Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:02, 9 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.

Pmanderson

Final (36/32/9); Scheduled to end 09:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Pmanderson (talk · contribs) – Also known as Septentrionalis, Pmanderson is a long-term editor of articles on mathematics, history, and a variety of other topics, while also working on naming conventions and participating in the Good Articles process. He had a prior RFA about four months ago which failed mainly because of civility issues, but Pmanderson has taken the advice to heart (as attested by one of the earlier opposers) and deserves a second chance. Mop away! (Radiant) 10:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I would be honored.Septentrionalis 17:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not intend to use the mop with great sweeping strokes; I originally asked for it to help with WP:RM, which is usually backlogged. I believe that admin powers should be used to empower consensus; I would only use admin powers in a dispute I was involved in in an emergency, and then I would tell WP:ANI I had done so. (I would have asked for another admin there first.)

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: As I said above, largely backlogged administrative chores, like closing WP:RM. I would consult the backlog list, and do what needed work, from there to WP:AIV I do tag vandals and report them to WP:AIV; as an admin, I would block them directly.

I would let others change the culture of Misplaced Pages by administrative action; that's not what I'm interested in doing. Septentrionalis 17:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

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

A: ::*This edit to Joseph Conrad, which immediately settled the controversy then at Talk:Joseph Conrad#Racism: neither silence about Achebe's criticism of Conrad, nor a long paragraph, but a couple sentences.

• Resolving banausos from one of User:WHEELER's personal essays, which was on the verge of deletion, to a generally accepted article by adding context, while saving his language.
• Cleaning up this version of Feynman diagram#Mathematical details into substantially the present text of Feynman graph.
• Being thanked for work on American Civil War#Abolition.
• Being part of the polishing and neutralization of Macedonia (terminology), now on the front page. Septentrionalis 22:36, 8 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 spoken uncivilly with perhaps half-a-dozen editors in 16,000 edits. Three of them are now banned for their behavior (two of them were socks when I met them); one of them engages in an often-repeated personal attack on me (this editor has now endorsed me, so that may be settled); another is Ultramarine, who endorses me below. In the course of a six-month controversy with him, which rose to the level of arbitration, I did say some regrettable things; I should have engaged in dispute resolution sooner, rather than letting myself become so frustrated. I know more about dispute resolution now, largely because of this controversy.

• And Skyemoor is one of the half-dozen: this single-purpose account has done hardly anything for his last hundred edits but push the PoV that Jefferson and Madison founded the Republican Party. I would never block him; but if I must, I will start an RfC. Septentrionalis 04:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• I have blocked Skyemoor (talk · contribs) for negative vote canvassing (i.e. systematically contacting people who previously opposed Pmanderson in order to attempt to destroy this RFA). Dragons flight 08:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

General comments

• See Pmanderson's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
• I choose my user-name and my sig when I first began WP; they differ because it was my first wiki, and I thought that the username would be invisible. I've usually had too many edits to change my user-name, and I see no reason to change now. Septentrionalis 17:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• The concern about my sig is surprising; I've been asked about it only twice in all my career. My sig has always been this; changing now would mean disavowing my former edits and be perhaps more confusing. Some editors think of me by sig, some by username; changing either will puzzle somebody. If I must choose one, I would prefer the sig, which I intended as my wikipedia identity; but I have usually had, and may have now, too many edits to change my username; nor do I wish to put that quite considerable burden on WP:USERNAME. Septentrionalis 18:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• On administrative discretion, I agree with WP:PRO, both for process and against it. Septentrionalis 19:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• The 3RR was an accident; I was dealing with persistent version, and lost count, rather than switch to an alternate text, as I had intended, or report the other user to AN3. Septentrionalis 19:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Since an editor has believed Cyde's groundless accusation, I will take this opportunity to deny it. We both vote on polling pages; we disagree fundamentally on approach to harmless oddities. There's nothing more. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Users registering their opinion based on the signature/username issue should take note of the changes to Septentrionalis' signature to avoid confusion. -- nae'blis 18:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• I note that most (perhaps all) of those who responded before the nomination was transcluded are regular correspondents of Pmanderson's, and are probably watching his talk page. That's how I found out. I apologize for my inadvertant jumping of the gun -- I should have observed that he had not accepted -- and I cannot imagine that any of the others who did so intended to subvert procedure either. Robert A.West (Talk) 16:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Support

1. Naturally. (Radiant) 10:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
2. I supported the previous RfA, and am happy to support this one. I feel certain he will be a responsible mopper and avoid sloshing the bucket. Robert A.West (Talk) 10:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
3. Support - looks like a pretty good candidate, and meets my standards, so support. Jayden54 10:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
4. Support Does a valuable work and can achieve even more as administrator.Ultramarine 10:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
5. Strong support per Ultramarine. 172 | Talk 12:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
6. Support I've never voted in an Rfa before. Are non-admins allowed to vote? Anyway, I've had my differences with Pmanderson, and he has certainly expressed frustration with many of my arguments about the U.S. city naming convention, but always in a civil and productive manner. Misplaced Pages can only improve with this adminship. --Serge 18:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

   Yes, any registered user may vote. Newyorkbrad 15:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

   Support/cancelled I opposed him first time around because he picked fights and was a negative influence; he has reformed and I can now support him. Rjensen 05:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC) Sorry--he's back to old tricks today in this case on John Jay belittling the abolition of slavery. Rjensen 06:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

7. Support. Looks good to me. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
8. Support. I also supported in the previous RfA due to the candidate's good contributions, and see no reason why not to do so again. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 10:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
9. Support absolutely Dragomiloff 10:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
10. Support He is the best guy for the job. {Happy Holidays | Cocoaguy (Talk) (edits) 14:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
11. Support Looks like a deserving administrator to me -- Pure_Oxygen
12. Support: he's a great editor and would be an asset as an admin. Jonathunder 14:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
13. Support. Frankly, the 3RR should've been trashed some time ago and I regret supporting the policy change that made it directly enforceable. Reverting in defence of factual, correct encyclopaedic information is no vice. Mackensen (talk) 15:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
14. Support per Radiant and Mackenson. Bastiq▼e 16:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
15. Support. Pmanderson is a good, dedicated editor, and I have found him to be levelheaded and willing to change his mind in discussion, the latter of which in particular is all too rare of a trait. --Robth 16:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

    Isn't it strange that such a trait has been displayed by pmanderson only to a selected group of individuals, say well respected administrators maybe? This alleged trait reveals only one side of the story. The constant rv-warring and 3RR violations reveal the other. Miskin 16:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

16. Support, I hope people are actually reading the diffs provided. A single 3RR block is unfortunate, yes, but I believe Septentrionalis will be deliberate in usage of the tools. Reconciliation with Ultramarine is encouraging. Neutral on the username change thing (see JzG). -- nae'blis 17:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
17. Support. I'm confident he'll use the tools judiciously. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
18. Tentative support I'm doing this partly because users I respect believe we should give him a chance, and also out of sheer amazement at some of the oppose reasons. A sig? Who cares! A procedural failure to list on time? If that makes a blind bit of difference, I'm sure the 'crats will consider it. But I can't see it.--Doc 18:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

    How about we just call you fickle. :-) —Doug Bell  19:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

    You could, but I prefer thoughtful, flexible, reflective and open to reason :) --Doc 20:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

19. Support. Solid contributor and appears to be amenable to reasoned discourse. I really don't understand how people can oppose solely because of a sig -- that's just bizarre. older ≠ wiser 18:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
20. Support after having voted neutral and getting an explanation on my talkpage. Good luck. -- Szvest 19:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
21. Support. I thought about this for a long while and decided the 3RR is not a concern for me (Mackensen's comment above sums it up nicely), nor is the sig. What it boils down to is whether we trust this editor with the mop, and they have demonstrated a firm knowledge that the mop is not to be wielded to win disputes. --Ars Scriptor 20:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

    I disagree with that, it is different if he has knowledge that the mop is not to be wielded to win disputes and another if he is actually proven himself that he will not. --Turbinator 21:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

22. Support based on strong content contributions in several areas, reasonable knowledge of policy, and ability to wield the mop productively, including stated desire and intent to do admin work in a backlogged area. In a recent (albeit trivial) content dispute to which I was a party, he was able to marshal persuasive evidence from reliable sources that assisted in resolving the dispute, an important and not ever-present skill. The signature is not optimal but is not a major concern; the putative 3RR violations seem borderline and do not reflect a larger problem. Some other comments below are more substantive and the candidate should bear them in mind moving forward whether this RfA succeeds or not, but they are outweighed by the positives of the overall record. Newyorkbrad 22:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
23. Support Solid contributor and per above comments. The Mirror of the Sea 01:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
24. Support history of solid contributions, 3RR blocks look marginal to me, and the sig issue is a drop in the bucket compared to the two-font, nine-color, six-lines-in-the-edit-window monsters that some people are sporting. Opabinia regalis 01:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
25. Support, a great editor, with a good knowledge of policy.--Aldux 11:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
26. Support flexible and understanding editor, will not abuse adminship. feydey 18:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
27. Weak Support. 3RR block situation discussed; supporting now. Nishkid64 19:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
28. Support I too have broken the 3RR rule. Although I think you're still a bit green to be an Admin, Misplaced Pages needs more meat for the grinder. Sharkface217 22:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
29. Support, impressed with his contributions to Misplaced Pages:Requested moves discussions. — CharlotteWebb 02:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
30. 3rr was fairly recent, yes but I wasn't convinced that he should have been blocked and I doubt he would do it again Jaranda 03:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
31. Support Good contributions. --Strothra 11:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
32. Surprising Support. I've worked with (try "against" :) him in Macedonia (terminology), and he's not that bad once you get to understand him. We fundamentally disagree on several issues, but I have come to respect his knowledge and his opinion. His manners may seem sort of harsh, but he has shown that he responds well to goodwill. Hope you make it Sept! NikoSilver 16:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
33. Support - I'm more than happy to reiterate my previous supporting comments. Deb 16:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
34. Sure, why not -- Samir धर्म 00:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
35. Support sensible, reasonable and civil in my experience. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
36. Support a good editor. I feel that personal attacks in the "oppose" section are uncalled for and inappropriate.--Anthony.bradbury 01:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strongly Oppose Pmanderson|Septentrionalis, having a recent 3RR (Update: plus two narrowly escaped 3RRs and continues even now to revert without using the talk page), has been uncivil and confrontational, pursuing positions for which he provides little evidence, preferring to resort to personal attacks to sway new editors to his position. I have supplied many dozens of secondary and primary references, though he continues his argument from "authority", though he does not have the qualifications. See an example of how he responds to people who provide several supporting references. Some of his comments violate the spirit, if not the letter, of No personal attacks. see talk page for detailed evidence Skyemoor 06:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC) Updated Skyemoor 11:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
   • Whilst, due to its length, removing Skyemooor's comment to talk is reasonable, the evidence he presents is pertinent and worthy of consideration.--Doc 11:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
   • (Update) I believe reviewers will be interested in two of Pmanderson|Septentrionalis's edit's of this page. Skyemoor 11:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose I took a bit to look at this as a nom. from Radiant carries some weight with me. Regardless however, I can't support a candidate a mere two weeks after being blocked for 24 hours for 3RR. I'm also rather underwhelmed by the responses to the questions above. I'm not convinced the past civility concerns have been completely addressed. I have a strong aversion to sigs that have no relationship to the user name. And finally, I am concerned that this RfA was allowed to accumulate votes for almost 24 hours, and then was listed after having the timestamp reset, effectively giving the RfA a "running start". There's just too many things here that concern me, so no. —Doug Bell  09:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
   • Just a brief note - the page User:Septentrionalis directs users to Pmanderson's real name; and note that User:Jtdirl, a long-standing admin, also was in the habit of signing with a different name (FearEIRANN) and this never really became a problem. (Radiant) 10:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

     It is an issue for me. See discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Sign your posts on talk pages#Signatures that display an entirely different name than the username. Just because one admin is doing it doesn't mean it's OK. I understand this isn't forbidden by policy, but I think it should be strongly discouraged, and combined with the other concerns I have makes this a clear oppose for me. Sorry. —Doug Bell  11:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

   • Addendum: Pmanderson's solution to the signature/user name issue solves the problem I have with the signature, so I've struck that part of my oppose. However, other concerns I raised, particularly the 3RR and civility, still means I must oppose at this time. —Doug Bell  21:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

   Oppose until username issues are resolved. Per WP:USERNAME: A signature should not be misleading; and WP:SIG: Users should choose a signature name that is either identical or closely related to their account name. Signatures that obscure an account name to the casual reader are disruptive. I suggest using Misplaced Pages:Changing username if needed. I will retract this oppose if this issue is dealt with to comply with policies. feydey 09:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC) Moved to support per change.

   Oppose for the 3RR, an admin should know better. I'm not so concerned by the username issue. James086 10:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC) moved to Neutral James086 03:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

3. Oppose 3RR. - crz crztalk 13:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose couldn't care less about the sig (though if they have created the user account which redirects, I'm not sure why they didn't just rename). The recent 3RR is troubling, the answers to the questions not the best I've seen and (propbably unfairly on the candiate) the nominator removing all of the lengthy first oppose to the talk page seems "wrong". (I'm all for keeping the discussions to the point, but leaving at least a stub or summary of the oppose would have seemed sensible and getting someone other than the nominator to do so equally sensible) --pgk 14:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

   And the issue of the listing which, although it could be a genuine mistake on the part of the candidate, just adds to the other concerns. --pgk 14:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

5. Oppose for his 3RR vio and pushy, condescending attitude. He has not really put forth any convincing reason why wikipedia will be improved by making him an admin. NeoFreak 14:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose per the recent block and edit warring. Sarah Ewart 15:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
7. 3RR. - Mailer Diablo 15:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose - 3RR. Edit/revert warring is very, very evil and pointless. The thought of this candidate being able to wheel war does not appeal. Moreschi 15:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

   Oppose per recent block and history of edit warring. Sorry. Nishkid64 15:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC) Switched to weak support

9. Oppose Changed to Strong oppose. This is not acceptable. Sentences of the form "In reality, X, so person Y is wrong" are blatantly POV, and you can't just restore them saying "POV!" It's not a magic word that makes you right. As an admin, you would have the power to block people making these "POV" edits, which is not good. Repeated edit warring is also not good, as wheel warring is incredibly disruptive. And this reply is just terrible. -Amarkov _edits 05:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

   Yes, sentences that say "In reality, X, so person Y is wrong" are indeed blatantly POV. The edit you have linked to, however, was of the form "Person Z claims that X is the case and that Person Y is therefore wrong". I hope you are not arguing against the restoration of significant and sourced criticism of this sort. --Robth 16:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

   The sentence was neither phrased that way, nor even given a source. It's not the only concern, anyway. -Amarkov _edits 22:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

   Comment: for the record, the edit included a footnote citing Ball, P., Critical Mass: how one thing leads to another Random House 2004. ISBN 0-09-945786-5. It was not my text originally; but I believe, in such cases, in assisting the retention of sourced criticism by making an edit. If it is eliminated by consensus afterward, fine. Septentrionalis PMAnderson

   Um... So what? Even if you did cite a source, that doesn't make it less POV. The way the sentence was phased, the implication was that you were stating a fact that you got from a source. -Amarkov _edits 01:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

10. Oppose per all the above serious concerns. --Siva1979 15:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
11. Oppose per above and concerns discussed at my talk page. — CRAZY`(lN)`SANE 16:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
12. Oppose, same reasons as Doug Bell. Votes should have been disallowed by the nominator/nominee before the page was transcluded. -- Renesis (talk) 17:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
13. No way. For a month or two there Pmanderson was wikistalking me, always conveniently "showing up" in situations I was involved in, and inevitably taking the opposite viewpoint. I don't even remember what I originally did to Pmanderson to make him hate me so much, but he needs to learn better how to simply let things go, rather than unnecessarily carrying on arguments. --Cyde Weys 19:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
14. Strong Oppose well if the 3 RR was a couple of months ago I would let it past but it isn't. And your sig is somewhat disguising your account/username. Please change if you havn't already. — Seadog 19:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
15. Weak oppose uninspiring answers to questions and 3RR. That said overall fairly impressive. Suggest you wait a couple of months, give better answers, sort out the sig, don't go over 3RR and list your RfA properly and I'll strongly support. Addhoc 20:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
16. Weak Oppose I have interacted with Pmanderson|Septentrionalis on two requested moves and one article citations needed. We have generally had a contentious relationship. I generally create rough pages in need of editing. I currently have one (Paul Cornell (Chicago) that is still tagged as in need of work. It was his cleanup tag. The article truly still needs some work. However, debates on this page were very odd. Instead of correcting a misspelling he tagged the misspelled word "Plaissance" specifically as dubious. We went back and forth on this topic. Oddly, he has been against two of my requested moves. His opposition to the Paul Cornell move
17. Strong Oppose The recent 3RR is troubling, the candidate seems pushy and opinionated. The nominator removed all of the lengthy first oppose vote to the talk page is not in favor with me. We need admins that are neutral in their views, this candidate is not. --Turbinator 21:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
18. Strong Oppose per all of the above concerns. Dionyseus 22:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
19. Oppose -- I'm afraid that the WP:3RR vio is too recent for me to be comfortable supporting this user's request for admin tools. Jkelly 22:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
20. Strong Oppose. Recent blocking for 3RR, behavior in the article space, and talk page comments indicate that the civility issues haven't been sufficiently addressed since the last RfA. Cyde's mention of Wikistalking is particularly troubling. In addition, responses to the questions are poor. This is a definite no for me. —Lantoka 10:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
21. Oppose 3RR --Herby 12:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
22. Oppose. Great user, but recent violation of the 3RR is concerning.--TBCΦtalk? 14:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
23. Oppose for pretty much the same reasons as last time. In all honesty I still do not feel that I can completely trust this user with the admin tools. Rje 14:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
24. Oppose Mahewa 17:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
25. Oppose Unfortunately, I cannot overlook the recent 3RR violation. Xoloz 18:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
26. Oppose Lots of 3RR violating (whether blocked for it or not) per above. -- Kicking222 03:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Hunh? I am careful, and always have been, to avoid 3RR. I believe that one block was the only violation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I believe he was referring to the pattern of edit warring shown by the additional two narrowly escaped 3RRs , where the escapes were due to the 'staleness' or novice entry. Skyemoor 00:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
27. Oppose per concerns raised by pgk.--Dakota 05:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
28. Oppose per concerns raised by Doug Bell, Cyde, and the still-unanswered question regarding the "headstart" given to this RfA in regards to the timestamp. --Elaragirl 15:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
29. Oppose I just switch from Support. Today he went back to his old tricks of inserting his anti-abolitionist rhetoric (in this case John Jay), minimizing the efforts of opponents of slavery.Rjensen 06:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I regret to see that Rjensen has resumed his series of personal attacks. I do acknowledge that "anti-abolitionist" is less strident than his usual "pro-slavery", which may be found in his RfC up to last month; but it is equally false, and equally a personal attack. The fundamental problem seems to be that I think Misplaced Pages should avoid value judgments, as neutrality requires; and Rjensen disagrees. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
30. Oppose per Rjensen StayinAnon 05:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
31. Oppose per 3RR concerns by editors above. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 15:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
32. Weak Oppose for 3RR incident. Yaf 22:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
33. Wholehearted Oppose. I must admit I'm rather surprised by the naiveness of some wikipedians here. Pmanderson is one of the biggest POV-pushers and rv-warriors I've ever come across. I don't care if he's been editing 100 articles per day, this is definitely not a criterion for selecting administrators. I'm not even going to get into detail about his poor contribution activity (which includes biased/unsourced/weasel edits, continuous violations of 3RR, NPA etc) that some people here are already familiar with. As sincere as I can be, watching people like Pmanderson getting support for adminship, can be good enough reason for someone to think of quitting wikipedia once and for all. Miskin 16:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

    Ah, yes, Miskin of the personal threats; I should regret being the sort of editor Miskin would support. He is not listed above, because he does not cause me stress. (More regret than anything else.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

What would you list against me Pmanderson? I'm really curious to know. I guess misinterpreting my words and making it seem as if I've been threatening you is the only thing you could come up with. The message you linked was a response to your recent editing behaviour, POV-pushing and violation of 3RR. I wanted to report your behaviour but then I noticed that you were having disputes similar to mine in several different articles, being accused by many sides at once. The edit you just linked says that "eventhough I agree with all accusations against you - I won't start a new issue, nor will I join an existing one, because I don't find it right to gang up against a person or strike him when his down". If this had been a personal threat the way you present it, then I would have deserved to be banned from wikipedia indefinitely, and as you see I'm not. I would have expected some gratitude in response, but instead you chose to use this as an extra ace in your sleeve. I think it's the 3rd time you're bringing this up in public. I have nothing against you pmanderson, I'm just convinced that giving you adminship can only harm wikipedia, that is all. Miskin 17:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. A question: Why was this RFA not properly listed when the candidate accepted and answered the questions? In effect, there has been an additional 23 hours during which people voted while this wasn't on WP:RFA. No opinion either way otherwise. – Chacor 09:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

   Hmm, neutral, but will support if username is changed to match signature, or vice versa. — CharlotteWebb 11:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

   Ummm! The problem is that the policy doesn't rule that. it says that one can choose a nickname used in signatures, independent of the actual user name (connected to a User: page). It is confusing since the guideline states that Users should choose a signature name that is either identical or closely related to their account name. Something should be fixed i believe. I was promoted admin though being in the same ship as Pmanderson. -- Szvest 13:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

   Neutral - Blocked twice for the same reason. -- Szvest 13:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)changed to support

2. NeutralI would have been thrilled to support. Strong contributor. I see no recent incivility on user's talk page. The timing of the 3RR incident is unfortunate. Also, please, make the signature less confusing. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

   Also, the lengthy comment moved to talk page suggests Pmanderson should not let emotions get out of hand. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

3. Neutral. I here vote neutral on Pmanderson's RfA to make it clear that I feel that my previous objections to his adminship were based on what is now year-old information which may no longer be appropriate in light of more recent events of which I am not aware. I have not paid attention to his conduct in the past year, and have no reason to either believe or disbelieve that he may have changed his practices. Receiving both Radiant's and Ultramarine's endorsements is a positive development; however, the recent 3RR violation is a negative development. For the record, I have no objection to the signature issue; it was briefly confusing to me but only for a short time. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

   Oppose a 3RR just two weeks ago , and the evidence on the talk page, although it makes Skyemoor look worse, looks very bad for the candidate. Immoderate, intemperate, uncivil language is no way for an admin to conduct himself, even when faced with a troublesome user. I salute the candidate's dedication, but I don't think he has what it takes.--Doc 10:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC) Switching to #::neutral - he was dealing with a troll, so I'm going to cut him some slack. Plus, I've quarrelled with this user before - so I may be biased here.--Doc 16:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC) Now supporting, call me contrary!--Doc 18:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

4. Neutral because the 3RR was an accident, however I still don't feel comfortable supporting. James086 03:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
5. Neutral - no image experience, but given the current opposes, any more would be a disservice to this user and wikipedia --T-rex 08:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
6. Neutral I rarely vote neutral; however, this RfA is interesting. He has a number of good, well-spread edits, but, the 3RR violations have me wondering if this user understands what Misplaced Pages rules mean. So I'll have to go neutral until I see that he fully realizes what these rules mean, especially to aspiring admins. teh tennisman 13:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
7. Neutral The recent 3RR--although it is an unduly complicated policy--concerns me that Pmanderson may not yet be ablte to fully grasp and apply policy properly.-- danntm _C 17:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
8. Neutral 3RR. Sig is not such a problem, per Opabinia regalis. riana_dzasta 19:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
9. Neutral per the 3RR violation. I think this user needs more experience in several areas, so not now but maybe later. Terence Ong 08:23, 13 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.

asams10

Final (6/22/7); Scheduled to end 21:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

asams10 (talk · contribs) – Editor and watchdog for firearms, ammunition, and military history articles.Asams10 04:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

This is a self-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: Editing firearms and ammunition articles for accuracy and format. Expanding oversight of such articles for vandalism, disagreements, and a general lack of standards. Making up for what I percieve as a lack of attention paid to this section of Misplaced Pages by current admins. Resolving POV conflicts and unsourced edits as well as references as noted in the Misplaced Pages Backlog. Ensuring images are properly sourced, articles are POV and Trivia free per Misplaced Pages standards, and articles are properly referenced and supported.

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

A: The following articles have had the bulk of my attention:

• AK-47 and M1 Garand are the focus of significant vandalism. Due to their popularity, they are a lightning rod for vandals of all sorts as well as notepads for every person who's ever seen a movie that featured an AK-47 or Garand despite the facts. These articles take time and attention away from other editors to keep vandal free. I believe having the ability to block flagrant attacks and vandalism is essential and no current admin has taken up the task.
• Remington 51, John Browning, John Pedersen, Julian Hatcher, and Trigger (firearms) are all articles I either researched and wrote entirely or rewrote based on necessity. They are the heart of my interest in firearms as objects and mechanisms that are physical in nature but have a mystique all they own. I am a longtime firearms enthusiast and have been in the business of buying, selling, collecting, researching, and smithing firearms. An admin with an intimate knowledge of the mechanisms, their history, and their inventors provides Misplaced Pages with a strong tool for growing the quality of these articles.

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

A: Yes, I've had issues and conflicts, most of the time it's people who have little to no knowledge of the subject matter trying to interject. My least favorite confrontation involved a revert war fought against me by an individual who felt that mentioning the marketing of firearms to women constituted sexism. I handled it by filing a complaint for the personal attacks lodged against me and letting the admins decide how to solve the problem. Stress? No, I'm too old and have other things to stress over. I would like deal with conflicts in the future by limiting the damage caused by vandals and fostering a teamwork attitude towards building articles.

General comments

• See asams10's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
• See the talk page for edit count and edit summary usage.

Discussion

I would like to say that what I have seen of Asams10, has been very positive. He researches his facts well, and I have observed that he is perfectly willing to accept logic and make compromises based on reliable information. He is very vigilant about reverting vandalism and correcting errors made by others while being polite to those who are making a good faith effort to improve Misplaced Pages. His presence on Misplaced Pages has been very positive due to his great knowledge of firearms and his vigilant patrolling of Misplaced Pages to keep it accurate and encyclopedic.

In conclusion, giving Asams10 a position as Administrator on Misplaced Pages will be highly beneficial to the articles on weapons and firearms, areas that frequently seem to go unnoticed by current administrators.--LWF 04:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussions about firearms and related topics can be potentially volatile, not only because of the political issues involved, but also because of the holy war issues that are involved, such as 1911 vs. Glock, single action vs. double action, .45 vs. 9mm, Mossberg vs. Remington, .223 vs. .308, AK vs. AR. I agree that it would be good to have an admin with domain knowledge in the firearms area available to work out these disputes. scot 21:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I support Asams10 for becoming an Administrator on Misplaced Pages as his calm approach and vast knowledge will be a true benefit for editing firearms and weapons articles. He also shows considerable wisdom in resolving conflicts. There are very few admins at present who take an active role in assisting in editing articles involving these topics, and Asams10 is a good choice. Yaf 02:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above statements and support Asams10's request for adminship. His position as an administrator will benefit firearms-related articles, which currently appear to be forgotten by other administrators. —Squalla 14:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism of firearms-related and weapons-related articles is currently not monitored by many (if any) admins with knowledge of firearms. This makes it inordinately difficult to control vandalism using normal editor-level contributor tools. Having an admin with admin powers to monitor these topics would greatly assist in improving the quality of firearms articles on WP, by injecting knowledge into the anti-vandalism process, and by providing a more powerful set of tools to keep down juvenile disruption of the writing process for articles. The current admins show almost no interest in these topics, despite some vandals preferring to vandalize just firearms and weapons topics. Yaf 05:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, I've gone through some of the users who oppose adminship and not noted a SINGLE firearms or ammunition related article on their contribution list. Which admin is watching those articles and dealing with those issues? If not me, who? I don't write HTML and I'm slowly learing the language of Misplaced Pages, however I sincerely hope you don't expect me to know everything now or at any time in the future. What I do know is the subject matter I would like to watch. It cannot be that one has to be a wizzard at computer skills AND deeply knowledgeable about the subject matter at the same time before one is granted adminship.--Asams10 05:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Watching subject matter is fine, and nobody intends to discourage you from that. But you don't need administrator tools for that, and if people have no need for administrator tools, they don't get them. It's like AutoWikiBrowser. It's used for specific purposes, and if you never do the things for which its purpose is intended, why should you get the tool? I don't see you doing vandal fighting in contributions. -Amarkov _edits 05:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, perhaps asking for adminship was ill advised. You expect me to have an advanced working knowledge of tools you use every day. This seems a quandry as I don't devote hours on end to computer things, again that's not my passion and, again, therein lies the reason I asked for adminship. I'd like to know who will do it if I don't though? This Cabal of admins against me might be correct in keeping me out of the crypt, but nobody else is in there that I have seen doing the work that still needs done.--Asams10 05:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

First off, I'm not an admin. What is it that makes everyone assume I am? Second, this is not about you personally. The mindset that an RfA is about the character of the person nominated leads invariably to trouble. Whether or not the decision is unfair to you, or anyone else, simply does not matter. What matters is if the encyclopedia benefits, and you've shown no reason that your having admin tools would be a benefit. Someone can be the best contributor to articles and policies ever, but if they do nothing that would be helped with admin tools, I won't support them being given them. Adminship isn't a reward for good editing. -Amarkov _edits 05:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Being an expert in your field, while admirable, is not enough for an admin. Admin tools, similar to firearms, can do a great deal of damage, even if it's inadvertent. Would you hand over a firearm to someone who said, "I'm an expert in Misplaced Pages's admin tools and policies, so I should be qualified to handle firearms, even though I have no particular knowledge or training in them"? Or without being sure that they were responsible and levelheaded? Knowledge of policies and demeanor are more important qualities in an admin than expertise in a particular field. Also, you seem to want admin powers mostly in order to better watchdog articles you're working on. You seem to be unaware that it's actually considered a conflict of interest to use admin powers on a page you edit. If you have major problems with axe-grinders or people who don't know what they're talking about who won't listen to reason, you're supposed to recuse your adminship (not editorship) and ask for a disinterested admin to deal with it. So you'd be in the same boat you're in now! It is not just lack of knowledge about policy, but misconceptions about policy, that is sinking your nomination (with non-admins as well as admins, I might add). --Groggy Dice T|C 14:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I do find it interesting that there appears to be a cultural dichotomy here. Of the 4 positive votes, all are recognized editors in the gun culture arena on WP, editing firearms and weapons articles regularly, and who witness the need for preventing non-registered users from vandalizing some articles repeatedly in this topic area. Crusty old pharts is the general term used in the gun culture for describing the "elder" statesmen and "elder" experts in the real world community regarding weapons and firearms with real knowledge. Some are still in their 20's :-) Also, at one time, see P-32 discussion, I wasn't sure about Asams10, either. But that was nearly a year ago. Since then, I have grown to see him as a real expert on firearms, with all the characteristics of the really good gunsmiths at the local gun shop with many decades of experience. Experts in the gun culture tend to be curmudgeonly, and they don't usually have computer experience. (I don't know of any that do.) It almost seems to be a cultural difference that has arisen. Yaf 06:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I focus more on military history than firearms-related articles (although I did write a number of articles on bayonets and added a photo of my M1A to that article) but the point isn't whether or not he's an expert in his field, but whether or not he needs the tools of an administrator. We have quite a large number of Pokemon and Star Wars experts on Misplaced Pages, too, but they don't all get to be admins just because of that. My opposition isn't a matter of cultural differences (for me, at least) but of understanding the uses of the admin tools. Kafziel 14:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I consider myself an expert in the firearms and military arenas. Yet I choose to vote oppose, due to Asam's lack of apparent need for the tools and other issues.⇒ SWATJester 01:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Support because someone could finally protect heavily vandalized articles from vandalism.--LWF 06:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

   That was about the worst thing you could have said. He should be an admin so he can do things against admin policy? -Amarkov _edits 06:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

2. scot 21:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
3. Support Yaf 02:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC) I believe that he would be a good admin for a largely neglected area on WP, especially with regards to providing WP:SPP tagging for newly-created firearms articles that, for some reason, draw considerable vandalism from unregistered accounts, and which largely become vandalized repeatedly currently. Not every admin must by necessity use all the tools of adminship from day one. Yaf 07:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
4. Squalla 14:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
5. Moral Support I see no reason why somebody whose contributions are largely in a specific subject area shouldn't be an admin. In fact in many ways they make the best admins. I also see a lot of good activity against vandals. Apparent lack of use of things like edit summaries and warnings on vandals' talk pages is an issue and should be corrected before running for adminship again, but I don't see a reason to oppose otherwise. Dragomiloff 11:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
6. Moral Support I empathise with the problems user deals with. However, he needs to differentiate between vandalism and edits he disagrees with. He needs to report problems to WP:AN/I and vandals to WP:AIV. He needs to warn the spammers and vandals instead of just reverting. If user will take part in RCPatrol, warn and report vandals, take part in *fD, and demonstrate better policy understanding, I will look forward to supporting the next time. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose "Editing firearms and ammunition articles for accuracy and format" does not require admin tools --Steve _(Slf67) 04:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose per above and per generally insufficient answers to the questions. Heimstern Läufer 04:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

   OK, answers have been expanded, but they still don't properly demonstrate an understanding of the tools. You don't need adminship to resolve POV disputes and source images. As for vandalism: there adminship is useful, but I don't see that you have enough experience to be ready to deal with it a an admin. I can't find any evidence you use the warning templates on users, and you've never added a vandal to WP:AIV. Also next to no Xfd discussion or other Misplaced Pages namespace edits. Heimstern Läufer 05:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

3. Oppose; doesn't need the tools. I'm also not thrilled about him rounding up all his buddies to come here to !vote for him. I'm not opposing just because of that, but it's not a very cool move. There are some other technical issues, too, like forgetting to sign the above difs and not properly transcluding this nomination for 3 days. Again, not my primary reason for opposing, but not a good sign. Kafziel 05:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose Strong oppose Stronger oppose. I don't know how far I can trust someone who doesn't seem to know what the admin tools do with them. Nothing you say you intend to do, or have ever done, would be helped by admin tools. And looking through your contributions... dear God, no. You can't just bulldoze over objections with "No, I will not reconsider, for I am right". There are other questionable discussion edits, but that's by far the worst. And I've changed once again to a stronger oppose, per almost no participation in projectspace. -Amarkov _edits 05:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose per question one. Administrative powers are not required to do what you have specified. -- Selmo 05:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose due to lack of edit summary usage in general (averaging about 52% between the two), and lack of experience in general outside of a very narrow focus. I think a little more experience, especially with areas outside the main article space, would be good. As others others have indicated, nothing you've indicated requires admin tools. ···日本穣 05:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose per the above. No indication for the need for admin tools or - with e.g. ten Misplaced Pages: namespace edits - an inclination to use them. Sandstein 05:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose. Statement leaves the impression that he wants admin powers partly in order to gain the upper hand in POV disputes, though I understand his frustration with people who don't know much about the subject editing articles. --Groggy Dice T|C 05:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose Answer to question one reveals no requirement for admin tools. Withdraw this RfA and get an editor review instead. You can also try Esperanza for some admin coaching. There is no admin cabal, is there? (aeropagitica) 06:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

   Yes, there is an admin Cabal. Points taken. I'd like to let this play out rather than withdrawing if for no other reason than constructive criticism. Some of the criticism seems tinged with an air of character judgement. In my line of work, I'm used to that. One question I'd like to pose again is this: Who is out there as an admin watchdog for these types of articles? I've skimmed thousands of contributions from some of the assembled opposition and it seems none of them have stepped up to the plate as of yet.--Asams10 06:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

   No, there isn't a cabal. If there are problems with firearms articles, like with vandalism, warn them appropriately and report them to WP:AIV. If there is a lot, then request protection at WP:RFPP. Admins will only know about vandalism and such if it's reported, especially in a perhaps less watched area. --Majorly 12:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

10. Strong Oppose per the canvassing as indicated by Kafziel, lack of indication of necessary need for tools in question #1, condescending remarks contrary to WP:AGF in answer to question #3, seeming ignorance for general Misplaced Pages policy, blanket dismissal of oppose votes as ignorant in his comment in the discussion section of this RfA, and now the belligerence and arrogance shown in user's response to above oppose. Adminship is not for the narrow-minded. Expand your horizons, please. --physicq (c) 06:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

    Addendum I also find strange that there is quite an advertising service in support of this RfA. Although hardly a rationale for opposing, such drenching in advocacy for support (or oppose, for the matter) is considered bad form. --physicq (c) 06:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

11. Adminship is not a trophy. Adminship is not immunity. - Mailer Diablo 07:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
12. Oppose 10 WP space edits, 6 of them to this RfA. I don't feel sure this user would block in the right situations especially because of the answer to Q1. If you want to block users see the blocking policy also rememeber the warnings ({{test1}} through {{test4}}) and to assume good faith. James086 09:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
13. Oppose. — CharlotteWebb 11:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
14. Oppose. Seems like a good editor but he no real reason has been put forth how wikipeida will be improved by giving admin status. His goals can be accomplished with a regular user's tools. NeoFreak 14:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
15. Oppose Appearently you don't know what kinds of tools admins need. Also, weak answers that dosen't require admin position. Try to come back again in a few months with more experience.--PrestonH 15:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
16. Oppose Does not seem to need admin tools based on the answers given. --Siva1979 15:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
17. Oppose- Reading instructions correctly and dealing with unforeseen results is a critical skill for administrators, in my opinion, and munging this self-nomination and not getting that fixed for three days isn't a good sign at all. Neither is the lack of experience with discussions on deleting articles, wikipedia policies and guidelines, etc. Three to six months more experience, with a focus on that (and a better understanding of admin tools), and I might be okay supporting. John Broughton | Talk 17:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
18. Oppose Lack of experience in XfD. I'm not satisfied with the candidate's answers to the generic questions. Dionyseus 21:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
19. Oppose Good editor. Do not need admin status Rettetast 01:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
20. Oppose Asams10 is one of my favorite editors, and works tirelessly to hold firearms articles to high encyclopedic standards. However, I see an admin as someone who helps resolve controversy--so I would first like to see him work on communicating better with other editors. He sometimes doesn't explain his actions or listen to reason--for example, he is very quick to revert even helpful edits (such as those meant to improve grammar). --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 03:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
21. Oppose I don't like the confrontational tone you use in a lot of firearms edits, specifically on the AR15 page. ⇒ SWATJester 09:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
22. Oppose Does not require adminship to do the things he says he wishes to do, so what's the point here? teh tennisman 13:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral - I believe asams10 can be a good admin, I just do not have confidence in him yet. It's a bit of a false dichotomy to say we require admins to be experts on subject matter and on Misplaced Pages process & policy; subject matter experts are much more valuable, and correspondingly can do much more across the 'pedia constructively. Admins are given a few extra tools/responsibilities that are generally applicable regardless of their experience with a given subject matter. I expect I'll be happy to support you sometime in the future if you wish to run again, but right now per your own admission you're still learning new things every day. Don't get discouraged, many first RFAs go down in electronic flames only to have the nominee pass with flying colors later (or just decide to retain their editor privileges instead of get caught up in wiki-drama). Everything you mentioned in Q1 is possible as an editor, short of becoming a POV-warring admin, something I don't believe you want. -- nae'blis 05:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
2. Neutral per Nae'blis. User doesn't really demonstrate a need for the tools. bibliomaniac15 06:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
3. Neutral per Mailer Diablo; there's no reason why you can't continue your great contributions without admin tools. riana_dzasta 07:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
4. Neutral. It doesn't seem like you really have a need for admin tools at this moment. Nishkid64 15:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
5. Neutral. There's really nothing technical about being admin, but rather it's a janitorial role where you may handle tasks such as AFD's, speedy deletions, as well as enforcing policies, protecting pages, and dealing with vandals. It requires a high standard of civility and trust that you understand the policies and know how to apply them. I've run into Yaf, but aside from that, I'm not familiar with you and your contributions. I normally only support or oppose when I'm familiar enough with the candidate to make a judgment based on my interactions with the user, and abstain otherwise. I am concerned with points raised by Kafziel, Physicq210, and Amarkov. I may support at a future time, once I get to know you better and you get more familiar with the procedural aspects of Misplaced Pages that admin tools are used for. For what it's worth, I do have some other firearms articles on my watchlist and have added AK-47, M1 Garand, and M16 rifle on my watchlist. I am willing to watchlist others. Please don't be discouraged. Take the discussions here as constructive feedback. --Aude (talk) 15:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
6. Neutral I have also added the above-mentioned frequently vandalized gun articles to my watch list. Expert knowledge about a subject is not usually required to revert vandalism to articles about that subject, as blatant vandalism, is well, blatant. I expect this user can quite soon be a great admin, and continue to work on the subjects dear to him or her, but some more experience in the areas related to the tools is necessary. Dina 16:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
7. Neutral While the candidate is certainly a good editor, I am not sure he fully appreciates what the admin role entails.-- danntm _C 16:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
8. Neutral seems to me that he doesn't really need the tools he's asking for. Sharkface217 22:22, 9 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.

Chaser

Final: (52/3/1); ended 07:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Chaser (talk · contribs) – Self-nom. I've been editing in earnest since May of this year. I've started and heavily contributed to about a dozen articles each, most of which are listed on my userpage. I'm fairly involved in WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, including a bit of maintenance there. I've participated in hundreds of Articles for deletion discussions and a few other deletion discussion processes. The vast majority of AfD pages I edit only once, but I also routinely discuss instead of simply voting (example). I've done a lot of newpage patrol, some of the evidence of which has been deleted (naturally enough). I do loads of counter-vandalism, including appropriate warnings, frequent reversions to today's FA, over sixty edits to Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism, and the occasional more complex case. I set up Werdnabot archiving of the six Village Pump subpages after the previous archival bot bit the dust. I do the occasional page split or merge where consensus exists (or the proposal hasn't received comment and seems non-controversial). I routinely answer questions at WP:VPA and the help desk, sometimes providing additional assistance at the user's talk page. Just recently, I split off and heavily edited Misplaced Pages:New pages patrol.

I try to be as civil as possible with users, especially newbies who make silly mistakes. When I screw up, I apologize. When I'm treated incivilly, I don't respond in kind. When I'm asked about an action, I explain it. I'm usually pretty careful about not using rollback for non-vandalism edits. I have a sense of humor. really.

I think I'm rambling, so I'm going to quit.

The common rundown from RfA/Crzrussian/Gwernol/Yanksox

Edit Count? 5422

Time around? First edit in summer, 2005, but eighth edit wasn't until April March, 2006

Edit Summaries? 100%

E-mail enabled? Yes

Mistakes? I'm only human. See Q4.

Userpage? typical list of the things I do here, to-do's, contributions, and a userbox joke at the bottom

Any edit warring/blocks? No. I got autoblocked when my doppelganger was blocked at my request.

FA participation? No.

I welcome your feedback. Chaser T 07:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: self-nom. I accept.--Chaser T 07:18, 7 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 thought about self-noming as far back as July, but I finally did it this week because I was handling a lot of blanked pages at Special:Shortpages. I thought it was ridiculous for me to go through the history of a page with two edits, the second of which was blanking by the author, and tag it with {{db-g7}}, only to have an admin do essentially the same work over again. So I'll probably start there. I also do a fair bit of new page patrolling and expect to delete speedy candidates as I see them and will almost certainly attend to CAT:CSD, as well. (I won't be deleting everything. I hope to occasionally do things like this as well.) I've also participated a ton at Articles for Deletion, including some non-admin closures, and expect to extend that to clearing out the backlog of clear deletes. I will leave the more difficult closures to Mailer Diablo, crz, CSCWEM, et al. until I get my sea legs. Finally, I've done a bunch of RC Patrol and will start blocking appropiately warned vandals myself instead of going through WP:AIV. I'll also watchlist AIV and attend to that when I see it.

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

A: Baton Bob and Marla Olmstead, two that I started from scratch, and an expansion of Physics and Star Wars. Scientific jury selection has been about five months in the making, but my current progress is here. I'm proud of work I've done on U.S. Supreme Court case articles and happy to have nudged the WP:SCOTUS wikiproject out of hibernation (though to be honest, I think Tim4christ17's project template attracted enough users to truly get it going again). I'm proud of helping this newbie learn the ropes. And everything I mentioned in the answer to Q1. Occasionally, I see two editors getting into it or one editor getting stressed, and try to defuse the situation.

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: AfD is one of the things that initially fascinated me about wikipedia, and I started out as a rampant deletionist. I brought some stress upon myself with this stupid nomination, but I think I handled it well, withdrawing the silly mass-nom and discussing the issue of notability with reference to guidelines. I've thankfully become more of an inclusionist since and better with mass-noms. I can get argumentative in AfD's sometimes, but not incivil. I got into it with The Crow when I was convinced he was a company's PR stooge (relevant dialogue). When I realized I was wrong, I left him an apologetic message. Now we get along fine (he even borrowed my talk page header). Probably the most stressed I've been was after my addition to the Physics and Star Wars article (referenced in Answer #2). After I spent several hours working on the expansion, another editor took fault with my sources and claimed they were just original research. I actually walked away from the computer for a bit and wrote this response a day later.

Getting crap like this from vandals has never bothered me. My userpage has been vandalized numerous times, as well. A sampling of some slightly stressful interactions with others: a clueless newbie with limited English, a rude section header on my talk page, Mistaken vandalism warning, and someone challenging me for my interpretation of a notability guideline. My interactions with other users have steadily improved as I learn the ropes and become more self-assured.

Optional Question from Chaser I expect this to come up, so I'm going to take the unorthodox step of asking myself an optional question.

4. Chaser, what the heck were you thinking at this AfD?

A: Ouch. That AfD (from June) is probably the biggest mistake I've made on WP. I did three things wrong, here. First, I moved comments from the enormous AfD to the talk page. Second, I sorted the !votes into keep and delete groups. Third, I improperly closed the AfD. In sorting !votes and comments, I was trying to make the page more easily readable, what with the huge number of IPs flooding in. Part of the reason I thought this was acceptable was that !votes are sorted into sections in the same way here at RfA. The closure, perhaps the most ridiculous part of the whole affair, is more understandable in light of my early AfD experience. I'd been involved in some other AfD noms that ended in "keep, withdrawal by nominator" (1, 2, and 3) and even closed one that way myself. For that reason, I thought it was an acceptable closure reason. I wasn't sure, and found out I'd been dead wrong when I bugged Essjay about it. I still appreciate his response. In any case, I screwed up and it may cost me a few supports. All I can do is be honest about my mistake and assure you that it's the dumbest thing I've done here and that it won't happen again.

Optional questions from Malber (talk · contribs)

5. What do the policy of WP:IAR and the essay WP:SNOW mean to you and how would you apply them?

A: IAR is one of Misplaced Pages's earliest policies (actually, for a time, it was not labelled as policy). In a sense, it is a policy that was more appropriate for an earlier time, when there were fewer editors and everyone knew each other. That said, policy can't imagine every situation, and IAR still exists for those situations where policy lags behind the good of the encyclopedia. I've only used it once as an editor, to skirt process and rapidly make a case article WP:SCOTUS's focus when it was linked from the main page . I envision similar practice as an admin: invoking IAR rarely, if at all.

WP:SNOW, an essay (though similarly in flux, as it was labelled a guideline for a time), is used to shut a process when the result is a foregone conclusion. I see it often invoked with newbie RfAs that get a mountain of opposes. Where an editor has under 250 or so edits, I wouldn't hesitate to pull an RfA myself once it has gotten six or eight opposes, leaving a message on the candidate's talk page that they could re-open it if they so desire. That said, I've already accomplished the same end by talking to the candidate first, thereby avoiding invocation of SNOW. Of course, I would leave more serious candidacies to bureaucrats, as I'm aware of the controversy surrounding early closures. In a normal AfD, I see little use for SNOW. If an article is being repeatedly renominated, it may be appropriate to invoke SNOW to close a clear keep. Otherwise, I think process generally ought to run its course. Process is important not for its own sake, but because going through the entire process makes someone on the "losing end" of a decision feel better about the end result, and that their thoughts got a fair hearing.

6. Is there ever a case where a punitive block should be applied?

A: This question has been asked enough times that everyone ought to know WP:BLOCK is quite clear about it in the second line. The short answer is no, never. Blocks are to prevent harm to the encyclopedia and to allow productive editors to work in peace. One of the goals of a non-indefinite block is to prevent the problem behavior after the block expires by forcing the editor into changing their tact or risk getting blocked again. To the blockee, this may feel punitive, but it is not intended that way.

7. What would your thought process be to determine that a business article should be deleted using CSD:G11?

A: G11 is a fairly new CSD that was decided from above instead of gathering consensus here (which is not to say it wouldn't have). Despite my new page patrolling, I don't think I've ever used it (in part because I learned most of the criteria before it was created), so this answer is somewhat hypothetical. I would probably do a quick google search and go to the company's website to try to find any news stories about them. Independent non-trivial coverage is often the quickest way to establish notability of anything. If such sources exist, they also provide the quickest route to rewrite apparent spam to make it NPOV. If there's no sources and no assertion to notability, I usually tag it as A7.

Regardless of sources, if it's not A7, I would look at the creator's username. Using the company's name for a single-purpose account is often a dead giveaway, but is not solely enough. The real consideration is whether an article is flagrantly POV by using an excessively promotional tone and devoting too much attention to the company's product, successes, etc. Much of this is a judgment call. If I don't intend to fix the POV problems and think the article would be easier to write from scratch than fix, I would tag it G11.

General comments

• See Chaser's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
• For full disclosure, I have three alternate accounts. User:Kchase is a doppelganger. User:Kchase02v and User:Kchase02vold were used for MediaWiki software testing. (I created one of the accounts for countervandalism, but have never really used it).
• Post RfA, I will not spam your talk pages. RfA thanks will be via the Crzrussian method.--Chaser T 19:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Support

1. Support. Good editor. Contributions and participation are solid, but especially good is the honesty -- it shows the user is and knows they are accountable for actions, an excellent trait to have in an admin. -- Renesis (talk) 08:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
2. Support I think he's learnt from his mistakes and he could use the tools with clearing out CSD/skipping the tagging process. James086 09:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
3. Support. You've made mistakes, which is why you'll understand those who do better. You've been civil and honest with others, and you've helped out pretty much everywhere. My commendations. yandman 10:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
4. Support - He's done many admin related tasks already, participated in hundreds of AfD discussions so knows many of the Misplaced Pages policy and in general an excellent candidate. Has my full support. Jayden54 11:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
5. Support a good, honest candidate --Steve _(Slf67) 12:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
6. Support. I seldom participate in RfAs for people I had no experience with, but I'm inclined to make an exception this time. Seems well-rounded, honest and humble enough. Duja► 12:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
7. Strong Support looks really good. Terrific ebayer, A++++, will buy from again. - crz crztalk 13:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

   BTW, to anyone who cares, my vote above is quid pro quo for the namedrop in Q1. - crz crztalk 19:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

   First you support Husond for owning cockroaches, and now Chaser for selling you something? What next? Picaroon9288 00:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

8. Support. Seen this editor around. Noreservations. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

   PS, if you have not done anything dumb since June, You are way ahead of me. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

9. Support I do not see any problems here. A good editor. --Siva1979 14:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
10. Support. I like the honesty of his AfD mistakes, not that it matters so much doesn't it? :) Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
11. Support. Willing to admit and learn from mistakes. Nishkid64 15:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
12. Support. Rettetast 16:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
13. Support Good, I am glad that you admitted to a massive cock-up earlier in your editing career. Have you now read the policies and guidelines for editors and admins with a close attention to detail as a result of this? (aeropagitica) 16:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
14. Support Tons of edits, good time experience, and seems completely honest (admits mistakes). Would make a great sysop. -- P.B. Pilhet / Talk 18:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
15. Support Looks good to me, and I appreciate his honesty.-- danntm _C
16. Support. Michael 18:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
17. Strong Support You stole my nomination for you! Yanksox 19:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

    Yeah, sorry about that. For anyone who is wondering, Yanksox was going to nom me, but due to our schedules conflicting and a personal situation of mine, I decided to just throw my hat into the ring myself.--Chaser T 19:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

    Heh, don't be sorry. I'm glad you're running! :D Yanksox 23:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

18. Strong Support You are willing to learn from your past mistakes and you don't hide them either, you shall be a fine admin. — Seadog 19:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
19. Strong Support TSO1D 20:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
20. Support - I'm glad that you admitted your Afd mistake. Good luck - 0L1 Talk Contribs 21:39 7/12/2006 (UTC)
21. I'm sick of giving reasons support - you go make my reasons for me :) -- Tawker 22:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
22. Support I'm glad the user admitted his mistake, will make a good administrator. Hello32020 22:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
23. Support good user. Rama's arrow 22:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
24. Support Many, many, edits and lots of experience, would make an excellent admin. –The Great Llama 01:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
25. Support - Excellent editor, can use the tools, fully qualified, no issues. The fact that we edit in at least one common area of interest (although I don't think I've crossed the candidate's path yet) is of course a little extra plus for me. Newyorkbrad 02:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
26. Support Ick, I've made my own AfD boo-boos. If everyone who made mistakes admitted them so readily, it'd be easier to work around here :) riana_dzasta 04:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
27. Support, per all of the above Alex43223 05:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
28. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this candidate! - 07:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
29. Support I've seen Chaser around and see no reason why this user wouldn't make a good admin. --Aude (talk) 15:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
30. Support. Seems very willing to own up to mistakes, and that's a good quality in an admin. ···日本穣 21:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
31. Support —Quarl 2006-12-09 00:48Z
32. Support per all above. The Mirror of the Sea 01:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
33. Kusma (討論) 13:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
34. Support Per above-no problems here!--teh tennisman 14:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
35. Support. Has done a lot of great work as an user, and will continue to do so as an admin.--TBCΦtalk? 14:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
36. Support We can all learn from our, and from other's mistakes, and when an editor has done so we should honour that.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony.bradbury (talk • contribs)
37. Support Although I tend to not think very highly of self noms, you're more than qualified to be an admin. Sharkface217 22:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
38. Support John254 03:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
39. Jaranda 03:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
40. Support very good candidate. I like that you admit your mistakes and learn from them. All the best. ← ANAS 12:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
41. Support I can see good stuff here, and am pleased by the fact that you're willing to admit, and learn from mistakes Martinp23 14:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
42. Support --Majorly 20:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
43. Support All my experiences with this editor have been positive, and performs enough custodial work already that adminship makes sense. --Dgies 23:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
44. Support good candidate, reasonable answer to q1. And recently, I saw a comment of yours that seemed quite helpful and well thought out, which is the reason that your user name jumped out at me on the rfa list. Unfortunately, I can't remember what it was. Oh well. Picaroon9288 00:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

    What, no diffs?! You can't support at RfA without diffs! Seriously, I skimmed your last 250 contribs and couldn't find a page I recognized editing, so I've got no idea, either. Thanks for your support, though.--Chaser T 03:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

    No, it wasn't a page I've edited recently. I just got back from a three-week wikibreak and have been doing a lot of skimming over a lot of pages. If you've edited wp:an, wp:an/i, wt:rfa, wp:vp, or any of the talk pages related to the arbcom elections, there is a reasonable chance it was at one of those. Don't think about it too hard, however, as it really isn't very important. Picaroon9288 03:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

45. Support Very good editor, have seen fighting vandalism --Natl1 00:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
46. Support. Bumped into this user some time ago. Had a look at contributions. Impressed. utcursch | talk 07:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
47. Support, seems a good bet on risk/benefit grounds, and don't see any significant issues. Though I do hope the "sense of humor" self-nom-link doesn't represent your finest ever comedy stylings. Alai 01:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

    User:Chaser/userbox nonsense is slightly better, but it's all dry humor. Sorry. I think this is hilarious.--Chaser T 01:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

    Much better, to be fair. (Doubtless Flintstones Rockscape v1.0 was the one without the rocks to bang together.) I'm tempted to ask whether you find CAT:ROUGE hilarious, but then we might drift into 'litmus test' territory. Alai 01:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

48. Support. bibliomaniac15 02:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
49. Support Terence Ong 08:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
50. Support: I was impressed by the answers, particular to Q#1 - let's give this guy the tools to eliminate some work for other admins. John Broughton | Talk 15:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
51. Support. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 23:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
52. Support I trust the candidate will not abuse the tools. Dionyseus 00:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. A lot of people I respect are supporting, but I'm afraid I cannot support a candidate who considers his/her own RfA a foregone conclusion more than two days before the scheduled closure time.. All you need for an RfA to go pear-shaped is a well-argued last minute oppose and a 'crat who feels there's justification to extend the closure for further community consideration. Yet with more than two days before closure, this candidate didn't appear to consider that even a remote possibility. I'm concerned what a candidate who shows such arrogance during the course of his/her own RfA may do as an admin. The presumptuous arrogance is frightening and there's just no way I can support this RfA. Frankly, I think we've already had more than enough problems with arrogant admins. Sarah Ewart 16:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC) Addit: On further review of edits, I also share the same concerns as User:WJBscribe. Sarah Ewart 16:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

   I saw this comment on the noticeboard and teased the candidate about it at the time, but the !voting on this RfA as of then was 45/0/1, so I took the statement that the candidate would have the bit in a couple of days as matter-of-fact rather than anything else. Future candidates will take note, however, that any such optimistic predictions will, at a minimum, cost you unanimity. :( Newyorkbrad 20:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

2. Neutral Oppose. Overall looks like some v good work but I'm a little concerned by the AfD point, especially in light of contribution at this current AfD. ChaserT seems to have acted rather heavy handedly in crossing out the original nomination as bad faith without contacting the nominator on his talk page for an explanation and further comment. Though I agree that the page was not an attack article, I think WP:AGF was not heeded. The AfD gives the impression that ChaserT is acting as if he was already an admin and I am worried about potentially overzealous use of sysop powers. - WJBscribe  15:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

   In light of the further concerns of a similar nature raised by Sarah Ewart I feel I must now oppose. Such presumption is unattractive to say the least. - WJBscribe  18:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

   When I came across that AfD nomination, I decided I had three choices. One was to speedy close it entirely and invite T.Anthony to immediately open a new, clean nom. This struck me as too IAR, perhaps too confrontational and, indeed, too much use of sysop powers I didn't yet have. Two was to leave it be and let people continue to respond to the disruptive nom (though I concede the point that striking it might not have been necessary, as any "keepers" would have simply responded to T.Anthony's point instead). The third option was to strike the nom. I did this following the third criterion for speedy keeps, which permits closures of nominations that are unquestionable vandalism or disruption. So I effectively closed the AfD and restarted it on T.Anthony's point. Since I saw the nom as unquestionable disruption and the nominator as a single purpose account, I didn't leave a message on his/her talk page, either. I know that it's recommended only admins invoke WP:SK. Whether "jumping the gun", as referenced here and above, represents "arrogance" and portends badly for the future I disagree with, but I leave that discussion to others.--Chaser T 18:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

   It may be worth noting that users had been flitting through the AfD pages all day adding that nonsense comment to a lot of postings. I probably would have done something similar in the same position.--Dmz5 19:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

   I hadn't noticed that last night, so it didn't factor into my decision.--Chaser T 19:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

3. Oppose Due to fears of overzealous use of sysop powers. --Strothra 22:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I don't generally hold self-noms to higher standards, but I do when they've committed prior errors (and aren't former admins). I'm glad you recognise your mistake, but am not willing to support at this time. – Chacor 07:30, 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.

Ceyockey

Final (50/1/0); Ended 10:32 December 14, 2006 (UTC)

Ceyockey (talk · contribs) – Ceyockey has contributed to an impressive amount of articles over the scope of two years, focusing on articles about organizations and assorted biographies. Aside from that, he's active helping people on the village pump, and knows his way around process despite not being a regular. He can certainly be trusted with the keys to our broom closet. (Radiant) 15:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Nomination Accepted: --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Optional Statements

• Time on XfD: I note some discussion in other RFA's involves the amount of time the candidate has spent in the various deletion forums. I have not spent time in those recently, but did spend substantial time in the TfD, CfD and RfD forums in 2005. I was involved in the discussions that led to the creation of RfD. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Clarification related to blocking of vandals: I did not explicitly say that I support blocks for repeat offenders previously, but I will by way of clarification. Repeat offenders - be they 'poopers' or 'haters' should be blocked. If a vandal spreads scat vandalism once - twice- three times and is properly warned in each case, a block is warranted on the fourth vandalism instance according to the existing blocking policy. However, there is a statute of limitations; four 'minor' vandalism instances over four months - not block worthy - but four 'minor' vandalism instances over four hours with warnings after each - block. I will state that again for clarity - repeat offenders are to be blocked, whether they spread scat or hate. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • P.S. to head off the potential follow-up question ... if it looks like someone is getting into a hot streak of vandalism - blocking without four formal warnings is, of course, permissible. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:52, 10 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 currently spend a fair amount of time patrolling a couple thousand pages for vandalism and would continue such surveillance, likely expanding it to cover some systematic territory around biology, business and biography. Administrative authority would allow judicious blockade following fair warning according to guidelines at Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy. The vandals I've usually encountered to date would not warrent blocking because they tend to act in a manner similar to 'he he - see, I can add poop to any article I want' rather than 'I despise this place and I'm going to blow up 100 articles in protest' or 'I really need to defame person X'.

An area which isn't specifically covered by the 'backlog' pages is in the complex page moves required to resolve some disambiguation page changes. For instance, if 'XXXYYY (disambiguation)' points at 'XXXYYY' and 'XXXYYY' is currentl a dab page but should be an article in its own right, the best way to resolve this is to deleted 'XXXYYY (disambiguation)' and move 'XXXYYY' to 'XXXYYY (disambiguation)', freeing the 'XXXYYY', which now is a redirect, to act as an article title without doing the 'no no' of copy-and-pasting content. I've run into variations on this circumstance several times and have usually passed it by as the process of explaining what is needed and nominating things for the non-controversial moves is not justified from a cost-benefit standpoint. With administrative authority, I could act on untangling non-controversial knots of this kind without second party intervention.

Finally, I think that spending time evaluating and acting on proposed deletions (PROD) would be a fine activity. I'm an inclusionist by temperment and I'd be inclined to try to fold content into related articles rather than delete outright if there is worthy content to maintain (for instance, I see KLTS Tower labeled with PROD; there are many many masts described in Misplaced Pages and I'd be inclined to fold the content into a list-article and redirect rather than delete outright at the end of the PROD period) ... though there are many articles so tagged that do not merit such consideration (for instance, Lovebaba, which I wouldn't have tagged with 'content seems unrelated to title' but rather 'unverifiable content').

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

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

A:

I'm most pleased with a) Template:Infobox Journal (it gave academic journals an infobox of their own distinct from the generic Infobox Magazine template); b) the set Template:Top4, Template:Mid4 and Template:Bottom (though largely unused now, this was an attempt to port functionality from Wiktionary into Misplaced Pages as well as an attempt to write useful usage information for a template; the corresponding template set is used widely in Wiktionary ... at least at the time that I did the port to Misplaced Pages in August 2005); c) Attorney General of Delaware (unlike most of the other articles I've started, this filled in a basic hole in the explication of an elected office in a state of the United States where both the office and the state, Delaware, are underserved by editors; it also was created to serve persons who were going to vote in the 2006 mid-term elections in Delaware with some explanation of one of the offices into which they were going to be voting someone (by way of disclosure, I live in Delaware)).

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:39, 6 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:

The edit I'm most pleased about was a compromise wording in an article that in September 2005 ended a feud at Libertarian Party (United States) (see Talk:Libertarian_Party_(United_States)#Negative_Press_section_definitely_Point_OF_View). In this case, there was a standing feud between folks who wanted to use a section title that contained some variation on "Negative Press" versus those who wanted a neutral title containing some variation on "In the News". Neither set of choices really got to the heart of the content and implied the section was only a catch-all for emerging press reports that highlighted the foibles and successes of Party members. In reality, the section dealt more with the distinction between political and philosophical libertarianism and highlighted the ups and downs of persons pursuing office under either of those umbrellas. Choosing the section title "Libertarian identity" in one short burst of keystrokes settled the matter and it has been calm on that part of the article ever since.

I've been in a number of stylistic feuds since coming on board in the context of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Disambiguation and Category:WikiProject Stub sorting. However, I've never been deeply involved in a truly disruptive conflict that impacts on a high profile, controversial topic that could result in the popular press taking notice (such conflicts are for instance like the Kolkata/Calcutta naming conflict or the WebEx controversy or the sometimes recurring Userbox Wars) nor have I been the subject of arbitration. After having gone through the period of occassionally stomping away from my keyboard with elevated blood pressure, my current philosophy is 'this too shall pass'; most conflicts are stylistic rather than content centered (or centred - another style conflict, that) and I believe in the 'content is king' argument for not setting the forest on fire by escalating style conflicts to conflagrations. For truly disruptive content arbitration, there are heads far more experienced than mine to tap for facilitating equitable outcomes.

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

4. Optional question from James086: Should people pay more attention to admins' views in discussions, XfD's and content disputes?

A:

No. Admins as editors should be treated like everyone else. In fact, an admin should in most cases be unrecognizable as such while engaged in conversations over content issues or while engaged in deliberation on the XfD forums. Admin tools are not meant to provide more leverage for the opinions of admins in content conversations; they are meant in part to facilitate the emergence of balanced outcomes in the face of disruptive behavior on the part of other editors. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Optional questions from Malber (talk · contribs)

5. What do the policy of WP:IAR and the essay WP:SNOW mean to you and how would you apply them?

A:

WP:IAR is problematic in that it relies on a subjective criterion of 'improvement' and 'maintenance' of Misplaced Pages. If we Assume Good Faith, then many non-consensus notions of 'improvement' can be easily pursued with impunity under the WP:IAR clause. A key thing that is missing is the essential notion of 'consensus' in the WP:IAR policy. WP:IAR is an important part of the Misplaced Pages culture because it is a tacit admission that few if any rules that emerge from the culture are all encompassing or cover all future eventualities. Productive application of WP:IAR should lead to re-evaluation of the rule(s) that have been broken and, therefore, lead to evoution of the Misplaced Pages rule-set. Destructive application of WP:IAR should be dealt with through established dispute resolution processes.

WP:SNOW assumes that for a given decision, the consensus is known prior to sensing for it. I agree that WP:SNOW can be applied equitably; the problem is the ire that its application can provoke in those who disagree with its application. Therefore, the impact of its application is very much dependent upon the temperment of the potential un-consulted editors who would disagree with the decision. Such impact is also dependent, but to a lesser degree, on the willingness of Misplaced Pages to accept that the policy was applied incorrectly in a particular instance; such willingness is instantiated in, for instance, Misplaced Pages:Undeletion policy.

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

6. Is there ever a case where a punitive block should be applied?

A:

Blocks are put in place to prevent an editor from altering or amending content in a manner that is destructive or disruptive to Misplaced Pages, regardless of the scale of the content alteration. In one sense, all blocks are punitive as they 'punish' an editor by removing their editing privileges, though the point-of-view evinced by the Blocking Policy states the reciprocal, that blocking actions are 'protecting' Misplaced Pages from the results of disruptive behavior. Blocks in response to undesirable editing behavior are no different in principle from removing a child's television viewing privileges or putting a criminal behind bars - some degree of freedom to act is removed. The key to being equitable is to block on the basis of action, not stated intent (i.e. don't get baited into blocking) or anticipation of intent (i.e. don't predict the future). However, the future might hold a circumstance that necessitates invoking WP:IAR, even here. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

7. What would your thought process be to determine that a business article should be deleted using CSD:G11?

A:

If the article provides no historical or industry context and the content focuses on describing in detail the products or services provided by the company, along with links to at least the company site and perhaps to each of the products and services provided by the company individually, all of those being external links ... those taken together would provide sufficient justification to consider the article under this speedy deletion criterion. However, I've not been confronted with this decision before and each article is unique. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 20:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

8. Kind of a long one - my apologies. You're at C:CSD, about to delete an article for an A7 band. It has an image of the band, PD. What do you do with it, if anything? What if it's copyrighted? What if the deletion is a G11 for a corporation - what do you do with the PD photo of the building and the copyrighted corporate logo? What if it's an expiring prod with same? Thank you. - crz crztalk 20:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

A:

If the image is copyrighted and has not been explicitly ceded to a licensing scheme that is compatible with GFDL, it needs to be removed regardless of the status of the article in which it appears. Let's assume that the image fits all the 'ok to include' criteria, though. The non-notable band: delete the image along with the article if the image is not used in other articles than the one to be deleted; if the article about the band is non-notable, than an image of the band to be included in the article is also non-notable. The spam company-article: delete the image along with the article if the image is not used in other articles than the one to be deleted; this assumes that good faith efforts to create a stub article from the spam article or find an appropriate article in which to mention the company have not met with success. If the company can be included in Misplaced Pages as a stub or as a list item or as a mention in a topical article, then the image should be migrated to Commons as potentially of use to Misplaced Pages in relation to the article mention; this fits with Commons' scope statement "files uploaded to the Commons have to be useful for some Wikimedia project". If the image in the cases noted above is already on Commons and is being included from there, due diligence in investigating use across Wikimedia projects should be done before initiating deletion proceedings for the image on Commons (umm, I've never had to do that, so I don't know how difficult it would be). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. In the past 24 hours I just encountered my first speedy deletable image and kind of botched the nomination but got quick help and have a better appreciation for the IfD/MfD process now. (so many processes, so little time - but they are well-oiled machines with many moving parts rather than Rube Goldberg devices). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

General comments

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

Discussion

Support

1. Indeed. (Radiant) 15:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
2. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 03:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
3. Support. Great user which definitely has the priorities of an admin. Acs4b 04:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
4. Support Without a doubt. TSO1D 04:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
5. Support Misplaced Pages needs more admins with regular Village Pump experience. Sharkface217 04:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
6. Absolutely! Grutness...wha? 04:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
7. Support Get on it. Dfrg.msc 04:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
8. Support Handles vandals well. Good editor, won't misuse tools. Delta Tango • Talk 05:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
9. Support Quite a sufficient level of contribution at the projectspace & time on the project implies familiarity with process. WP:talk edits include 934 edits which include Stub sorting, Manual of Style with emphasis on disambiguation, Stub types, TfD, Templates, Redirect pages, Stub sorting/Guidelines, Citing sources, Stub types for deletion & Fact and Reference Check. This would appear to be sufficient wikiproject-related to satisfy the most stringent test. Editing is sound. Positive contributions to the Libertarian Party (United States); came through a rather famous dispute as generally resonable; meets the civility standard. No signs of incipient meglomania. Trustworthy enough to be an administrator with the ability to block/unblock/delete and reserrect. Do us proud - Williamborg (Bill) 05:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
10. Support a good candidate --Steve _(Slf67) 05:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
11. Support Looks like a reasonable candidate. (aeropagitica) 05:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
12. Support. Very good list of contributions, constructive attitude, substantial experience - there's nothing not to like. Sandstein 06:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
13. Support--Jusjih 08:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
14. How could I not support this candidate? yandman 11:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
15. Support The only reason I hadn't supported 'til now was because I was waiting (not long) for an answer to the question, which was highly satisfactory. Full support. James086 12:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
16. Support Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
17. Support Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979 15:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
18. Support. Yes. =) Nishkid64 15:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
19. Support. Rettetast 16:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
20. Support looks like a good candidate.-- danntm _C 17:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
21. Support. Well presented nomination that satisfies any criteria. Agent 86 19:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
22. - crz crztalk 22:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
23. Support Qualified candidate for adminship. Hello32020 22:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
24. Support –The Great Llama 01:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
25. Support. bibliomaniac15 06:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
26. Support. Whenever I've seen this editor's work in the past it has always been good. -Will Beback · † · 06:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
27. Support A very good editor. Excellent nomination. -- Szvest 15:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
28. Support Always good to see a worthy nominee; good luck!. — CRAZY`(lN)`SANE 16:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
29. Support This is a valuable wikipedian. TonyTheTiger 20:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
30. Support as all of my interactions with Ceyockey have been very positive. Very qualified, IMHO. ···日本穣 21:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
31. Support solid answers to RfA questions and has a good contribution history with plenty of disambig work. Seems like a fine candidate.¤~Persian Poet Gal 00:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
32. Support —Quarl 2006-12-09 00:48Z
33. Support Every possible reason. The Mirror of the Sea 01:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
34. Support good candidate. feydey 02:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
35. Support I've seen him around for a long time and he's never shown any signs of being a dick. What more could you ask for in an admin? -- RoySmith (talk) 02:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
36. Support Seen him all over the place. A good, thoughtful editor. Will make a great admin.--Anthony.bradbury 22:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
37. Support Solid answers, appears to have the qualities to have a steady hand on the tiller. Skyemoor 02:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
38. Strong support. I see him all over the place, solid history of contributions, strong answers, and most of all, the correct answer to John254's question (c.f. User:Mindspillage/admin). Titoxd 06:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
39. Support no problems, good contributions, great candidate. ← ANAS 12:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
40. Support. Will make great admin, although I'm not very fascinated with his article contributions. Michaelas10 (Talk) 16:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

    Comment smiles I'm tempted to ask what would fascinate you, but I believe I understand where you are coming from. I have not done much long composition on Misplaced Pages, rather opting for addition of short passages or relatively minor revisions. That is mostly a consequence of my feeling the sustained time to do a good rewrite on an article is substantial and I've not had that to devote; by the same token, my not having done it suggests (to me as well) that I might not do well at that activity. Regards, --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

    Support balanced contributions and temperament, active anti-vandal (much needed at this time). Skyemoor 15:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)User has already voted once. --Majorly 00:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

41. Support, definitely. Tonywalton  | Talk 17:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
42. Poop he he - see, I can add poop to any RfA I want. --Daniel Olsen 05:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
43. Are you kidding?! Conscious 13:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
44. Support. Zaxem 06:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
45. Support Terence Ong 08:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
46. Support. - BanyanTree 14:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
47. Support - some of the people who I have been most impressed with in my short time here are admins who make it their job to help others rather than hinder them. Ceyockey looks to me like he'll be that sort of admin. Milto LOL pia 20:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
48. Support I see no reason to oppose this candidate. Dionyseus
49. Support Seems good. Just H 23:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
50. riana_dzasta 10:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong oppose -- Stated refusal to issue blocks for scatological vandalism: "The vandals I've usually encountered to date would not warrent blocking because they tend to act in a manner similar to 'he he - see, I can add poop to any article I want..." John254 02:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

   Note: This candidate has posted the following on my talk page: "Do you believe that a single scatological vandalism instance warrants a block? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)", to which I am responding here, since it relates to this RFA. A "single scatological vandalism instance" might well merit an immediate block without warning, if a user posts a graphic photograph of human excrement to an unrelated article, or if the vandalism appears to be similar to the work of a known prolific vandal. Users engaging in ordinary text-based scatological vandalism should be warned with template:bv, and blocked if they persist after the warning. In any event, the statement "The vandals I've usually encountered to date would not warrant blocking because they tend to act in a manner similar to 'he he - see, I can add poop to any article I want" is totally unacceptable, as it implies an unwillingness to issue blocks for scatological vandalism. I find Ceyockey's assurances to the contrary to be unpersuasive, especially as scatological vandals should be blockable before they have managed to commit four acts of vandalism, even without a specific finding that "it looks like someone is getting into a hot streak of vandalism". John254 04:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for clarification of your position. I believe we mainly differ on the anticipated degree of response to this type of vandalism and the impact that it has on Misplaced Pages. It is unfortunate that you feel I do not take tough enough a stand against vandalism. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I feel compelled to say one more thing here — if the general consensus were 'block scat vandals on sight', I would do so. I don't think there is such a general consensus though - but I could be wrong and that would be a consequence of inexperience rather than obstinance. If that is the concern, that I am going against generally accepted practice, I don't intend to do that and would abide by generally accepted practice in this area. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 05:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

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

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

Davidruben

Final (49/10/5) Ended 02:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedians, please take a close look at David, ask him questions and write what you think. Thank you for taking the time to contribute to this RfA discussion and thanks to David for going through an RfA. Apologies for my bad English and I hope my lousy nom (eek, my first one...) does not hamper David's chances :-) Ligulem 15:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I accept - I'm truly flattered, especially as your first nom.David Ruben 17:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks too for the User:Mindspillage/admin link, this made good reading and a cautious approach I would wish to emulate. Though I’m not entirely sure about admins avoiding 3RR situations - I agree blocking is not a punishment but rather an opportunity for editors to reflect on the various relevant warning templates posted to them (offering advice and directing them to review the various policies). I tend to think once 3RR is reached that editors do need to be paused from further editing, at least for a short while, in order to get them to start discussing on talk pages and act in an encyclopaedic manner in trying to reach consensus (further failure to engage, edit warring and 3RR needs be dealt with firmly as this is so disruptive to the good work of other editors). So whilst if granted Admin rights I would still concentrate on article writing and improvement, rather than exclusively working on mop tasks, I would be happy enough (cf Mindspillage's approach) to ask editors to reflect on the lack of collaborative approach and to make initial blocks where reverting continues regardless, or AGF continues to be breached.

Questions for the candidate

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: Yes I think having mop functions would be useful. Some of these functions are page specific such as being able to edit and contribute to protected pages, so allowing consensus-agreed improvements to be directly enacted without having to seek out already over-stretched admins. Similarly semi-protection can be applied if it should become required. Finally the roll-back to reverse the actions of anon spammers who appear with a whole host of spam insertions into multiple pages would be useful (I'm aware there was a suggestion for this to be a separate privilege granted to some users without needing full Admin status, but this is not yet the case) and in particular I have previously needed to request this of admins on various medical, and in particular dermatology, topics that I tend to watch.

The more backroom sysop chores (and why such negative phrasing of the question vs "tasks" or "tidying up" ?) of WP:AN/I, AfD and 3RR are perhaps areas I will engage in less actively initially. I envisage perhaps starting with simpler cases: offering observations and then some opinions; all the while watching how other more experienced admins weigh-up issues and make final decissions & act (I've seen new admins jump into complex controversial cases and get their fingers burnt).

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

A: I've set out the more important (to me) articles I've created and had input in on my user page. I am proud of my work on Templates (Drugbox, Disease, Birth control methods and Hospital) and the upgrading of the use of these templates on many articles. I also took part in the debate over WikiProject Drugs Template styling (see here) and with consensus reached, helped standardised the various templates (see WP:DRUGS). Other navigation templates I have worked with are Template:Diabetes (see edits) and Template:Birth control methods.

The articles that gave me the greatest satisfaction were centred around moving and expanding the wrongly named London Dock Hospital to London Lock Hospital (first venereal disease clinic) which had been confused for the Albert Dock Seamen's Hospital (part of development of first hospital for tropical diseases) - the two had been confused across much of the web on checking via Google, in part because so many sites used wikipedia as their source (!) - seems websites, and some wikis, not always WP:Reliable sources indeed :-) All this led to researching and writing Seamen's Hospital Society article.

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 previously acted as a mutually agreed unofficial mediator in the edit warring over Breast implant (see Talk:Breast_implant/Archive_1#Edit_war) between 2 very intense editors (one new to wikipedia styling and who posted huge number of small sequential edits in an unrestricted inclusionist legal approach, whilst the other, a specialist, initially reverted & edited without engaging in debate). Both editors considerably improved and started to reach consensus or at least constructive dialogue over some points. With relative few other editors joining in discussion over specific points, I eventually felt worn down by this single topic and felt I could be more productive focusing more of my time elsewhere in wikipedia. Subsequently one of the editors, despite my warnings, eventually sadly suffered wikiburnout and resigned from wikipedia, although has since rejoined. The article has continued to be disputed by several editors, several admins have been involved (giving rise to a consensus of editors & admins) as has the clinical medicine Wikiproject (see Talk:WikiProject Clin.Med.#Breast implants), the page protected and finally all parties seem to be engaging in useful constructive dialogue, consensus building and article progression. I highlight this as a case where the technical knowledge of the various editors is extremely high and despite the dispute over emphasis & NPOV, the article will eventually be a Good Article. I think my involvement in this process has been a good learning experience in how to try and calm down edit wars and engage with opposing editors (I think I'm still on reasonable terms with all the editors), and the effort of several admins who have been involved has been exemplary in their time & effort (the patience and reserve with admin tools in not jumping to simple blocks, but continuing discussion and consensus-building has been noteworthy).

Far more directly successful has been my involvement with User:Cindery who as a new user had much detailed information to contribute to contraception articles and a strong personal opinion on some of the risk/benefit profiles, with an initial heavy editing style. Constructive guidance/comments/edits/discussion by several editors has helped this user become highly proficient in wiki styling, citing and an admirable adherence to NPOV (even balancing out their earlier edits) - in short an editor whose contributions I now admire.

I tend to watch quite a lot of medical topics and revert tests, outright nonsense, or plain vandalism. Only serious attack I've personally had was with the banned User:General Tojo who, disagreeing with everyone else on Parkinson’s Disease, systematically created new sockpuppet accounts to revert any edits I made. This resulted in several admins having to watch over my user pages & edit history to block each account he created.

As for dealing with future conflicts and stress, I think it is important to remember that this is after all only an encyclopaedia (allbeit the best in my opinion and certainly the most dynamically exciting) and does not exist as a platform to argue out disagreements vs quiet reflective reporting (with citations) of real-world debates. So wikistress can be eased by involving other editors to discuss issues (rather than trying to act as a lone voice in the wilderness) and taking wikibreaks at least on reaching Wikistress - level 3, and certainly before Wikistress - became insane :-)

General comments

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

With some auspicious 42 number of editors kindly taking the time to post opinions here, perhaps I should say a little about my perception of my WikiProjects experience (this is meant neither to be an essay nor lecturing to my more experienced Wikipedians, but an indication of how my wikiskills and experience have developed so far, and will continue I hope to do so).

The term "projectspace" is being applied to the whole overall encyclopaedic project (with its non-Admin administrative & Administrator tasks), but within the totality of Misplaced Pages there are small subsets, namely Wiki Projects. These too give experience in the tasks of management, discussion, reaching & acting on consensus in the development of an encyclopaedic field. They too address problem articles/editors within their boundaries. Of course, Wiki Projects do not have formal distinct 3RR, vandalism, RfC etc areas, but their talk spaces seem, in an informal manner, to carry out minor aspects of these same tasks; although without as much intense observation and holding to account for following rigid procedures (something as an Admin I would obviously have to be even more careful to observe in projectspace). So yes I think moving from article-space to the additional work in Wiki Projects, helps one to further appreciate how to work in a collaborative manner with other editors with differing opinions, in working to consensus and then to diplomatically, politely and civilly act (both in one’s own actions and in guiding any dissenters). Work in Admin projectspace would be a further move in this direction.

For each of the AfD, 3RR, AN/I postings I have made, I have always on each occasion read all the associated policies, guidelines and instructions; even when I have felt sure I already knew the policy. I would hope to be as cautious and careful with each new Admin tool granted - surely it is more desirable for a less familiar presence on the Admin pages to indicate their need to use any additionally granted tools in a reserved manner initially, than a more familiar non-admin indicating that they will rush in to all threads wielding their new-found god-like powers as they personally see fit ?

I really hope I would never fixate on Admin projectspace tasks to the total exclusion of Wiki Project & Article work - I like developing specific topics and articles. Conversely, I do not wish to only concentrate on my own narrow field of professional expertise - how terribly dull for work & leisure time to always be the same thing :-). Hence I would like to have some of the additional admin tools for very practical help in the tasks I already do here in wikipedia, whilst other tools would allow me to also contribute more fully and in a wider manner with POV, AGF, revert and other disruption by bringing across some of my already developed wiki-skills and experience. David Ruben 01:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Support

1. Oh no, only 1 help talk edit! Seriously, why aren't you already an admin? -Amarkov _edits 02:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
2. Support 5000 mainspace edits. Thats good. But I am pretty sure this will come up in the oppose and the neutral votes. That you have contributed in only 6 AFD's. So during tis week, start discussing in AFD's and I think you should do good. --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 02:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

   This would be in order to see reasoning about and understanding of the deletion process, not merely to have some number of AfD votes, and should not be necessary if candidate is experienced in other areas. —Centrx→talk • 03:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

   6 AfD votes doesn't necessarily imply a lack of knowledge of the AfD process, despite what some people will say in the Oppose section, but suggesting banging in a few AfD votes this week to (what I preceive to be an attempt to) strengthen an RfA is very wrong Ageo020. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 00:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

3. Support absolutely. A strong contributor to medical articles and a voice of reason in dispute resolution -- Samir धर्म 03:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
4. Support without hesitation. Sarah Ewart 03:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
5. Support—very strong article contributions. Light on Wikispace edits, but excellent judgement. I'd trust Davidruben to handle the mop safely; heck I might even trust him to treat me medically. Williamborg (Bill) 03:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
6. Support A very strong candidate. TSO1D 03:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
7. Support {after edit conflict) Meets my standards in terms of time and edit count. Talk page indicates a civil user that helps others. While Misplaced Pages is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, it is good to have admins with breadth and depth of knowledge. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 04:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
8. Support. Strong knowledgeable editor I've bumped into at WP:CLINMED. Should have been made an admin some time ago. Nephron  T|C 05:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
9. Support a good candidate, and as a contributor in a critical area that people will reference needing 100% correct information --Steve _(Slf67) 08:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
10. Of course. Lupo 10:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
11. Strong support. I've followed David's edits (though not in a stalker way :) since I first got here, and have only good things to say. His template work has been vital for several projects, he has shown good conflict resolution skills, is a major vandalism and linkspam fighter in Medicine-related articles, and patient and civil to a fault. I won't even mention his actual "content" edits as they speak for themselves. As for his seemingly "narrow" focus on Medicine and such, I think dedication to an area which requires significant specialist input is nothing but positive. Mop him! Fvasconcellos 12:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
12. Weak support. Less than 200 Misplaced Pages projectspace edits, also dodgy answer to Q1 concerning editing protected pages - if there's a consensus, then unprotect the page. However, plenty of article contributions and I don't honestly believe he would misuse the buttons. Addhoc 13:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

    I've personally encountered protection mostly with the various citation templates (eg Template:Cite journal), which seem to be perminantly protected. Following talkpage consensus, any agreed changes are then enacted by admins, but the templates remain protected afterwards. But I agree if a page is protected due to edit warring or exceptional levels of vandalism (noting the policy not to protect main page articles) then it should be unprotected as soon as the situation permits.David Ruben 05:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

13. Support. A great editor who applies his expert knowledge/judgement where it is much needed. Handles conflicts well and good with helping new users. I suspect that he'll use a subset of the admin tools, but use them wisely. The only negative I have is a worry that his admin duties would come at the expense of being a writer. Colin° 13:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
14. Support. Not a lot of project space experience but seems to have done his homework. --Ars Scriptor 15:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
15. 30 cc of Suppizort, stat, and the drug pages could definitely use some admin watching, there's covert vandalism going on there....promise you'll look over Tramadol and maybe check the edit wars that sometimes flare up over the dependency issue? ⇒ SWATJester Aim _Fire! 18:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
16. Support A good editor who meets my personal guidelines, and although project space experience is highly preferred, I can live with an candidate who focused on article building. I'm also glad to see people remembered and is paying attention to Mindspillage's adminship essay.-- danntm _C 18:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
17. Weak Support - per nom, although crz's statement is worth noting --T-rex 19:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
18. Support A great editor, with good qualifications. Hello32020 20:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
19. Support. I am confident that the canditate is qualified to handle the tools. Agent 86 21:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
20. Support will not abuse the tools. feydey 21:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
21. Support as there is little to no indication this user will abuse the extra tools of an admin. -- AuburnPilot 00:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
22. Support WP will greatly benefit from more admins with specialist knowledge in critical areas like medicine, and this editor shows diligence, commitment, and strong contributions to this important subject. Even his initials spell Dr. Dryman 00:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

    On this last point I must stress that my parents had no ulterior motive in their naming of me. In a number of clinical settings the local computer systems, whilst requesting that I login using my initials, would then apply error validation checks to reject "DR" as being a title or user-level (eg Dr, nurse etc) and refuse to let me log in ! David Ruben 00:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

23. Support, per nom. --SonicChao 00:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
24. Support knowledgeable and careful contributor in an area that could use more admins. Opabinia regalis 01:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
25. Support. David's been here for longer than I have (by a bit) and hasn't annoyed any of our productive contributors (I know I have). That speaks to a levelheadedness and reasonableness to be admired. I expect he will find the tools useful in working on Projects, as well as in dealing with the occasional vexatious or persistent vandal/edit warrior. I also expect that he will continue to grow in the role, and I don't expect that he will misuse the tools. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
26. Support per nom. Acs4b 04:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
27. Support Although you are a little green for an admin as far as policy and projectspace goes, Misplaced Pages always needs more meat for the grinder. Make us proud. Sharkface217 04:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
28. Support. Davidruben shows good judgement, civility, patience, knowledge, responsiveness, tenure. Let's put away the arbitrary edit count requirements and evaluate the candidates themselves. AFD participation, specifically, is not that important. I'm sure Davidruben will be as careful closing non-consensual AFDs as his other contributions; his AFD "voting record" would only be needed for deletionist/inclusionist partisanship. In the past, admins have slipped through the AFD editcount filters and turned haywire once they got delete buttons. Some reasons for opposing admin candidates I've seen over time are just silly ("12 edits away from my personal minimum edit count", "not enough Template_talk: edits" - I won't embarass anyone with diffs), but these edit count requirements are just not that useful. Avoid turning Misplaced Pages into an RPG where anyone can game the system and "level up" by grinding! —Quarl 2006-12-07 08:27Z
29. Support Competent and experienced.--Holdenhurst 13:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
30. Support per nomination statement. --Siva1979 15:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
31. Support. Even though he does not need the tools badly I will trust him with them. Rettetast 16:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
32. Significant experience, no indication of problems. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
33. No hesitation support very competent, composed, civil, and communicative editor. I don't care what the edit count is in various areas as being more than sufficiently civil and productive is much better than racking up points. MLA 05:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
34. Support: I don't see evidence that he'll misuse the tools. TimBentley (talk) 16:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
35. Support: David is a very reasoned editor who does take time to explain what he has done. No admin started out as perfect or totally experienced and as long as they build up their usage of the tools as they gain that experience, then I don't see how David couldn't be an admin. We are all newbies once. Regan123 19:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
36. Support We certainly need more diligent wikipedians to take bigger roles. This guy can help. TonyTheTiger 20:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
37. Support. Has been around the block a few times, and seems very level-headed. Would make a good admin. ···日本穣 22:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
38. Support Yes. The Mirror of the Sea 01:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
39. Support Good editor, can use the tools, no indication that he would abuse them. --Daniel Olsen 04:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
40. Nominator Support. (I forgot to add my !vote as nominator, so a bit late. Apologies :-) --Ligulem 08:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
41. Support. Good editor, will not abuse admin tools. Nishkid64 20:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
42. Support - devoted editors make good admins Alex Bakharev 00:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
43. Support - good editor. Sandy (Talk) 01:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
44. Support John254 03:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
45. Support Everything checks out well. I don't agree with the opp, especially given his understanding of of policies as expressed in these AFDs. Besides, every statement he's made in this nomination indicates he will delve into the backlogs cautiously.--Kchase T 06:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
46. Support Has made excellent contributions to some contentious articles. Andrew73 22:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
47. Support, given his profession, I think we can assume that he will do no harm Bucketsofg 11:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
48. Support We know he's a good editor and won't abuse the tools. The question is, is he well-rounded enough? Maybe a group of well-rounded admins are needed, but there's nothing wrong with admins who specialise in certain parts of Misplaced Pages. In fact, they're needed, especially ones with technical know-how to go with the civil manner etc. Ruben is absolutely the type of person needed to be an admin. If he's unclear on the rules, he reads the fine manual (unlike some people who currently are admins, for truth!) and co-operates with both other editors and admins. It's like telling someone they shouldn't be a Congressman because he hasn't run a law office. Good Congressmen can read the rules, are smart enough to use them, and are civil enough to use them correctly. SUPPORT. Gaviidae 19:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
49. Support per Quarl and Regan and inasmuch as I think it reasonable to conclude with a good degree of certainty that the candidate is possessed of judgment sufficiently fine that he should neither abuse nor misuse, even avolitionally (e.g., in view of his acting in areas of policy with which he is less-than-conversant), the tools, such that, consistent with my RfA guidelines, I heartily support. Joe 23:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Seriously insufficient level of contribution at the projectspace (especially given your time on the project) implies insufficient familiarity with process. I am sure you're a terrific editor, but your answer to Q1 is unimpressive. All of your WP:talk edits appear to be wikiproject-related. I see zero policy discussion - which is a major strike against. I don't have enough evidence (but will be happy to review any such evidence I may have missed) on the basis of which to entrust you with either AfD or 3RR, and you're more than welcome to participate in ANI without a sysop flag. My apologies. Strong Oppose - crz crztalk 04:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

   Change to Strong Oppose in furry slippers per Williamborg. - crz crztalk 15:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

   lol... Appreciate this. First time I've ever laughed while reading an RfA! MY arguments, I see, were compelling. Thanks - Williamborg (Bill) 02:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

   Thank you for the explanation - no apology needed :-) As I mentioned above, the page specific tools would be of most immediately of use to me. Re "projectspace", I've obviously been more active at WikiProject Clinical medicine and WikiProject Drugs than the wider Misplaced Pages administration areas you seek. Still that gives me some insight into developing policies for article and encyclopaedia development. I think I am familiar with much of the admin areas and policies (I re-read many of them before accepting this nom), but yes I agree I've not been as active there previously (hence my explict stating of the cautious approach I would take and I note the advice to new admins to take things slowly - ? from UninvitedCompany butI can't immediately find the link). I note User:Ageo020's suggestion to visit AfD in the course of this coming 7 days, which I shall do - as to whether that will provide "enough evidence" I leave as an open question. Yours David Ruben 05:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

   Ahhhh, Alexander, pleased to see you here & a consistently hard grader for prospective admins. But a strong oppose? I’d agree that Davidruben will not be an uber-administrator, living in admin space 24/7; he’s certainly a less-than-perfect admin candidate. But as I observed for another less-than-perfect admin candidate back in early October, he gives no indication that he will abuse the powers to block\unblock\delete\undelete. And a strong contributor deserves some respect, no? Perhaps just a gentle oppose might do? Skål/Hа Здоровье/Le'Chaim - Williamborg (Bill) 06:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

2. I tentatively agree with Crz. (Radiant) 10:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

   Apologies for responding but: I wonder why "policy discussion" is a prerequisite for being an admin. Isn't it sufficient to be trusted with the tools? You once said, we either trust a user to hand them over the whole toolset or we don't. I wonder in which way you don't trust David. David is one of those rare Wikipedians that have some good knowledge of a field, have been here for quite some time, do understand the principles of how to apply consensus and working collaboratively on the encyclopedia and who are not afraid to mediate disputes in their field of knowledge. Isn't that sufficient? Not everyone needs a PhD in Wiki-policy. And I'm sure he knows the relevant policies well. And being able to rollback the daily influx of vandalism crap and blocking a vandal here and there in the area he has on his watchlist is certainly to the benefit of the project. --Ligulem 10:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

   Policy discussion is not a prerequisite for being an admin; indeed, most admins do not want, nor need, to be involved in that. However, since most admins are, or become, involved in adjudicating process, I believe a candidate should have some experience with process, to show he knows what he may or will be dealing with. It need not be any particular process, and the user need not at all be a regular, but I expect at least some familiarity or participation. And that is what I find lacking here. (Radiant) 12:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

3. Oppose, while you appear to be a great editor those reasons are not enough to earn admin tools. Your question to Q.1 was somewhat unimpressive and as of yet you have failed to show us why you would need admin tools. And of course per Crz. — Seadog 15:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
4. ½ Oppose: Someone will shout at me for a half an oppose, but you've participated in 6 AfDs (if the figure quoted somewhere above is correct) and out of that, 4 were today, with your last 2 edits being to AfDs. As it appears you've followed (what I perceive to be) Ageo020s advice of participating in more AfDs this week to pass this RfA, I don't think I can support as it looks to me like gaming the system. Sorry. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 00:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

   Does ½ an oppose result in a mere ½ wisper of a shout back ? :-) The edit numbers are precisely as you set out in these specific areas. I am certainly not trying to game the system (the 2nd support vote was quite clear in quantifying my prior edit numbers) nor, and probably even more important for Admins, be even remotely perceived to be. Yes I took note of Ageo020s suggestion (and if I ignored such advice would it be appropriate to critise my failure to listen to other editors ?) and crz's oppose posting indicated insufficient evidence to form a basis for their deciding to entrust me with AfD or 3RR. So seems only reasonable to provide a few more contributions to those areas suggested so that those deciding on their decissions in this RfA can judge my approach (granted it is merely indicative of, I hope, a good continuing and future approach to these areas). This I so openly stated in my comment to crz before I starting poping into Afd. If you think I should not be so responding and acting to suggestions placed on this Afd, then should I merely return to solely article-space edits during this week ? David Ruben 01:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

   Looking through all the comments above, Heligoland has also disagreed with Ageo020's suggestion to contrribute to Afd during this week too - so I'll happily follow whatever wikiquette is appropriate now - if people contributing to this RfA would like to see me contributing to AfD during the next 6 days to help reassure on my style of likely contributions there then fine, but if it is felt to be unhelpful at this stage during a RfA then I wont :-) David Ruben 01:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

   When I commented above, I hadn't had a chance to look through your contributions and as I say, just because you've only got 6 or so AfD contributions doesn't necessarily mean that you don't know what your doing come AfD time. I'd suggest you just carry on as normal during this RfA. If you do (as in don't go chasing one particular type of edit) and if you then need one less Oppose and one more Support to reach a concensus, I'll swap. Again, likely to upset folk, but what the hell, as I've found out, being inconsistent and hypocritical is encouraged during RfA !voting. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 01:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

   Heligoland, I would take back the accusation of gaming the system. If Davidruben were trying to game he would have had a high AFD edit count before the RFA started. In fact I'm sad that a good candidate may fail to be promoted because he hasn't gamed the system, otherwise a lot more people would be supporting (there are many ways; I won't name them here -- WP:BEANS -- but you can ask me privately). —Quarl 2006-12-07 08:37Z

5. Oppose - David, I do not feel you have enough experience with dispute resolution to wield the mop yet. In the future when you have more experience, I'd be happy to support you, if you've done well. Until then, I can't. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge aka "Wiz" 01:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose Crz said all that needs be said. Candidate should simply find some project-space area(s) to which he feels capable of contributing: not merely policy-formulation, but XfD, various noticeboards, even working a page like WP:NEG can show project-space experience, as one trims the lists. Xoloz 05:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose Not enough experience in XfD. Dionyseus 21:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
8. Reluctant oppose. I am opposing for the reasons stated by other above -- in short, not enough experience in tasks which the new buttons apply to. However, this oppose is reluctant, because this user contributions to mainspace look good, and with more experience will be an excellent candidate. Best of luck. --- Deville (Talk) 20:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
9. Firm oppose - totally insufficient participation in XfD. --Elaragirl 16:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
10. Weak oppose. Good record, but I have to oppose given lack of experience in policy-related areas. Try again once you've gotten some good experience there, and I imagine you'll do very well. --Coredesat 19:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral for now. A splendid editor, by all accounts, and if we trust doctors with our lives, I guess we can trust them with admin tools. That said... based on your reply to question one, I just don't see much of a need for them in the course of your work on Misplaced Pages. Vandal rollbacks, for example, can also be performed with the popups tool. I'd not hesitate to support this nomination at a later time once you've engaged more actively in some administrative tasks, because we really need more people in everything listed here. Sandstein 06:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

   As you are a newbie admin, wouldn't you say that the full admin rollback feature is a whole lot better than those ugly script rollback hacks which nearly need a programmer to install and which can't rollback a series of edits like the full featured perfect built-in rollback? We have consistenly asked to hand out rollback to more people but I was told by Radiant and others that this distinction is not needed as we either trust a user to hand him the whole toolset or not. Now we seem to have again this problem with people requesting the perfect admin in all areas in order to hand out the toolset. This contradiction is still not resolved on this project. --Ligulem 10:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

   That is a good point, in that (in my opinion) some people on RFA have standards that are unreasonably high (e.g. "must have X edits to namespace Y", "must have worked process X for Y weeks at least", etc). Editcountitis is not a good criterion, and by extension neither is any other arbitrary cutoff point. (Radiant) 12:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

   Is that me you're speaking of? - crz crztalk 17:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

   • No, just speaking in general. I concur with your assessment of this user. (Radiant) 09:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

   The featureset of the various rollbacks isn't really the point - of course, everyone's work would be easier with the admin tools. What I meant is that I'd like to see a certain (if minimal) commitment by an admin candidate to actively engage in administrative tasks beyond their usual sphere of article edits, such as in XfD, CSD, etc.pp.. We're metaphorizing the tools as a mop, after all, not as a bigger pen, or flashier edit button, or whatever. But I'm not opposing because I've no doubt that he won't abuse the tools. Sandstein 15:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

2. Neutral. Pretty good user, but crz's argument is very sensible. bibliomaniac15 06:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
3. Neutral. A stellar contributor, but does he really need the tools? I'll take the bench on this one and let you guys answer that question. —Lantoka 05:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
4. Neutral I strongly believe that he won't abuse the tools, however I'm not sure he won't misuse them. Misuse as in accidental misuse, not malicious-ness. The lack of project-edits is my reasoning. James086 11:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
5. Neutral Great contributor, but simply not enough wikispace edits. –The Great Llama 02:00, 8 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.

J.smith

Final (48/1/1) Ended 17:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

J.smith (talk · contribs) – I have come across J.smith when he stepped in to help a user about an article I had deleted ~ looking at his work he looks like the sort of user we should have as an Administrator Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! 16:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I gratefully accept this nomination. ---J.S 19:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

About Me

Well, I'm grateful for this nomination. I really appreciate it. I never thought anyone would nominate me. :) I've been editing wikipedia for a about a year now and I've enjoyed the experience. This place is truly one of the most valuable resources on the Internet and I'm proud to be part of it.

I'm not the most articulate person, so most of my work here is wikignomish/wikifae in nature. I've done a lot of Special:Random cleanup, xFD (mostly AFD) discussions, RC patrol and following though on {{helpme}} requests. In the article space, most of my significant contributions relate to paranormal topics and the occasional BLP and business article (Such as the infamous Arch Coal). ---J.S 19:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the YouTube controversy

Much controversy has surrounded my removal of YouTube links recently... and I expect it to come up here. It seems to me that much of this controversy has stemmed from a misunderstanding of the situation. I think a lot of people think I'm removing every You-Tube link I find, but that's simply not true. I review each link within the context of the article and make a decision to remove or keep. If it's not obvious, I look at the video on YT and make a judgement call.

Every time a question is raised about either the project in general or the removal of a specific link I make an attempt to respond thoroughly. I've made changes in how I do things based on input on various talk pages.

Before I started the project I sought input on WP:AN and #Misplaced Pages-en and received unanimous support. A week latter I made a new thread there and received nearly unanimous support. I've tried to be as open as possible.

I hope that clears up some misunderstandings on the YouTube situation. ---J.S 19:38, 5 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: Well, I intend to keep working in the copy-vio field. With admin tools I'll be able to take an active roll on WP:Copyright problems. I also !vote in xFD often, so closing them is something I'd participate in.... by extension, CfSD tends to generate a backlog that I'd help out with. I've been watching {{unblock}} recently... a lot of requests end up sitting there for hours. I can see a little more help is needed in that field as well. ---J.S 19:38, 5 December 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 do a lot of gnome type work so I don't have any FAs under my belt... but I do think that a few articles I've made significant contributions to look good. Roswell UFO incident was a collaborative effort, but I think it has turned out to be an excellent article. I rescued Friday the 13th from the pit of vandalism and rewrote most of the article from scratch. I'm not the most elegant of authors, so it's hard to point to just one article. Oh, I think I've done a good job in {{helpme}} patrol recently... but ya don't really need the mop for that:) ---J.S 19:38, 5 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: Yes, of course. Stress is a fundamental part of life. Something that stand out? Well, there are a few situations that come to mind. The first "conflict" I was involved in was very early in my career in on wikipedia. I'm a little embarrassed now of the situation... :) It as over a online video game article. An anonymous editor had a grudge against the game and repeatedly pov-pushed. I ended up responding with comments that were less then civil. I was highly frustrated by the situation because it seemed like no-one cared about the "fight" that was going on. I actually am glad for the experience. Even tho I'm not proud of how things happened, I learned a lot about policy, dispute resolution system and community standards. (If you want to check the situation out you can see the talk page and it's two archives.) ---J.S 19:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

4. Optional question from Gracenotes: In what general cases should WP:IAR be applied, as the policy relates to dealing with situations you may encounter as an administrator? Also, please list several hypothetical proposals and attempted processes to which WP:SNOW could be applied. Gracenotes §

A: Gasp! I'm shocked I got this question! ;) Anyway, since you asked for a general answer, I shall give you one: When it furthers the goal of building an encyclopedia, and, when following the rules shall hinder the goal. IAR would always be invoked with much forethought and only as often is as absolutely necessary.

A2: The concept behind SNOW is one that makes sense.... with the understanding that it should be invoked very infrequently. Why drag something out when the outcome is obvious, and continuing with the process is disruptive? Process is important, but continuing the flow of constructive editing is too. It's a delicate balance. You want some specific examples? Well... That's a hard one. If a AFD debate stats to degrade into a sock/meatpuppet fest and no more actual !votes are being added, then it's likely a good time to SNOW the debate. Also, perhaps an ill-conceived policy proposal (Misplaced Pages:Meka teh wikipadya da vote) should be snowed after a civil explanation why. A snow in that case can prevent newbie biting.

To be clear, if a snow is "contested" then it's likely a good idea to revert the SNOW and like events take there course. Basically in short, IAR should be used VERY seldomly and the admin who is SNOWing should be ready to revert it. (Maybe it's time to write WP:UNSNOW?) ---J.S 04:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

General comments

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

Discussion

Support

1. As nominator - of course Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! 17:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
2. Support - looks good. Has done a great job handling the youTube situation, doing so consitantly and methodical without causing any problems --T-rex 22:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
3. Support His record and responses make me confident he will be a good admin. TSO1D 22:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
4. Support Good contribs, and balanced edit count. —The Great Llama 22:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
5. Support I see nothing wrong. Edits look balanced. — Seadog 22:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

   Comment: Just for the sake of disclosure, 500+ recent edits were using AWB. I don't know if that throws off your balance. ---J.S 22:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

   Comment:What I meant was that you have a solid mainspace edits and wikipedia edits (rather than all in one area). Okay my rant stops here :) — Seadog 01:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

6. Support Everything looks reasonable. I really like the way you handled the youTube situation.--Kchase T 22:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
7. Strong Support. A very strong nominee. He's balanced himself in all aspects of Misplaced Pages, and I am impressed by his answers and his participation in article discussion and namespace discussion. Nishkid64 22:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
8. Support. Seems like an ideal candidate. (I do somewhat disapprove of your use ;) of easter egg links in your answers, though it doesn't bother me as long as you don't use them in articles!) -- Renesis (talk) 23:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
9. Support Looks like a reasonable candidate for the mop. (aeropagitica) 23:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
10. Support--SUIT 23:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
11. Support. bibliomaniac15 01:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
12. Support A very sincere and good editor. --Siva1979 02:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
13. Support Cleared up all the misunderstandings w before the discussions. Thats smart --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 02:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
14. I have had personal interactions with J.smith, and found him to be level-headed and helpful. He'll make a fine administrator. Dmcdevit·t 04:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
15. Support Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 05:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
16. Support. All checks out well, we need more people to deal with backlogs and I like his initative with regards to nonreliable sources such as YouTube videos. Sandstein 05:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
17. I see no problem here. (Radiant) 10:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
18. Support. Good and trustworthy contributor. utcursch | talk 10:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
19. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this candidate! - 11:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
20. Support always very civil, sufficient experience, plus adminship isn't a big deal. Addhoc 13:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
21. Support someone who deals positively & constructively with YouTube has my support --Herby 14:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
22. I like! -- Kicking222 14:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
23. Support I am confident he's going to be a good admin. ← ANAS 15:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
24. Support I've only ever seen good things from this editor, and I particularly like the description of the way that he is dealing with the Youtube question - boldly, methodically, and fairly, but with community input. --TheOtherBob 17:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
25. Support Adminship for J.smith seems like an ideologically small change, but one that can, in practice, only bring more benefit to Misplaced Pages than this user already brings. Also, gets that there really is no general case for WP:IAR, and seems (by his explanation) to have the judgement to deal with specific manifestations of that policy. :) Good luck. Gracenotes § 17:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
26. Support looks good.-- danntm _C 18:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
27. support per Gracenotes, who said it well. ⇒ SWATJester Aim _Fire! 18:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
28. Hell Yes! Support I have been extremely impressed with the calm way he has handled the youtube thing. Has dealt with editors who disagree with the exercise with curtesy and respect while still making his points in a civil way that took account of the objections raised. . Spartaz 19:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
29. - crz crztalk 20:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
30. Support He's a good user and would be a better Admin. Thank You and Happy Holidays | Cocoaguy (Talk) 02:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
31. Support Sarah Ewart 02:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
32. Strong Support Never have I seen a man more qualified with your modesty and dignity. Bravo. Sharkface217 04:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
33. Support a good candidate --Steve _(Slf67) 05:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
34. Support sounds good to me. James086 09:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
35. Support Must 11:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
36. As much support as I can give He helped me, as I am a new user set up a talk page and user page! He also helps me with everything I need! Thank You! WikiMan53 T/C 15:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
37. Support. Rettetast 16:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
38. Support; definite yes on this one; I've bumped into him many times and he's always doing something right. Antandrus (talk) 01:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
39. Support - excellent editor, can use the tools effectively, no issues or concerns for me. Newyorkbrad 02:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
40. Support You deserve it. Good luck. -- Szvest 16:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
41. Support, J.smith has demonstrated familiarity with Misplaced Pages policies and procedures and a willingness to take on maintenance tasks. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
42. Support Hard worker. The Mirror of the Sea 01:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
43. Supportper above. teh tennisman 13:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
44. Support, meets most of my expectations.--TBCΦtalk? 14:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
45. Support John254 03:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
46. Support passes my criteria †he Bread 21:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
47. Support lots of Misplaced Pages entries in contribs and seems to be aware of the policies quite fine.¤~Persian Poet Gal 23:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
48. Support The guy's got gusto! --InShaneee 06:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

Note: - lengthy comments by 74.116.245.181 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) moved to talk page. Note that IPs can't !vote. MER-C 07:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

1. Oppose. user is under qualified/inexperienced to handle copyright violations. he should have a better understanding on the subject if his main goal is to handle copyrights violations. using judgement calls is not the best answer to deleting content on a subject he is unfamiliar with.

quote from a member of the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation. "These are cases where I would generally not delete the entry unless the alleged copyright holder complains. Given Misplaced Pages's potential liability, after a complaint, immediate action may be necessary, although later correction is possible. But it is not Wikipedians' job to excessively "police" content for copyright infringements, especially when such may not even exist.

In general, when in doubt, do not delete. When "fairly certain", ask the author first in /Talk. The notion of "intellectual property" is dubious at best, and Misplaced Pages should not support it beyond the limits given by LAW. Personally, I will restore any entries which I do not see as copyright infringements, and I encourage you to do the same.

-- w:User:Eloquence"

i like to state that i hold no gurges on this user and praise most of his work with the community. however, i stumpled acrossed some of his removals and read his talk page regarding the issue with User:Tvccs. i feel a delay in adminship would only strength his request in the future. — Accouttovote (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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.

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