPP. However, judging by his previous reverts , I have no doubt that he would be able to handle this aspect of adminship. As for other mainspace contributions, Daveydweeb has a good article under his belt with Personal computer game; thus he can appreciate this aspect of editing, and how hard it can be for contributors to raise articles to such high standards.

David's interactions with other users are unfailingly polite , civil and friendly , and while he has a sense of humour, I've never seen him cross the line. He welcomes new users , helps them out , and is willing to explain policies .

As for the paperwork - 99%/100% edit summary usage for major/minor edits, short signature, non-controversial userpage, talk page archiving.

I think all the problems from David's last RfA have been worked on and improved on, and I see no reason why he should not make a very fine administrator. He shows knowledge of policy, civility, and understands the fundamentals of NPOV, NOR, BITE and our deletion policies. David would make a diligent and helpful admin, and I'm sure he will continue to be an asset to the encyclopedia. riana_dzasta 07:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I very gratefully accept. Thank you. :) Daveydweeb (/_review!) 08:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Quick statement from Daveydweeb

As Riana notes above, I had a previous RfA that was ultimately unsuccessful for various reasons. The first, the matter of my username, has obviously been fixed.

The second, my involvement at speedy deletion, has been a major focus of my efforts in the recent past. The first part of the problem was simply that I took a whack-a-mole attitude toward new content, preferring to immediately tag it with {{db-nonsense}} and leave it to be deleted by someone else without warning the user. Since then, I've taken some time to improve my habits as much as possible through admin coaching with Yanksox, who has been very helpful on a number of matters (see my answer to question 3). The {{prod}} tag is now much more useful to me than it ever was, and I generally give article creators enough time to expand their articles before deciding on what should be done with them.

To address the second point of opposition surrounding my deletion habits -- namely, that I implicitly bit new users by failing to warn them of deletion tagging -- I now take the time to warn the creator of every good faith article that I mark for speedy deletion, as a matter of courtesy to the user and in the hope of preventing the creation of additional deleteable articles. Beyond that, I often try to remind other users to do so (and sometimes other things as well), usually with excellent results. I believe my attitude toward deletion has been totally overhauled, and is now much better suited to adminship.

-- Daveydweeb (/_review!) 08:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: First and foremost, I'd like to help with clearing out C:CSD as necessary. This category often exceeds 100 items in need of administrative consideration, and can take a great effort to clear out again. Since much of my experience is in this area, I'd anticipate helping to keep the number of items in this category down to a reasonable level.

Edit: As of 10:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC), there are exactly 100 articles in that category.

Secondly, I'd like to make myself useful closing AfD debates. I spend a fair amount of time at WP:AFD/T, and try to maintain a fairly constant presence there; I believe I now have quite enough experience to help with closing out older deletions and any which need speedy attention.

Thirdly, and if I'm not exhausted by then ( :) ), I intend to keep an eye on WP:AIV and WP:ANI and make myself available when necessary. While blocking users and chasing down sockpuppets would not be the focus of my activities, I recognise that a speedy response to such things is often necessary and would be willing to provide one.

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

A: Yes, of course! I'm torn between being proud of my contributions to Personal computer game, which raised it to good article status, and depressed that it still has so far to go. As happy as I am with that article, it still has a few issues which need to be dealt with in order to raise it to featured quality; it's something I will be forever working on, but I really like doing so.

As well as that, I'm very happy with my previous contributions to editor review. In the past I challenged myself to respond to every single request for review and was successful in doing so, until the lead-up to my final school exams a couple of months ago. I'm pleased that I was able to contribute to this exercise and would dearly love to continue with it, time permitting.

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

A: Absolutely, and I want to draw !voters attention to two of them in particular:

First and most importantly, one of my earliest experiences at Misplaced Pages was when I had what could be described as "a bit of a tiff" with User:Xino, regarding his use of copyvio material, "owning" of articles and the like, all of which ended with his indefinite blocking when the case was taken to ArbCom. From that, I gained a pretty good experience in distancing myself from arguments on Misplaced Pages, and I've taken away from it my knowledge of dispute resolution and ability to distance myself from disagreements on Misplaced Pages without too much difficulty.

More recently, I came across User:Nunh-huh, an admin, who I don't believe reacted well to my inappropriate tagging of Mock Duck with {{db-repost}} (only the conversation as I was directly involved is shown in that diff, but it continued for a bit afterwards). I initially responded in what I'm sure was a reasonable manner when he pointed out (correctly) that I'd misused the tag, and asked for the advice of Yanksox and the administrator who originally deleted the article in question. When User:Chacor took it to RfC because of Nunh-huh's unfriendly replies, I responded as shown at that page and on the talk; while I believe my initial handling of the dispute was passable (not great), I'm unhappy that I became as worked up as I did when it was taken to RfC. In the future, I would attempt to distance myself further from the dispute -- I broke the golden rule of waiting a few hours to cool down before responding to formal dispute resolution process, and have resolved myself not to do that again.

4. Optional question from James086 Did you create a new account or get a bureaucrat to change your name? I'm asking to find out whether you retained your contributions as RandyWang.

A: I changed my name, because at that point I had considerably fewer contributions. If I were ever to do it again, I'd probably just create a new account and have each one refer back to the other, for two reasons: firstly, to reduce the load on the WMF's limited server resources, and secondly, because changing all those broken links is really tedious. :)

5. Optional question from WatchingYouLikeAHawk Did you get your FA-Article yet? BTW, I had to read your old username a few times over and I thought it was hilarious. Never mind, I read your anwser to #2, which answers this question.

General comments

• See Spawn Man's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
  • ... wha? As interesting as Spawn Man's is, I'm pretty sure mine is more relevant. :) Daveydweeb (/_review!) 08:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    • My summary usage made be found mathbot's tool. Daveydweeb (/_review!) 08:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Mathbot's confusion appears to be because Spawn Man's name was the first in a {{user}} tag on this page. I've added a copy of yours first to attempt to unconfuse any future bots coming along here. --ais523 09:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Uhhh... *whistles*... riana_dzasta 09:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I think the bot was trying to sabotage me... ;) Spawn Man 23:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Support

1. Nominator support - Of course I'm going to support. :) Spawn Man 02:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
2. Support per my co-nomination. riana_dzasta 08:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
3. Support - Not only have there been good edits, but they have been to some obscure articles that many would shy away from. Deserving of adminship. StayinAnon 08:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
4. Merovingian ※ Talk 09:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
5. No-brainer support, one who I was planning on nominating myself (but Spawn and Riana beat me). A great editor, user, person, advocate for Misplaced Pages, and I imagine will be a great adminsitrator. Daniel.Bryant 09:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
6. Yes, ofcourse. He is one of the best, isn't he? — Nearly Headless Nick 09:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
7. Support - at least until someone gives me a compelling reason why not. Doesn't appear to be the world's most prolific article writer, but I could be wrong and it's hard to argue with 1 GA. Moreschi 10:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
8. Support --Terence Ong _{(C | R)} 11:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
9. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 11:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
10. Strong support. I've been waiting for this RfA for ages. Must be one of the best users on here. Very good luck with this mate! --Majorly (Talk) 12:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
11. Support ;) - crz crztalk 12:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

    :o Daveydweeb (/_review!) 12:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

12. Aw damn Support Geez, sorry about this one. I'm getting off Wikibreak to support this. Daveydweeb will be an excellent sysop. Yanksox 12:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
13. Support I've seen this username time and again on new pages, recent changes, vandal warnings and speedy delete patrols. No problems with supporting. (aeropagitica) 13:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
14. Support. No single doubt about this user. -- Szvest Ω 14:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
15. Yes, yes, yes. Perfectly suited for adminship at this point. – Chacor 14:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
16. Support not a difficult decision.-- danntm _C 14:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
17. Support very good editor. Particularly like the new AfD template he is working on. And who hasn't got into trouble over speedy deletion before? Good admin material, IMHO. Bubba hotep 14:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
18. Enthusiastic support. A kind, conscientious editor who is eager to help and to improve in his capacity. Excellent material for adminship. -- Merope 14:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
19. Support. Looks like he'll make a good admin. NauticaShades 15:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
20. Support Excellent, trustworthy, friendly editor. Xoloz 16:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
21. Support glad I didn't miss this one. Absolutely. - Mike (Talk) 16:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
22. Support is here! Booksworm Sprechen-sie Koala? 16:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
23. I am pleased to see someone else take up the "New Pages Patrol is not Whack-a-mole" mantra, and RW/DD seems to have taken the feedback from his last RFA to heart and then some. Randy support! -- nae'blis 16:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
24. Support - hahnchen 17:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
25. Support per Riana's nom. I think he'll definitely be a great admin. ← ANAS 18:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

    I nominated too ya know... ;) Spawn Man 23:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

    Huh? *runs away* :D ← ANAS 15:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

26. Support Computerjoe's talk 18:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
27. Support. My concerns from the last RfA seem to have been addressed. Agent 86 19:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
28. Mucho Support I hold this user in exceptionally high regard; furthermore, that garbage at Daveydweeb's first RfA about his name having some sexual secondary meaning in Hindu (or something) is frankly a farce. This user is long overdue adminship and I wish him the best of luck. (oh and his WP:ER work is also notable as showing Daveydweeb as a civil Wikipedian and a non-biter.) Cheers, Anthonycfc (talk • email) 19:13, Tuesday December 24 2024 (UTC)
29. Support --Rettetast 20:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
30. Support Although I was a bit worried about potential problems regarding dispute resolution, I see that your level of civility and kindness will probably not be tainted. You'll make a fine admin. =) Nishkid64 20:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
31. Support of course. Great user.--Húsönd 21:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
32. Special:Makesysop - /me goes to look for a 'crat to press the button -- Tawker 23:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

    Oh, so that's what the link is called! Fredil 01:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

    Just tried that link and it didn't work for me... --T-rex 23:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

    Only 'crats and stewards can see that. It says, "The action you have requested is limited to users in one of the groups "Bureaucrats", "Stewards"." Nishkid64 21:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

33. Weak Support - A truely excellent editor and a brilliant admin candidate, but there's the usual Esperanza pile on happening and I sincerly wish other candidates could count on similair numbers voters for their RfAs. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 23:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
34. Support. What's being in Esperanza have to do with an RFA? bibliomaniac15 00:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

    The candidate underwent Esperanza Admin Coaching, and thus is well-known by the Esperanza community. —Lantoka 03:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

35. Support looks like a good candidate Tyson Moore es 00:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
36. Support. If Spawn Man and Riana both nominate, that's a good sign. No bad things coming from this user. We need more moppers :D Fredil 01:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
37. Support with pleasure. Genuinely nice guy with a good head on his shoulders -- Samir धर्म 01:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
38. Support Terrific user; will make a good admin. Hello32020 01:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
39. Support I feel that it is now time to give this user the mop. A great contributor to this project and the added tools given to him would only improve the quality of this project. --Siva1979 02:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

    Support. Good candidate in my humble opinion. (Hate using the acronym!) bibliomaniac15 03:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

    See #34. riana_dzasta 03:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

    Ah! We have a criminal amongst us? Someone is a bit too eager me thinks... ;) Spawn Man 06:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

40. Support: Definitely merits the tools. Heimstern Läufer 05:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
41. Support I've been waiting to support this guy †he Bread 05:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
42. Support because I have seen the candidate's contributions and he's unfailingly pleasant and an asset to WP. -Kubigula (ave) 05:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC) (I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of Esperanza)
43. Strong Support. Sorry to use the over-used clichè, but I thought he already was one. ;) —  $PЯINGrαgђ  Always loyal! 05:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

    Warned for personal attacks. --Rory096 14:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

44. Strongly Support anyone like this guy.  Jorcogα  06:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
45. Support - good editor — Lost 10:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
46. Support seen him around (though never interacted) and he sounds great. James086 13:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
47. Pile On Support Do I really have a choice in the matter? Excellent editor. Canadian-Bacon 17:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
48. Support per riana. Think she covered all the points --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 20:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
49. Support. I've seen Daveydweeb (I still remember him as RandyWang) around a few times at deletion discussions and my editor review, and though we haven't interacted much, I still feel safe to say that I've had good experiences around him. He seems to have everything I look for in a good adminship candidate. --Gray Porpoise_{Your wish is my command!} 21:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
50. Support. Everything looks good.Sharkface217 22:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
51. Support - I supported last time, so I see no reason why not now --T-rex 23:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
52. Strong support - Excellent contributor, mature, responsible and committed to the community. Full disclosure - I am not an Esperanzan, but he is a co-podcaster at Misplaced Pages Weekly. -- Fuzheado | Talk 00:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
53. Support John254 01:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

    Support Wiki Warfare to Infinity 02:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

    I know it's a bit odd for the candidate to do this, but the 'crats should probably be aware of this user's brief history of contributions. Daveydweeb (/_review!) 03:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

    I've stricken the vote above, not that I doubt the good intentions of the user. But with only one edit to article space before voting on RfA, that is much too low. -- Fuzheado | Talk 03:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

    I indented it as well. riana_dzasta 03:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

    I don't really mind. I do not think the candidate is in any danger of not succeeding. Wiki Warfare to Infinity 04:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

54. Support. Good editor. Nice response to last RfA. No concern whatsoever. Rockpocket 07:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
55. Support - Took on feedback from his previous Rfa, and did great work at WP:ER 0L1 Talk Contribs 18:53 29/11/2006 (UTC)
56. Support (changed from previous neutral leaning support below). My change here has nothing to do with the unusual alarm my previous neutral position seems to have caused and everything to do with the nominee's qualifications and demeanor. —Doug Bell  19:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

    I don't think the alarm was that bad Doug, rather just confused about the unsual neutral IMHO... Spawn Man 22:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

    I'm only making the comment here because I don't want my change in position to be incorrectly interpretted as any problem I have with my original reasons to be neutral. I think my previous position was perfectly reasonable and my change here has nothing to do with how people reacted to it, and in fact, was a change I had already indicated I might make in my original neutral comment. —Doug Bell  23:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

57. Support Alphachimp 02:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
58. Support Seems responsible and responsive. IronDuke 04:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
59. Support --Must 07:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
60. Support — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlohcierekim (talk • contribs) 14:42, 30 November 2006
61. Support per nominations. Sarah Ewart 18:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
62. Support. Seen him around? Check. Here to build an encyclopaedia? Check. No evidence of being batshit? Check. No big deal; next please :-)— Preceding unsigned comment added by JzG (talk • contribs)
63. Hmm...What is that word, ah yes Support. I love to see kind and civil wikipedians running for administratorship.__Seadog 00:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
64. Support per noms; a good editor and will be a good admin. JoeSmack 17:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
65. --dario vet ^_^ (talk) 13:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
66. Support Bucketsofg 01:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
67. --Rudjek 12:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
68. Support I don't see why not. --physicq (c) 02:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
69. Support. Looks good. —Lantoka 03:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
70. Support per noms. Acs4b 04:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
71. Support per all of above. Dionyseus 05:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
72. Support. I'm 5 minutes late, but this is an easy one. james 08:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Neutral leaning toward Support. A fantastic editor, but I believe the user spends too much time at the Misplaced Pages namespace and not enough time making major contributions to articles. The user has made around 250 mainspace edits since his last RfA, however he has made around 1600 edits since then. So, basically 15% of his last 1600 edits have been in the mainspace. Now, people may think I shouldn't base my vote on the number of edits made by the user. Okay, I won't. Just take a look at the type of mainspace edits the user has made. Some are stub-sorting, some are revertions, and most are basic remedial work. You're a great user, but I think that you've obsessed too much over AfD's and such, and forgot about what the real point of Misplaced Pages is. Nishkid64 15:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Very fair point, but I think you're forgetting about the fact that this deals with adminship and not an overview of one's role on the Wiki. This is a request for adminship, not "Request for a Giant lovefest about how awesome I am." Which, sadly, is what RfA becomes, but Daveydweeb shows the admin aspect quite well, which is what meets the bill. Yanksox 16:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

That's a very good point, Yanksox. I agree. - crz crztalk 19:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, he has got a good article, Nish. He's not completely useless in the mainspace :) And, like Yanksox says, already doing admin-like chores means that he will make a good admin. Just my 2 cents. riana_dzasta 17:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Point taken. My only concern was about how he would handle editing disputes and stuff of that nature, because his lack of experience in the mainspace gave me the impression that he wasn't that experienced with edit conflicts as much as other people are. I'll probably go support this RfA, but I just want to think it out. Nishkid64 20:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Changed to Support. Nishkid64 20:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Neutral leaning support. No reason not to support, but the fact that the nominee is a member of Esperanza and that ⅔ of the support votes are from Esperanza members is enough to keep me on the fence for now. I'm not assuming any bad faith or collusion here, it's just enough to make me uncertain. —Doug Bell  19:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Changed to support based on having had time to look further into candidate's qualifications. —Doug Bell  19:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Response to this opinion has been moved to the talk page

1. Neutral This editor does not meet my strict and different requirements for adminship, but his desire to get an FA-article has not gone unnoticed. It appears Daveydweeb will get his adminship, but I only hope that he continues to perservere in getting an FA-article. WatchingYouLikeAHawk 23:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Ccool2ax

Final (11/16/18) Ended 12:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Ccool2ax (talk · contribs) – Well, I'm honestly not the best-looking candidate on paper. I have under 2000 edits, I broke under pressure and was uncivil to a troll, I (in a lapse of judgment) AFD'd Family Guy episode summaries... twice. I, however, have grown as a Wikipedian; I think I am now sane enough to be an administrator. I want to be able to do more things to help Misplaced Pages, and I absolutely promise I will not do anything controversial unless there's a damn good reason for doing it (ie, I won't speedy something that doesn't exactly match a CSD). Well, here goes, guys. -- -- Chris is me 04:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: -- Chris is me 04:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Optional Statement:

If anyone thinks I've abused my admin powers in any way, and their request is reasonable, I will gladly give up the mop after a small review on a page somewhere (such as a user subpage). I won't abuse my power. I won't WP:POINT my somewhat radical Misplaced Pages views with the mop (like I did before). Thank you.

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: Well, I plan to do a lot of newpages patrol, deleting spam and nonsense. I'll periodically check CSD out of boredom, just like I do RC/Anti-Vandal right now (IE only every once in a while). I'll close AFD debates (and no, I won't go against consensus because I hate WP:NN), and... oh yeah! I will block vandals and 3RRers.

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

A: (from my ignored Editor Review)Well, I'd say I've done a good job down at the MySpace article. I remember cleaning it up so it sounded less like a kid wrote it. Then I came back to it and started watching it. I successfully "defended" the article from OR from Pnatt and John4grey. I'm also proud of The Night Thoreau Spent in Jail, which I changed from nonsense to that article I need to get around finishing... someday. It's not done, but I love the work I put in so far. It's a good play. See my contribs for the diffs.
I'm also proud of what I almost did: wrote an AppleScript to help find in-legit-article copyvios via Google. Someone beat me to it in Perl; I'll start running the script as soon as I can get perl installed on a windows machine... By the way, no it's not a bot (the script never clicks the "edit" button). -- Chris is me 16:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

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

A: Have I? Yeah, a few times, unfortunately. In my first fe hundred edits, I added a paragraph about a podcast related to Camp Timberlane for Boys. I thought it was important to the article to add the podcast (I happened to run it, but I wasn't trying to plug myself. Honest.). Then BaronLarf came and deleted it, for "nn". Not knowing what "nn" was, I thought it was supposed to go in a new article. I wrote a 4k article on the podcast and stuff. Then it was prodded and afd'd and I learned about WP:NN (which I hate, not beacuase of my article being deleted, but for many, many other reasons). My other conflict is visible in my talk archives. I was really pissed at a sock of Pnatt so I called him an idiot and said that we would block everything he edited from. Whoops. Oh yeah, I also AFD'd Family Guy episodes... twice. Now I've discovered the Village Pump and Mailing list, where I've realized that people don't care and it won't hurt too much if we keep them. Sorry.

Recently, even in frustrating moments, I've kept a level head. I've learned my lesson.

Optional question from bibliomaniac15 (talk · contribs):

Q. Why exactly do you hate WP:NN? bibliomaniac15 05:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

A. I really just think it's a very flawed "guideline". Notability is a very subjective criteria for inclusion; (excluding vanity) the author of an article obviously thinks that his/her article is notable. Verifiability is better; if an article's facts can't be verified in third-party sources, it should be deleted. Besides, I don't see the harm in having a few verifiable, but nn articles.

Note: I see where Ccool2ax is coming from with his dislike of WP:NN but isn't the point of WP:IAR to prevent questionable but necessary policies such as Misplaced Pages:Notability preventing growth of our encyclopedia as they rarely can? I invite the nominated user to reply; cheers, AGK (talk)

IAR does help Misplaced Pages grow; without it, Misplaced Pages would be much more of a bureaucratic mess. I don't see why the question/statemnt helps defend Notability; verifiablity keeps all the junk out, since sources are needed. Clarification, please. -- Chris is me 02:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Optional question from Diez2 (talk · contribs):

Q. How long have you been active in editing Misplaced Pages? Diez2 05:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

A.Depending on your definition of "Active", I have been active for about 18 months. In reality, I basically never looged in until October-ish, and then it was only a few edits (due to my crappy ISP, HughesNet). I have been semi-actively editing under this account for 13 months, slowed down only by massive real-life workload, which I should really be doing right now. -- Chris is me 13:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

General comments

• See Ccool2ax's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

Discussion

• Question (not an official question) — Why do you keep changing your signature? That and the fact that it is not even remotely related to your username make it really hard to keep track of which comments have been made by you. -- Renesis (talk) 18:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Er... I've changed the sig through the RFA. I really want my username to be "Chris.", but that was rejected. Sorry. Mine almost always has Chris in it, and I haven't seen anyone else sign with Chris as part of their username. -- Chris is me 03:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Support For what it's worth, I was impressed by your honest and candid introduction and your pledge to accept checks on your admin powers. I've had quite a few run-ins with fellow Wikipedians myself, and what's important in the end is working for the greater good of the project. I don't think that all admins have to have a spotless past, and what matters most to me is that an admin will take the time to understand and respect Misplaced Pages protocol and respect their position. Support.--Folksong 07:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
2. Moral support - a honest and accountable candidate, but the concerns raised below are, um, concerning. Suggest a withdrawal. MER-C 07:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
3. Support I'll not vote as neutral but maybe the support votes would help you be more active. Good luck. -- Szvest Ω 14:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
4. Support Tis true you are not exactly the best candidate on paper but you have displayed a rare virtue by displaying honesty over your past mistakes.__Seadog 20:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
5. Support After reading your response to the NN question, I liked what I saw, here's to more breaking your way. Good Luck. StayinAnon 07:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
6. Support I also like his views on notability. ATren 16:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
7. support--Dario vet 16:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
8. Support You seem an ok guy, pitty you are not going to get through. Dolive21 11:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

   --dario vet ^_^ (talk) 12:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC) - duplicate !vote - Tangotango 12:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

9. Support You've had very good edits, I support! —¡Randfan! 00:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
10. --Olando 19:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
11. Moral Support - I have no doubt this editor will be a good admin someday, but for now I would also suggest withdrawal (per MER-C), and reapplying later when more experienced. Doc Tropics 20:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose without malice, I just think you need some more experience. :) Danny Lilithborne 04:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose. You're not active enough, and I'm a bit worried about how apprehensive you are in your own self-nomination. I encourage you to get involved in the community first if you want to be an admin. --Wafulz 05:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

   Well, the apprehension stems from a a spotless friend I nominated with no apparent flaws who was taken down. I want Wikipedians to know that I've done stupid things in the past and that I won't go batshit. Really.-- Chrissperanza! chat edits 05:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

3. Per Amarkov. — Nearly Headless Nick 07:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

   Oppose between the edits mentioned in Neutral #1 and your reaction "I won't go batshit" to an opposition, I'd have to say no. I do agree that you've made remarkable improvement in this area, but I'm not willing to take the risk that you'll become an admin without a level head. I encourage you to edit more and bury some of these actions and try again sooner rather than later, you'll have my support then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StayinAnon (talk • contribs)

4. Oppose per Amarkov. --Terence Ong _{(C | R)} 12:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose - I really, really like the attitude - "I won't go batshit" - brilliant - but one has to draw the line somewhere and that comment to Cyde "Are you out of your mind" is inappropriate. Which is probably a bit rich coming from me, but I'm not the candidate at RFA. What is more, the subpage was about to be deleted at MFD (and the Wikispace version has already gone) without the db-author, so DRV was probably more appropriate than a repost. Moreschi 18:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose - the uncivil comments are unexcusable at such an early stage, particuarly if we are to trust this user with the mop. Perhaps after a considerable drought of non-biting and WP:CIVIL violations the user should be renominated for sysop priviliges. My apologies and regards to the user, but this is my view on the matter. Cheers, AGK (talk)
7. I'd prefer editors rather than people patrolling a beat. ... aa:talk 19:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose, per this nom for speedy deletion made earlier today. At worst it does not meet CSD:G-11, at best it is worthy of a discussion at AfD. Also, he did not advise the original contributor, which suggests he may have deleted the article without discussion if he were an admin. Accurizer 21:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

   I thought admins were supposed to tag articles too, so that 2 opinions could agree. Seriously, if that's not propaganda, than what is? That's some of the worst spam I've seen! Although talking to the original author is a good idea; I will in the future. -- Chris is me 02:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

9. Weak oppose per his ludicrous crusade against episode summaries (and not just in relation to Family Guy). -- Kicking222 15:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

   That was in my past... I was much, much more stupid back then. Seriously. -- Chris is me 22:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

10. Oppose. The promises make me feel uncomfortable -- with so much of an administrator's work being subjective, experience and evidence of that experience are key. -- Renesis (talk) 06:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
11. Oppose 2000 edits is way to small of an edit count. Also, the candidate's answers to the questions did not satisfy me, I certainly do not feel comfortable with giving administrative power to this candidate. Dionyseus 07:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

    Of course, an editors worthiness of a few extra buttons should be entirely based off of the number that comes out of Interiot's tool. What exactly as wrong with my answers? -- Chris is me 18:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

12. Oppose Needs more overall edits and more experience with tool-related tasks. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 18:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
13. Oppose. Bubba ditto 01:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
14. Oppose: Normally, I don't like opposing RfA's - your work on the MySpace article is good stuff. You seem like a rather good editor on top of all this too, but I'm forced to oppose. Citing Amarkov's example of your comment on Cyde's talk page, and your opposition to WP:NN over one of your own podcasts (which may have been interesting, no doubt, but Misplaced Pages can't cover everything, sadly), I cannot support until you can prove a slightly more calmish tone - making crusades against episode summaries and calling out users won't help you in the long run. No hard feelings, I hope. --Nomader 23:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

    Sorry, I thought I made it clear. I do not oppose WP:NN because my podcast article was deleted. I would have deleted the article too. The connection beween my hate for notability and that article was beacuse that was merely the first place I heard of WP:NN. Got it? -- Chris is me 18:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

    I apologize - it was a mis-understanding. However, I still am uncomfortable with the fact that you dislike the rule, and with some of the comments you made on some talk pages as seen above - I do hope that you can forgive my mistaken ramblings, but, I still keep my vote as oppose. Apologies for the mistake of warped wording, but my explanation for my vote still holds. I do hope you try again in the future, my vote would easily change. --Nomader 20:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

15. Oppose.--Madhyako Pradesh lo 12:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
16. Oppose He needs more experience. TSO1D 16:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral. This was in your last 100 edits, which is not good. I really did want to support, but I can't overlook that. Also, I'm not sure how much I like that you'll try not to do anything controversial. You'll find that anything related to admin tasks is controversial. -Amarkov _edits 04:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

   How is that not ridiculous? He asked for his page to be deleted; shouldn't he have the right to get it back without DRV? -- Chris is me 04:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

   It may be ridiculous. That doesn't mean that "Are you out of your mind?" is any more civil. -Amarkov _edits 04:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

   I was just about to say the same thing. Asking a fellow editor if he is 'out of mind' is anything but civil. The situation was controversial, it didn't need to be exacerbated by comments like that. riana_dzasta 05:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

   . Withdrawn. Ah, shucks. -- Chris is me 05:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

2. Neutral — Activity level is too low, sorry. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 04:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
3. Neutral some more experience, and a little more civility under stress. Sorry. riana_dzasta 05:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

   In retrospect, that was rather terse of me. Honestly, you will make a much stronger candidate in a few more months time. Contribute more actively, and try to keep cool under fire - I know it's tough. Request another editor review - I'll try to drop you a line on this one, it's an often overlooked area - and maybe withdraw this RfA and request in a few more months. All the best, riana_dzasta 08:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

4. Neutral I suggest that you withdraw this RfA and open an editor review instead. You can use the feedback from this process to guide your future edits, as it will highlight the areas in which you need to improve. You can also go for some admin coaching too. This will open your eyes to some of the varied situations in which admins can find themselves. I also suggest that you spend time on new and recent changes patrol, tagging pages for improvement or deletion as appropriate and warning their authors at the same time. Vandals can be reported to WP:AIV if they are persistent. You can also get involved in XfD discussions. This will allow you to participate and give your opinion based upon policies and guidelines, also allowing everyone else to see that you have a sound grasp of the backbone of admin actions. You can also assist at the help desk and Misplaced Pages:Reference desk and contribute to the good and featured article discussions. Joining a Wikiproject or too, such as Misplaced Pages:Esperanza will also help to improve your profile. When you have done some, all or similar things on this brief list, you can come back in six months' time with a stack of experience and edits under your belt. A lot of people will know just how good you are so there will be no need for apprehension when you participate in this process for a second time. (aeropagitica) 05:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

   In fairness, this user did try an editor review, as he mentions above, and nobody commented. :( (It's an easily overlooked page, and there are always a bunch of reviews pending, but we should all try and get over there more often.) Newyorkbrad 06:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

5. I really appreciate your honesty, sincerity and openness in your nom (really!) I just think that if you got a little more active, a little less controversial, and if you waited a few more months, you could get overwhelming support. At this point it's hard to judge how you would handle admin tools. Grandmasterka 07:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
6. Neutral Perhaps if you spend more time on Misplaced Pages, and as aeropagitica, go for an editor review again (I'm pretty sure more people will comment this time). I'm pretty sure you'll gain more experience as you go along, and become more active in the encyclopedia. I appreciate your honesty and condor in your nomination statement, however. –- kungming·2 08:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
7. Neutral I am pleased by your honesty, but you still need more time and experience to learn all the ropes of Misplaced Pages, and become a great contributor. Best wishes-- danntm _C 15:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
8. Neutral - I like the honesty - but he needs more experience Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! 17:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
9. Neutral per most of the reasons above. ← ANAS 18:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
10. Neutral leaning oppose. I'm sorry, but you need more time and experience. Promises of good behavior aren't adequate without enough evidence of good behavior without exception. The Family Guy episode AfDs actually pushed my from oppose to neutral because it shows that you are willing to take and defend a position that may not be popular, which is something admins must be prepared to do. —Doug Bell  18:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
11. Neutral - I think you need more experience. FireSpike Editor Review! 18:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
12. Neutral Good work with AfD's and such, but I believe you need more experience editing the encyclopedia, and contributing to the mainspace. Nishkid64 20:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
13. Neutral I feel that you need more experience editing the encyclopedia. However, your good work on AfD pages must be acknowledged here. In the meantime, do not give up hope and re-apply after three to six months. --Siva1979 02:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
14. Neutral Another month or two of good edits without losing your rag, and I'll be the first to support you. Good luck! yandman 08:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
15. Neutral Needs more experience. I'm not opposing out of respect for your dedication to Misplaced Pages.Sharkface217 22:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
16. Neutral, toward Support. I hate to do this, and I know I'm not helping you along, but no matter how I feel about Cyde, the comment on his page was a little too risky. In all other ways I would strongly support. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  Always loyal! 05:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
17. Neutral. You might want some more experience. You have good AFD work, but you'll be even stronger with experience. bibliomaniac15 01:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
18. Too early. Come back in three months and I'll reconsider. - Mailer Diablo 21:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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 requests

• Requests for permissions on other Wikimedia projects
• Requests for adminship or bureaucratship on meta
• Requests for self-de-adminship on any project can be made at m:Requests for permissions.
• Requests to mark a user as a bot can be at Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval.
• Requests for comment on possible misuse of sysop privileges
• A summary of rejected proposals for de-adminship processes, as well as a list of past cases of de-adminship, may be found at Misplaced Pages:Requests for de-adminship

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

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

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