Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:35, 13 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 successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Dina

Final (98/1/2); Ended 22:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Dina (talk · contribs) – Dina has been with us an awfully long time, becoming active 5½ months ago. She is an excellent low key user, dedicated to the project and not a stranger to gruntwork. There's a tremendous amount of vandalism reversion (always with a warning, of course), many WP:AIAV reports, and a limited amount of XfD participation. Dina is also a valuable contributor in the mainspace, reflecting her occupation and meatspace interests. Best of all, unlike myself, Dina is always polite and uncontroversial in her approach. She will be a welcome moderating influence in the sysop corps, her maturity and poise radiating all over the place and rubbing off on some of our rasher colleagues. That's as good a reason as any to overlook any deficiencies in edit counts, especially since she will not be focusing on deletions if elected. Thank you. - crz crztalk 15:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept. Dina 16:19, 11 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 expect at first I’d primarily use the tools in those areas with which I am most familiar, and as an addition to my regular work. My learning curve on Misplaced Pages has been slow, but steady and I anticipate approaching the tools cautiously. Most of what I learned about Misplaced Pages I learned by watching the actions and judgments of other editors, and I expect to learn about adminship in the same way.

I have the most experience at this point with vandalism fighting, some in Afd and tagging CSD’s and I believe that my contributions to those areas have refined over time. I also anticipate looking to the buttons in situations I seem to find myself in more lately – a user asking for help with Marc Lepine, (a good candidate for sprotection), a vandal devoted to quickly inserting an image into dozens of pages that needed blocking as soon as possible, an attack page so vile and full of slander and personal details that I actually felt compelled to blank it while tagging it (something I’ve never done before, as I know it adds work for the deleting admin, but in this case I felt was justified), or a redirect created by userfying a page created in namespace that needs to be deleted – in all of these cases I could have acted, instead of requesting help.

Xfd’s are an area where I only tend to contribute when I feel I have something to add to the discussion, however I do read them quite a lot. I expect I’ll start by closing the uncontroversial ones, until I have my sea legs and my judgment is more widely trusted. I lurk on AN/I, and AIV presently, so that I know what’s going on in those areas, and now I’ll feel empowered to act on some of what I find there. I'll check the backlogs on AIV, and I expect to be largely uncontroversial there as I am something of a stickler for the proper warnings being issued in all but the most extreme cases. I probably need some more experience tagging speedy candidates before going to town on the CSD backlogs, but I intend to work on that, and ask questions ("why did you do that instead of that?" asked of non-critically of another editor is always educational) until I am up to speed.

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

A: Well, perhaps counterintuitively, I think the article I’m proudest of is this rather pathetic stub I created in June 2004 and promptly forgot about. When I did check it again, literally years later, it has become Propagandhi. Check the edit history (I have in depth) and it’s a great illustration of how Misplaced Pages works when it does work. My sad little stub could certainly have been speedied (it didn’t assert notability) or Afd’ed (Propaghandi are a notable band, though not particularly famous) but instead the little stub thrived – the stub sorters, and cat adders, the info-boxers and image finders, and of course, that great Misplaced Pages resource, the interested writers transformed it into a pretty damn good article on a subject that is dear to me. If I could reconstruct what I thought I was trying to start when I created that stub as a newbie, well, this is pretty much it. It’s something I try and keep in mind when other new users create questionable stubs.

All that said, my article writing has improved and I’ve learned to work on things before tossing them into the mainspace. I created The Class of 1959 Chapel and took all the photos in the article. I also created Harvard Film Archive (still need to take a good photo). Other articles I've worked on include Glass Flowers and Gregory Mosher – I also took this stub about Marie St. Fleur while it was up for Afd and worked on it (because I live in the region I just happened to know that the subject was more notable than what was being asserted) and rewrote it, adding sources with the ultimate outcome of the nominator withdrawing the Afd (always a nice consensus outcome, when possible.)

I’ve also banged around on a few smaller self-assigned projects – taking photos for some Boston/Cambridge articles (and uploading them on commons, where I am User Dsmack, trying to organize and expand articles related to the All-American Girls Professional Baseball League (still working on that, I have some books on the subject on my holiday wish list), trying to organize and expand Misplaced Pages’s coverage of Museology topics (I expect some merging and some new articles to come out of it.) I also enjoy a lot of gnomelike activies – I random article edit, trying to find articles that need stubbing, catting, wikifying or to be "unorphaned". I check out the new pages list for promising stubs that need help to survive. I’ve spent a fair amount of time disambiguating, either projects listed on Wikiproject disambig (I’m pretty proud of my work on Gothic, it wasn’t easy) or tiny self-assigned ones, like Peabody Museum which needed a lot of disambiguation from Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology.

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: Generally speaking, I'm not here to engage in conflict. However, acting boldly, whether editing, removing bad content, reverting, or speedy tagging is invariably going to lead to some disagreement with other editors. When an editor brings to my attention that they disagree with my action, I generally try to approach the content of the disagreement and ignore any unnecessary roughness they may use to get their point across, with the exception of outright vandalism or “attacks” – those I try to ignore. I do believe that even while assuming good faith, occasionally a stern word is necessary, but it shouldn’t be motivated by emotions and if that's not possible in a given circumstance, action is better left to more disinterested editors.

The only situation I can point to that caused me some "stress" was my interactions with IP Range 62.147.39.XXX. I reverted this user's edit here and placed this warning on his talk page. That was the extent of my interaction with this user that evening, resulting in this dispute on AN/I, this complaint on AmiDaniel's talkpage, and a fair amount of discussion and unfortunate characterizations of my person, intentions and intelligence. It was frustrating, because I think my action was justifiable, but if he had approached me civilly, I certainly would have been happy to talk about it. It did teach me that in some situations, even though VandalProof makes some non-vandal-related editing tasks easier, it’s a better idea to do the revert manually, even if performing the identical actions. I suspect if I had not done the revert using VP, the editor would not have been quite so pissed off. I responded here and here, the redlink was stubbed by User:Dweller and sent to Afd (an Afd in which I studiously avoided participating) and the matter seems to have died. I think I would take the same path in conflicts like that in the future (where the focus is completely on me) by essentially stepping back a bit, letting others handle it and agreeing to abide by whatever they decided. Because of this experience, when I feel another editor is being attacked, and trying to step back from it themselves, I sometimes jump in and try to help, as the other editors involved in this situation did for me.

Optional questions

Dear candidate, I would like it if you could take the time to answer these following questions. Admins should be prepared to deal with all situations, taking the time to answer these questions may help other people to decide on their consensus votes. Cheers! Yuser31415 06:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I oppose the asking of these questions -- I realize that "optional" questions have often requested opinions on very constructed situations in the past, but this is just one step too far. Jimbo using sockpuppets? Do forcibly-invented answers to these ultra-hypothetical situations really help anyone decide? -- Renesis (talk) 06:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I have changed the wording from 'Jimbo Wales' to 'experienced and well-liked editor'. Thanks, Yuser31415 07:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC) *reads through again* And I have changed the third question to one more reasonable. Cheers! Yuser31415 07:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

4. What would you do if you discovered that an experienced and well-liked editor had been using sockpuppets abusively?

I apologize if this answer lacks imagination -- it is honestly quite hard to picture a situation in which I would discover definitive evidence of that sort about another user without having participated in some process including lots of other editors (RFC, RFCU, etc.). In the unlikely event that I found myself in sole possession of this information, the truth is I would probably go immediately to AN/I to share and discuss the troubling revelation before taking any action.

5. In a heated debate, whose opinion would you respect the most: the opinion of a new admin, or an anonymous IP who had been actively editing on Misplaced Pages for twice the length of time the admin had, having high quality edits?

In a heated debate I would respect anyone who made good arguments and kept their cool, regardless of previous experience.

6. What is your understanding of WP:IAR?

I understand WP:IAR as an exhortation to the community as a whole to remember that nearly all existing policies and guidelines were created by consensus and can be altered, amended or replaced by a new consensus at any time. I don't see it as an excuse for going against consensus, or failing to build a new one. It's not a get-out-of-jail free card and the rationale for an action, particularly a controversial one, should always include why it is best for the encyclopedia and attempt to build a consensus based on that argument.

General comments

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

Discussion

Support

1. Nom support - crz crztalk 17:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
2. Yes — Seadog 17:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
3. Support User will make a good sysop: no reason to oppose, and seems to avoid conflict! --SunStar Net 17:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
4. Support. Prolific contributor, provided detailed answers to the standard questions and seems to understand policy. SuperMachine 17:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
5. DVD+ R/W 17:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
6. Support — Looks good. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 17:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
7. Support. I wish I'd answered the questions as fully. Tonywalton  | Talk 17:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
8. Support A good user. It is time to give her the mop. --Siva1979 18:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
9. Support --Majorly 18:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
10. Support Good answers, good user. | Mr. Darcy talk 18:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
11. Support -- Good luck. -- Szvest 18:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
12. Support Seems good :-) ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ 19:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
13. Support - came across Dina way back in early September when she thanked me for adding something to an article she was working on (the Gang Green article, I do believe). I'd only been with the project a couple of weeks and such contact is very encouraging. Nice to see she is still around and doing well! Support not a problem. Nice one, crz. Bubba hotep 19:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
14. Support no comment. Anom8trw8 20:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
15. Support. Definitely, =). Nishkid64 21:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
16. Support —Quarl 2006-12-11 21:16Z
17. Support with no hesitation whatsoever. Khukri 21:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
18. Support as she appears to be both an excellent editor and an outstanding admin candidate. Sandstein 22:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
19. Support. --SonicChao 22:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
20. Support per above-no problems here; excellent user.--teh tennisman 22:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
21. Support No problem here - start swabbing the decks! (aeropagitica) 22:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
22. Support - should be a great addition to the admin corps. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
23. support --W.marsh 23:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
24. Support a good candidate --Steve _(Slf67) 23:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
25. Support per all above - fully qualified, no issues. Newyorkbrad 23:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
26. Support great work. Opabinia regalis 01:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
27. Support; has done a lot of great work as an user, and will continue to do so as an admin. --TBCΦtalk? 02:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
28. Support like what I see. Sandy (Talk) 02:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
29. Support Very good editor, will do good for Misplaced Pages. Alex43223 02:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
30. I agree with the above. (Radiant) 10:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
31. Support — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlohcierekim (talk • contribs)
32. Support Good answers to my questions, a strong and well balanced admin. Mopping time. Yuser31415 18:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
33. Support good answers.-- danntm _C 18:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
34. Support. I'd like to see more wiki-space edits. I ould say that of almost anyone though. The answers to your questions are pretty much ideal though. --Wizardman 19:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
35. Support per nom. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 21:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
36. Support have seen Dina around and she seems like admin material. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
37. Support If she's not an admin already, now is the time to promote her. Scobell302 22:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
38. Weakish support Dina seems to be a great contributor; my support is somewhat weakened by a very low number of talk edits on articles (76) and in the Misplaced Pages-space (12). I never look at editcounts except in regards to talk pages (I feel that it helps me see how someone can interact with the community and/or amidst a contentious issue), and I would definitely prefer to see more interaction from Dina. With that said, I'm still, obviously, supporting. -- Kicking222 00:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
39. Support. For sure. Mikker 02:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
40. Jaranda 03:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
41. Support. Per all above. Mirror, Mirror, on the wall... 04:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
42. Support looks good -- Samir धर्म 05:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
43. Support Knows how to use the tools well, and good candidate. Daniel5127 <Talk> 05:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
44. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 05:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
45. Support Terence Ong 06:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
46. Been-waiting-for-this-one-Support Riana 08:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
47. Whatever post I have seen from this user was good ones. Hence Support --- ALM 09:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
48. Support Impressed by her conduct in the dispute I helped to resolve (see Q2 above). A cool head - unlikely to misuse admin powers. --Dweller 10:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
49. Weak Support I see no problems other than the low talk and WPtalk edits (hence the weak). Apart from that, great. James086 12:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
50. Support. Cool user. Looks responsible and I like her answers above. - Darwinek 13:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
51. Support. Just ran into her work fixing an AfD/prod botched by another user. I liked the way she explained things in her edit summaries and that she was careful/considerate at the AfD to add an extra comment about what had happened, to reduce any possible confusion. John Broughton | Talk 15:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
52. Weak Support Answers are convincing, and very good edit summaries. However she needs to contribute more in project/project talk space. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 15:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
53. Support -- I was going to support anyway, but I think your answers to the optional questions are excellent. -- Renesis (talk) 18:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
54. Support per nom, answers to questions and my own positive observance of user's activity. Accurizer 19:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
55. Support. I'm a little hesitant about the low talk page edit count, and that she's only been active since July. But her answers and record are very good. --Fang Aili 19:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
56. Support - Great candidate. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 20:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
57. Boring, unnecessary support - I don't do RFAs much, but I'm perusing RFAs and this one looks good. Misplaced Pages needs less bureaucratic admins IMO. I've seen too much arguing going on already. Milto LOL pia 20:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
58. Support: Plenty of edits, plenty of experience, good question answers. Should be a good admin.  Orfen  | _Contribs 23:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
59. Support seems very even-headed despite the conflicts mentioned and would most likely not abuse the tools.¤~Persian Poet Gal 23:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
60. Support - we need more admins, and she's certainly qualified. -Patstuart 01:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
61. Support I like the way she describes her easing her way into admin duties instead of recklessly diving into them. I also like the detailed answers to the questions. --physicq (c) 05:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
62. Support ..without any hesitation! All the best with the tools. ← ANAS 07:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
63. Communismo or muerte support That's what everyone does when they see Crz — Nearly Headless Nick 14:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
64. Support-When I ran the edit counnt using Interiot's tool I was surprised at the low number of eidts up until I saw the number of edits in the last 5 months and my jaw hit the floor! Booksworm Talk to me! 15:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
65. Support per nom. utcursch | talk 15:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
66. Support per experience/answers.--Húsönd 20:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
67. Support, per nom. --Carioca 22:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
68. Support per nom. s d 3 1 4 1 5 final exams! 01:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
69. Support, sound candidate --Herby 16:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
70. Support per nom. Sarah Ewart 17:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
71. Support Dina seems like a trustworthy user. | AndonicO 19:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
72. Support per nom. She looks like an excellent candidate to me. Best of luck, - WJBscribe  19:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
73. Support She looks to be what it takes to make a good admin Somitho 19:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
74. Support Looks like excellent candidate. - Yaf 21:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
75. Support per above. Just H 23:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
76. Support Good answers to questions. More talk-page would be nice. Tennis DyNamiTe 23:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
77. Support No problems to be seen. Sharkface217 03:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
78. Strong Support Obvious experience with Misplaced Pages demonstrated. --lovelaughterlife♥ 03:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
79. Support --HappyCamper 05:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
80. Support. Michael 07:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
81. Support - Why not? --WinHunter 13:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
82. Support. No reservations. A Train 14:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
83. Support - vandals beware. CaptainVindaloo 21:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
84. Support. Sad that Dina's low key. We need more outstanding Wikipedians like her. bibliomaniac15 02:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
85. SupportGood dispute resolution; hard-worker. King Toadsworth 01:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
86. Support I see no reason to oppose Dina. Dionyseus 05:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
87. Weak Support - Good reply to questions, that dispute with 62.147.39.XXX was not your fault. I guess he/she overreacted a bit. Insanephantom 09:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
88. Support- Needs admin tools to fight vandalism. Good Editor. --Natl1 13:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
89. Support. You're good at what you do. yandman 13:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
90. Support Good answers to the questions. E104421 13:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
91. Support Shlomke 15:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
92. Suppport Yanksox 15:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
93. Support A good candidate, will make a good admin. Canadian-Bacon 18:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
94. Fiance support Feel free not to count this vote -- I'm a reader not an editor, but I know how good an admin she'll be and how hard she's worked for it. Drboggs 22:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

    Support per above. Just H 23:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

    Oops, it looks like you voted twice. Considering the vote directly above you is my "meatpuppet" I'm going to indent this one. I'll leave it to someone else to indent the other, because, well, I personally find it kind of endearing. ;) Dina 23:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

    Whoops, thanks for the catch there. Don't worry, I think consensus has been reached even without your "meatpuppet" :-) Just H 04:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

95. Support per nom and the above reaction. Agathoclea 09:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
96. Support per nom. Seems like a good, level-headed editor. Coemgenus 13:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
97. Support Good editor! Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 14:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
98. Support Wow, almost missed it, great editor. HighInBC 17:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. No sorry, if just becoming active, just on sometimes doesn't see good. How long has she been on? Reply and maybe It'll change but for now No WikiMan53 T/C My editcounter 23:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

   Information on how long the candidate has been active on Misplaced Pages is available on the talk (discussion) page to this page, here. From the comments so far, her activity length and level seems to be sufficient for everyone's purposes. If this oppose vote is based on the comment on your talkpage that you do not yet have enough experience to be an administrator, I would urge you to reconsider it, as the consensus is the candidate does have such experience. If the oppose vote is based on something else, I frankly do not understand it. Newyorkbrad 23:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

   Isn't this supposed to be for finding consensus, rather than expecting others to follow consensus? This "vote" just seems like a part of that. Besides, there's no way this person won't be promoted. Milto LOL pia 23:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

   That's not true. If someone is able to make a cogent argument, with supporting evidence, against this candidate becoming an admin, they quite possibly won't become one. But rattling off an oppose that really makes no sense and has no grounding in evidence won't do it. Sarah Ewart 17:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

   The !voter asked for information and I provided it, while gently suggesting that the vote might (or might not) be a WP:POINT violation, and if so could stand rethinking. Obviously the !voter is equally free to stand by his or her earlier decision. Beyond that, sometimes, even in a clearly successful RfA, an oppose or neutral commenter mades an observation that can helpfully guide the admin-to-be in the future, so it doesn't automatically follow that negative comments on such an RfA should just be ignored. Regards, Newyorkbrad 23:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

To try and answer the question: I first registered in February of 2004 and made one edit (to an article talk page, which is a little funny...) I had a few tiny spates of editing over the next two years, (I was a devoted Misplaced Pages reader, actually - we are elusive, shy animals, but we do exist! - and used it often as a resource for a project I was working on) but really didn't start contributing substantially until July of this year, which makes it about 5 1/2 months now. I think most people have my sort of history, they just tend to do it as an anon, but for some reason, I'm the kind of girl who given the opportunity to create a log in, tends to. Cheers. Dina 01:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Just like me. Logged in March 05, didn't get active till January 06 - crz crztalk 01:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, that's kind of neat. I've always assumed most people made their first edit as an anon. The main reason I'm really happy about it is that I doubt my username would have been available if I'd registered this summer. It wasn't on Commons and I was a bit disappointed, though not surprised. Dina 01:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Too few project/project talk space contributions. I really don't feel comfortable supporting admins who only plan on doing vandalism stuff. -Amarkov _edits 04:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
2. A well-deserved wait. However, she'll have to do a lot of WP maintenance in due time. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 23:47, 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 successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Cbrown1023

Final (48/1/0); Ended 02:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Cbrown1023 (talk · contribs) – I would like to nominate Cbrown1023 to become an administrator. Recently, I have been seeing him all over my watchlist, working on areas in the Films WikiProject, and his polite, civil behaviour is just what I expect in an admin (and I had to double check to make sure he wasn't an admin already). He does work in many admin areas – takes part in many deletion debates, which he can close if promoted; he's often commenting on the admin noticeboard, and from this I feel he knows what adminship is all about; and he also reverts vandalism, so could make use of the block button as well. A very worthy candidate, in my opinion. --Majorly 00:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I humbly accept this nomination. :-) Cbrown1023 00:45, 11 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 hope to help with many sysop chores. I already have the administrative noticeboards on my watchlist and have contributed to some of the discussions when I could. I have viewed what type of behavior is expected as an administrator and how they should handle themselves. I would like to help with anything brought to the noticeboard by needy users. I would also like to help with CSD. This way, when on new page patrol, I can just speedy delete articles instead of tagging them and leaving them for an admin to "clean up" as I do right now. Another thing that I believe I could help with is a crackdown on vandals. Currently I patrol recent changes with VandalProof and just warn the vandals. In the future, I could help at AIV (I just report there now) and assist with blocking heavily troublesome users to protect Misplaced Pages while on patrol.

I am greatly involved with the many deletion debates, frequently going there and voting in most of them, I'd like to help close the nominations and act accordingly based on the consensus reached.

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

A: I am quite pleased with my contributions to WikiProject Films, it's were I spend most of my time when not on RC/NP Patrol. I have assessed hundreds of articles and added the {{Film}} tag to many more. I have always been available to answer questions relating to films on the project talk page and on my talk page. Through the project, I have learned how to edit templates (I have added a lot to the project banner), create userboxes (here), and create barnstars (WP:FILMSTAR, with the help of Pegship, who graciously created an image for it :)). I have created a sidebar for the project. I also do many automated tasks for the project (using AWB): I notify users when the Cinema COTW has been chosen and I drop-off the monthly newsletter (which I write with the help of other editors) to name two. I also welcome newcomers to the project.

WikiProject Films is not the only project that I help with, I am a member to many projects. I have added the project banners of WikiProjects Star Wars, Oz, and Middle Earth. I have graded many WikiProject Horror articles, participated in WikiProject Biography discussions, and graded some Biography 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: I have not had any major conflicts so far. I have had very small disputes, mostly with vandals. An example of this is on V for Vendetta (film), a user kept trying to change the prose (of an FA article) to list and adding original research that was being discussed on the talk page. Another user and I eventually got him to stop by notifying WP:AN/3. The other ones were minor and you could not really consider them "disputes." Any information you would like to see regarding these things could be found at my user page.

I have not had any stressful experiences either. Normally, I am not involved in disputes long in enough for them to get stressful. They normally end or, in cases like RCP and NPP, I am not directly involved in them.

I dealt with all my disputes differently. If you look in my archives, you can see a difference in how I handled myself and how I have grown as a user. In the past, I was a little sharper in my tone, but have learned to be careful of that. I am know more aware of the many policies surrounding Misplaced Pages and can implement them in disputes when I am unsure of what to do.

In the future, I will be civil, assume good faith, and use administrative tools to protect Misplaced Pages from any harm.

Optional questions from Malber (talk · contribs)

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

A: WP:IAR: In the case of others applying it, I understand. This policy allows user who do not understand any of our policies and wiki mark-up to contribute. It is very similar to writing of articles, someone who does not know how to write wiki mark-up but can write very well can still contribute greatly by the use of the {{wikify}} template. I think this is very useful in helping to expand our encyclopedia. As an administrator, I would apply this to show kindness. An example is a violation of 3RR or a genuine try to help by a user. For a violation of 3RR, I would not necessarily block for the 4th reversion, but I would for the 5th and 6th; for the try, I would give them another chance if it was just a minor mistake that messed up everything (but they had a bad history).

WP:SNOW: Snow is also very useful. It let's us stop unrealistic proposals quickly. An example of this is if someone submitted an AfD for Misplaced Pages or United States of America. Articles like that should never be deleted. Another one, the userbox brought up in the "Oppose" section, is one that should have been speedy kept because of WP:SNOW. There is no way of deleting it without deleting evey other userbox in Misplaced Pages. Also, everyone voted for keep except for the user. I would apply it the same way, if there is no chance that an article would be deleted, then I would speedy keep it. I would definately not apply this rule to items that could be controversial or have no clear consensus. I would not let my opinion show and try to hide it with SNOW because, though sometimes annoying, process is important. Cbrown1023 23:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

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

A: No, there is no case where a punitive block should be applied. It's against policy. :) That is exactly what you want me to say, but I'll explain further... There are only two reasons to block someone: Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Misplaced Pages. (from WP:BP) Disruption goes hand-in-hand with breaking policy and damaging (policies are to keep WP safe and to get things done, or to remove disruption). Some blocking reasons I can think of and what block for (and the reason): username violation (dirsruption/policy), 3RR (dirusption/policy), and destroying Misplaced Pages (protection). The only possible reason to block someone on purely attitude would be "disruption". Furthermore, I would not block a user indefinately for attitude, normally, I would set the time for an hour to two days and possibly more depending on the severity of the offense. Cbrown1023 21:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

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

A: From WP:CSD#G11:

Blatant advertising. Pages which exclusively promote a company, product, group or service and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company, product, group or service as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion.

Note: These answers relate to if this article has been tagged for speedy deletion by another user or was found by some type of patrol (new pages/recent changes). First, I'd look to see if any POV statements like our company is the best were there. Next, I would see if there was anything in it that could be kept and rewritten to produce a good article. If there is no possibility that the article could be re-written (or a very slim one), then I would delete the article. If any of the above conditions are not met, then I would remove the speedy tag and leave a note on the talk page explaining my actions. Cbrown1023 21:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

7. What is your age?

A: I am a teenage adolescent. Cbrown1023 21:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

General comments

• See Cbrown1023's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

Discussion

Support

1. Support as per my nom :) --Majorly 00:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
2. Support. Everything looks good here. =) Nishkid64 01:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
3. Support A worthy, thoughtful editor. м info 01:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
4. Weak support per lots of AWB/VP/whatever edits. No big worries. -Amarkov _edits 02:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
5. Support Everything seems in order. James086 03:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
6. Support I just had to check your user rights log! riana_dzasta 04:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
7. Support Looks good. (aeropagitica) 05:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
8. Daniel.Bryant 09:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
9. Support - fantastic workrate. Seen around a lot. Bubba hotep 15:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
10. Support - I've seen this user around, and seen him improve. Lots of AWB edits, but is helpful and participates in AfD discussions. No reason to think he can't be trusted with the tools. Only one worry: would like to see more evidence of contributions to articles. Carcharoth 15:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
11. - crz crztalk 17:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
12. Support - An asset to the films WikiProject, will make a good sysop!! --SunStar Net 17:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
13. Versatile user, I c no problem here. (Radiant) 17:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
14. Support No problems here. --Siva1979 18:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
15. Rettetast 20:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
16. Support looks alright to me.-- danntm _C 20:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
17. Support will make a good admin. --SonicChao 22:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
18. Support. Why not-great choice. --teh tennisman 22:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
19. Support a good candidate --Steve _(Slf67) 23:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
20. Suport. Great user, very civil and experienced.--TBCΦtalk? 02:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
21. Support Amazing. Alex43223 02:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
22. Support. Khoikhoi 04:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
23. Support - an excellent candidate who would make for a great administrator. I have worked with him on film assessment and other WP:Films related articles, and always found him to be polite, knowledgeable, and dedicated to the project. I believe he will get to know how to use the admin tools very quickly to continue to support and improve Misplaced Pages. --Nehrams2020 08:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
24. Support Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 15:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
25. Support. I see no problems with him as an admin. --Wizardman 19:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
26. Support. No concerns here. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 21:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
27. Support. Prolific and professional editor. Mirror, Mirror, on the wall... 04:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
28. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 05:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
29. Support, looks good. Terence Ong 06:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
30. Support. Errabee 07:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
31. Support. Has the right traits to become a good admin. Hoverfish 08:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
32. Support Keeps cool, is civil, and no problems. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 15:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
33. Good answers, no red flags. Þicaroon 03:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
34. Support no problems here. ← ANAS 07:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
35. Support. Fantastic user. Personally welcomed me to WikiProject Films and I have had very positive interactions with him. Green451 22:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
36. Support. s d 3 1 4 1 5 final exams! 01:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
37. Support no problems. Sarah Ewart 17:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
38. Support, per nom. --Carioca 19:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
39. Support A good editor overall. | AndonicO 19:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
40. Support. Looks absolutely fine.- WJBscribe  19:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
41. Support. Looks fine. - Yaf 21:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
42. Support. No problems. Sharkface217 03:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
43. Support - why not? Insanephantom 12:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
44. Support- Per a good editor. --Natl1 13:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
45. Support. No worries. yandman 13:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
46. Support. Michael 20:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
47. Suppport Delta Tango • Talk 21:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
48. Strong Support Is fully deservuing of the admin tools. King Toadsworth 01:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Because of partisan political user boxes like this: Bubba ditto 18:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

   Just to note the result of that MfC was speedy keep, and Cbrown1023 was just one of all the users who voted keep. --Majorly 19:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

   I'm sorry you feel that way (:(), but userboxes like that are allowed. (WP:USERBOX#Content_restrictions) That was also the consensus, not just my opinion. It says no political campaigning, that userbox was just showing a poliical alignment, not campaign. It is field of view/philosophy. Cbrown1023 21:32, 12 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 request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Brian New Zealand

Final (43/18/8); Ended 01:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Brian New Zealand (talk · contribs) – Brian may not be widely known to the WP community outside the Oceania area, but he does a power of work on New Zealand-related pages and other pages within the Oceania region. He is courteous, friendly, helpful, and has just taken over the running of Portal:New Zealand. His NZ-related tasks frequently include things like vandalism-reversion, something that would make the admin tools most useful. Some 2800 edits since July last year, over a broad range of namespaces. Worthy of the tools, I'd say. Grutness...wha? 01:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I'm shocked that Grutness would nominating me. Yes, I will accept. Brian | (Talk) 07:26, 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 anticipate that as an administrator, I will be better equipped in my efforts to help reduce vandalism and would focus on CAT:CSD, WP:CV, WP:PP, WP:RM, WP:IFD, and the different areas of WP:AN.

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

A: I am proud of all my contributions. I really enjoy writing an odd article that's missing from this wikipedia, expressly New Zealand related political subjects. I take delight in jobs such as copyediting, portal maintenance. As well as looking after the New Zealand Collaboration of the Fortnight

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

A: I've always tried to be civil and helpful, however, one of my experiences at Misplaced Pages was when I had what could be described as "a bit of a tiff" with User:TharkunColl, on his Talkpage over the Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom article, I got slightly annoyed at the edit warring that was taken place on the article, and tried to ask TharkunColl to stop, however it ended up becoming a bit hotheaded. From that, I gained a pretty good experience in distancing myself from arguments on Misplaced Pages, and I've taken away from it my knowledge of dispute resolution and ability to distance myself from disagreements on Misplaced Pages without too much difficulty. Should any future situation arise, I will be patient and helpful in my response. I feel a natural respect for the perspectives of others, which I do my best to understand and appreciate.

4. More than 80% of your mainspace contributions are marked as minor. Given this, could you point to some examples of contributions to articles that you feel have been significant? Dragons flight 02:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

A: Articles that I have done significant contributions to have been Monarchy in New Zealand & Governor-General of New Zealand, I have also written articles about New Zealand places, and local councils such as the Taupo District Council and the Taupo District. Most articles I have written, or articles I've written a majority on, I do most of the drafting in my Userspace, and then move the text to the mainspace when I've finished. I have also written the Articles on the New Zealand Cadet Forces (I wrote most of the article, my early edits were as an anon, I also wrote the New Zealand Cadet Corps, and New Zealand Sea Cadet Corps articles) I also have written the Compulsory Military Training in New Zealand article.

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:

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

A:

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

A:

8. What is your age?

A:

General comments

• See Brian New Zealand's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
• Brian has been an admin on Wikinews for 10 months. Sarah Ewart 05:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • For those who are interested, there's a relevant discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Wikipedia_Admin_vs._Wiki-X_Admin_-_transferable_skills.3F.

Discussion

Support

1. Nom support! Grutness...wha? 01:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
2. Support Nzgabriel 02:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
3. Strong support. I considered nominating him about six months ago, but at that point I didn't think he had enough edits here to succeed.-gadfium 02:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
4. Support --Cspurrier 02:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
5. Jaranda 03:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
6. Support Sarah Ewart 05:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
7. Support Brain is a great administrator over on Wikinews, and (IMHO) would be a great administrator here. From what I gather the number of Kiwi admins here on the WP is rather low. Brain, being based in New Zealand would be active when the administrators from the United States are either at work or sleeping. Terinjokes 05:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
8. Support per nom. A NZ admin would help in a variety of ways. --Bduke 08:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
9. Support per nom. Brian does good work monitoring highly visible articles (like Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom) and is polite and courteous when communicating with other users.--Oden 13:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
10. Support: clearly trustworthy, which is really all that mathers cause adminship should be no big deal. WP:1FA is really optional for me. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
11. Support He has been an admin on Wikinews for 10 months. FellowWikipedian 20:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
12. Support Personal bias, but has helped me a lot on stuff I've done on WikiNews and elsewhere. ShakespeareFan00 21:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
13. Support meets my criteria, and is already experienced with the tools.-- danntm _C 00:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
14. Support I'm familiar enough with Brian's contibutions to feel confident in his judgement.--cj | talk 01:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
15. Misplaced Pages needs additional admins from New Zealand who can watch over related articles. In addition Brian has admin experience from Wikinews therefore I Support. м info 01:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
16. Support I know of Brian's work mainly through the Māori-language Misplaced Pages where he was formerly active. He is polite and honest and a good worker. Misplaced Pages needs more people like Brian who are not interested in trumpeting their own greatness but just get involved in the way that works for them and the project Kahuroa 05:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC).
17. Support: Admin experience at Wikinews implies that he won't misuse the tools (and I don't believe he'll mess up with Misplaced Pages-specific stuff). TimBentley (talk) 16:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
18. Support Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979 18:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
19. Support. I'm satisfied that the nominee can use the tools and can be trusted with them. Agent 86 21:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
20. Support. This is a case where your adminship on Wikinews should be given a lot of weight. Your edit count is toward the low end of what people look for, but I am sure with Wikinews added in you would have a robust contribution set. The other problem is that your proficiency with the technology (AWB) is being used against you. I commend you for using the most efficient tools. TonyTheTiger 23:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
21. Cliche Support I thought he alr--*stops* you know where this is going ;-) — Deon555_desk 02:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
22. Obvious Support - he is an admin at WikiNews and has demonstrated there that he can be trusted. Nobody has uncovered any reason to oppose other than editcountits ... good grief ... support. BigDT 02:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
23. Support I think he would do better with the tools. Alex43223 03:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
24. Support, unless we inherently distrust Wiki-news. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 05:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
25. Support. I admit that I have seen BNZ more on Wikinews and Wikia than en.wikipedia. But I have seen him to be a fair and responsible user, and I do not think there would be any problem with him having the tools here: he has been here enough to know how things work, and personal qualities carry over from wiki to wiki. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 06:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
26. Support. Brain clearly has experience with wikis, and is familiar with how to use the tools. While I am not certain this RFA may pass this time around, I recommend that you read a bit of our policies and guidelines, as there are some quirks that Misplaced Pages has and Wikinews hasn't (or you could argue it's the other way around... it's all relative). A bir more familiarity with process and hands-on experience couldn't hurt. Titoxd 20:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
27. Support lovelaughterlife♥ 03:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
28. Support; user has great experience on Wikinews. Ral315 (talk) 03:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
29. Support Nice guy. Mirror, Mirror, on the wall... 04:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
30. Support Terence Ong 08:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
31. Support Jon Harald Søby 14:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
32. Strong support - nothing but praise for Brian. Very competent, willing to do the boring crap no one else is wanting to do, and also willing to accept when at fault. Already has admin experience from WikiNews I believe. Would do be a good admin. --Midnighttonight (rendezvous) 23:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
33. Support, per what I saw with Interiot's Tool Booksworm Talk to me! 15:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
34. Support. Looks like a decent editor. Regards, —Celestianpower 17:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
35. Nothing to suggest there would be a problem here. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
36. Support Experienced editor, admin at Wikinews; seems like a good choice to me. --Coemgenus 17:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
37. Support, From what I have seen of Brian, he is an excellent editor and would make an excellent admin. Somitho 03:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
38. Support Wikinews experience as admin makes up for lack of experience here. Would ask user to be less taciturn in communicating with others. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 22:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
39. Support A good Wikipedian who is qualified for Adminship. Sharkface217 03:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
40. Support; Slade (TheJoker) 16:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
41. Support Well deserved. // I c e d K o l a 22:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
42. Support More kiwi admins needed --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 23:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
43. Support. Zaxem 00:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I'm seeing almost no mainspace edits that are not AWB or some script. You'll probably pass anyway, but I have to oppose for that. -Amarkov _edits 02:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
2. Weak Oppose From your contributions I'm not very convinced that you effectively have a need for the tools. Apart from today, no vandal fight, and you barely warned any vandal. Maybe another month or two would help dissipate any doubts. You appear to be a great user though and I might change my position before this ends.--Húsönd 04:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

   I have been involved in vandel flighting in the past, just over the last month I've been busy with Exams, and have not had the time Brian | (Talk) 04:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

3. Oppose per dire lack of meaningful WP: participation, including XfD - which matches up poorly with your answer to Q1. - crz crztalk 05:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

   I rarely participate in AFDs. Does this mean I'm unsuited for an admin's role? =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

   Depends on what you put into your Q1. If you listed CSD as your first task, then yes. - crz crztalk 00:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

   Strong oppose per crz. Brian indicates he wants to work on IFD, but doesn't have a single edit to that page. I realize that unopposed noms for deletion there result in a delete, but working in an area that is entirely new to the candidate seems bizarre to me. He also wants to manage CAT:CSD, which I find really unsettling given his AfD experience. He sometimes leaves reasons for his AfD !votes, often per somebody else. In other instances, his reasoning doesn't make any sense: Keep: I don't see anything wrong with it, or Keep- I agree, lets keep it. Sometimes, he hasn't given a reason at all, simply voting: 1 2 3, and 4 (though the last one could be interpretted as "per above"). One might believe this was just a misunderstanding on his part, if not for this AfD, where he's informed that he ought to give reasons, but insists it's unnecessary to make a "detailed recommendation". I so agree, but he didn't then give any reasoning at all. (Four hours later he commented he'd just seen the clip in question on television.) I don't want to see someone handling CAT:CSD who treats AfD as a vote and has almost zero experience discussing deletion policy.--Kchase T 06:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

   After looking through more evidence, I've concluded I was too hasty in evaluating this candidate. He told me he's been doing new page patrol here and after looking through his deletion log at WikiNews, I'm reasonably satisfied of his competence to evaluate speedy candidates by the very similar criteria we use here. Still, a strong history of AfD participation would be a much better record with which to support, and given the AfDs I've cited above, I can't bring myself to do so. Switching to neutral. I will contact Xoloz and teh tennisman, as their !votes below may have been inspired by my opposition.--Kchase T 02:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

4. Oppose per crz and Kchase02. Candidate exhibits clear lack of experience with Wiki-process, and yet expresses a desire to work in areas which depend upon such experience: not a good sign. Xoloz 13:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose per above. Too little experience with what he wants to do; not enough well-spread edits IMO. teh tennisman 21:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose, good editor but needs more experience in too many areas. Deizio talk 23:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
7. Essentially no involvement in Misplaced Pages policy or administrative processes. Answer to question one can be copied out of some admin handbook page; it is not the result of being familiar with the processes listed. Egregiously empty ballot-casting in what few AfDs there are. —Centrx→talk • 02:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
8. This candidate would benefit from more experience with process. (Radiant) 17:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose per Radiant!. More process-related experience is a must, and process experience on Wikinews is not entirely equivalent to process experience here. Try to get involved a little more and give RfA another shot later. --Coredesat 19:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
10. Weak Oppose as the number of mainspace edits seems a bit low. More experience, and I would have no problem switching to support. Yaf 22:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
11. Oppose. A thorough look at your contribs reveals very little participation in janitorial tasks. Your contributions to New Zeland related articles is awesome. However, that alone does not qualify you for the mop. Your answers to the questions aren't impressive, either... not enough to convince me that you'd know what you were doing if awarded the mop. Sorry. – Lantoka (talk) 09:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
12. Weak oppose, per Q1/process involvement mismatch issues, and modest total "throw-weight of contributions", which might otherwise have modified such concerns. Alai 01:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
13. Oppose. No slay vandal, no win vote. But excellent editor otherwise. --Elaragirl 17:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
14. Strong oppose This user has attacked me for attempting to prevent abuse of process. Hawkestone 19:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

    Please have a read of WP:BITE, that user was a newbie, a simple message putting him right would have been better than everyone attacking him as if he’s scum. Brian | (Talk) 21:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

    In the context of Hawkestone's and others' comments at User_talk:Customs#Please_obey_the_rules_or_leave, I fail to see how Brian's comment at User_talk:Hawkestone#User:Customes attacks Hawkestone. I appreciate their concern for Misplaced Pages, but agree with Brian. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 22:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

15. Oppose Due to edit history and unimpressive answers. --Strothra 22:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
16. Oppose per Lantoka. I may switch to Strong Oppose if Hawkestone provides differences which show that the candidate has attacked him. Dionyseus 18:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
17. Oppose. An admin ultimately requires 2 qualities: being trustworthy and a thorough understanding relevant policies. The first is clearly satisfied here, not least due to Brian's role as an admin on Wikinews. However the diffs of participations in XfDs provided by Kchase and lack of involvement in process mean that I don't think the latter quality is demonstrated. - WJBscribe  19:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
18. Weak Oppose per Xoloz. Perhaps more participation in the areas you plan to work in would give the needed experience. Voice-of-All 23:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
19. Oppose per Xoloz. Future support likely. ~ trialsanderrors 00:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I feel that you do not have sufficient edits in talk space, and I believe that you might need more experience with user interaction and conflict resolution. Also as Amarkov stated a large proportion of your mainspace edits are script based, which is not a disqualifier in itself, however your low number of content additions could be. Having said that though you a appear to be a competent well-intentioned editor so I would not feel comfortable voting against you. If you run again in a few months I would be sure to offer my support. TSO1D 03:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
2. Neutral while you seem to be a good user, I see almost no vandalism warnings to match your vandalism reverts. And per other concerns. — Seadog 04:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
3. Neutral Weak Oppose I think that you have the temperament and editing skill for adminship, certainly. There are two things that concern me based on a quite limited perusal of your contributions record .. so I might be encountering a sampling error here. First, as was pointed out, you seldom place warnings on the talk pages of anon-ip vandals; these are useful because they provide an indicator to other editors who encounter the vandal that this person has been naughty and facilitates escalation of response. Second, I notice that there are a substantial number of cases where you have forgotten to sign your posts; I think that's something quite basic and particularly important for someone who is acting with the admin hat on. I think the solution to each of these is just picking up the habits related to each ... which might come with more editing - but I really don't think 'too few edits' is in my mind - you have enough to qualify in my book. Regards, --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

   My Mistake, most of the articles I reverted today have been on my watchlist for a while, and I've just got used to reverting them. I normally use the {{test}} messages through. As for signing my posts, I know I use to do that sometimes, but I thought I had signed most of them over the last few months Brian | (Talk) 04:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

   Thank you for the explanation - I was dig-skipping through your contributions and could have easily missed the trends you point out. Regards, --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

4. Neutral I know that you're a good user, very active in helping users and wikignoming, but I'd proabably like to see more of the same, with a lot more involvement in the Project_talk namespace, as this shows us that you're using and discussing policy. Also, I'd like to see way more vandalism warnings, as has been pointed out, as they're indispensable when deciding to block (or not). Keep up the good work! Martinp23 14:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

   Thanks Martinp23 for the kind words, I remember when you were a new user here, and answering your {{helpme}} questions :) Brian | (Talk) 00:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

   Yeah - I remember too :), and would have loved to support as well. Sorry Martinp23 17:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

5. Switched from oppose. As explained there.--Kchase T 02:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
6. Leaning support. I would have loved to support (I was going to), but the points brought up from the oppose !voters swung me slightly. Daniel.Bryant 09:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
7. Neutral, same as Daniel.Bryant. Sorry. riana_dzasta 11:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
8. Neutral per Seadog. You seem like you would be a good admin, but I would love to see you spread out your edits to other areas other than New Zealand. You're certainly capable of being an admin. I'd improve and try again in 3 months or so. --Wizardman 19:54, 12 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.

Royalguard11

Final (58/2/0); Ended 22:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Royalguard11 (talk · contribs) – Royalguard11 is an exemplary user, with very nearly 8000 edits at the time of nomination. I'm personally shocked that he isn't already an admin - hopefully this will change very soon. My interaction with Royalguard11 has mainly occurred on the AMA IRC channel, where he and I are channel ops. He is an active member of the AMA, with a thorough understanding of dispute resolution policy. In other areas, he has a strong history of XfD experience and has showing a willingness to do the "thankless" work by migrating many many userboxes by hand (using a Mac, without AWB for help), with a lot of vandalfighting thrown on the side. To this end (of using a mac) he has created AIV'er to allow mac users to quickly and easily list users on AIV, with a graphical interface :). In my opinion, Royalguard11 will make an excellent admin, and I'm certain that the community will agree. Thanks, Martinp23 21:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I humbly accept. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:19, 9 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 know lots of the sysop work is dirty and long, but I'm up for it. I'm often posting something at WP:AIV, so I would definitely help out there, especially during, err, up times (like last week). CAT:CSD is almost always backlogged, so I would help out there as much as I can. I would also help in closing xFDs (and I have closed some obvious keeps before). I also would pitch in with move requests that require admin help (like over edited redirect and the like). I would also help out with protected page requests. I guess what I'm trying to say is that if you need me to help with something, and you ask me, then I'll be there to help you out with it. Sometimes I get in that state where you click a wikilink, and another, and another, and you find yourself ten pages away from where I was, so I do have lots of time to pitch in with the admin effort.

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

A: The article I'm most proud of is Newfoundland referendums, 1948, which I spent some time researching online (after I took it in class some months ago, and discovered that it didn't exist on wiki!). Even though I live in Saskatchewan. I have tried to also contribute to articles related to Saskatchewan, and I've started over 30 articles in that are alone. I also tried to give Saskatoon City Council a little cleanup and added short bio's about councillors, since some of them wouldn't meet WP:BIO on their own. I realize that I'll have to update it every 3 years (at each election), but that's the beauty of wikipedia, you can update as things change. Articles should never look historic (unless of corse they're about historic/static places/people).

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 not been in too many major conflicts really. I try to help other editors with conflicts through the AMA (which every new user seems to be able to find even though it took me several months). I'm not a person that will go "I'm right, and everyone else is wrong", and if I'm tired or in a hurry then anyone is allowed to hit me over the head and remind me (it did happen once, as looked at on my editor review).

4. Question from Centrx: What is your opinion of this action, in which a user who displayed a Nazi userbox was indef-blocked by Jimmy Wales and and the user page was deleted? Should users be allowed to post flashy, sensational banners espousing hateful political positions?

A (edit conflict) Yes, I was following that thread on the mailing list the last week. On such a diverse place like Misplaced Pages, it is impossible to legislate and make rules for everything. Some people were arguing that it was the same as have an "I support <party> userbox". I believe that Jimbo did the right thing. You can't troll around on wikipedia. I remember that the user also hade some other userboxes that were just as distruptive too. Now, I know that the question is meant to ask basically about political userboxes in general (because I'm part of WP:UM of corse). I believe that users should be able to have something suttle like "This user supports <party>". But, there are some invisible lines in the sand that must be drawn. It is basically universally agreed on that the Nazi's were, dare I say, evil. Anyone who supports the Nazi's and Hitler are outcasts, because of what they did. I know that the communists were just as bad, but everyone's forgotten them since the Cold War. And the US and China are traiding partners (PRC is communist still).

Where are these lines drawn and who decides where to draw them? Why should infamy decide whether a userbox is allowed? Is a userbox more conducive to creating an encyclopedia simply because fewer people will know enough to be revolted by it? —Centrx→talk • 23:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Consensus. It's what wikipedia lives on. Most people agree that no Nazi's is a good thing. It can also come down from above, from Jimbo or the board. When they decide to draw lines, it's our job to follow them. If we don't know where to draw the lines, then we need to decide by consensus. Consensus was agaist something like mass userbox deletions (and depending who you talk to it may also be against WP:UM). (Now to the part of the question that was added while I was writing that) Many userboxes are not encyclopedic, I'll give you that. That is the reason why they were migrated out of template space and into userspace (now if someone could just explain that part to the people who hate UM). Why are they allowed? Because consensus has allowed them. If Jimbo declared tomorrow that all userboxes should die, I would comply though. But he hasn't, and consensus hasn't turned against userboxes yet. So they are still here. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

What is consensus; how is consensus formed? Do consensus decisions result from counting numbers in a poll advertised to partisan allies? Should a userbox be allowed simply because the political position in it is more popular? —Centrx→talk • 00:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The post that I made on WT:UBM was to inform a group of editors who are heavily involved in migrating userboxes that what we do might be for naught. If it was decided that the userboxes would stay deleted, then there would be no point in TGS/GUS/UBM, and the userbox wars would probably re-breakout. I also posted to AN/I, with no responce whatsoever. And for some reason, I failed to find the Wikigroup dedicated to the utter destruction of userboxes, so I couldn't inform them. In responce to the second one, how popular is it to be a Republican right now? How about a Bush supporter? Boxes about them may exist. How about the Liberal Party of Canada? They were basically thrown out of government, but userboxes for them exist. Consensus, well, is done on a case by case basis. Sometimes it's a poll. Sometimes it's a discussion. Sometimes it may be a !vote. A bureaucrat must determine consensus of this RFA. How? Only they truely know the secret formula. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 03:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

5. Question from Centrx: What is the purpose of a Misplaced Pages user page?

A: Well, according to WP:USER, Your userpage is for anything that is compatible with the Misplaced Pages project. It is basically a little of your space. You can put what articles you've written, some userboxes that state your biasses to inform other editors of, babel to inform other users what language you speak, user categories which are intended to help Wikipedians with similar broad interests to congregate and converse. Some user's put a short bio on their userpage, because most wikipedian's are not-notable. A userpage can basically be used for anything that doesn't violate policies or guidelines (especially WP:USER, but excluding WP:NPOV). So no advertising, no fair use galleries, no attack pages. Some users do overuse userboxes (and I have seen them when migrating userboxes). If there is something wrong with someones userpage (in the opinion of someone), then the best thing to do is to talk to the user about it, and point them in the right direction. The overall point? I know the point of mine is to inform about articles, and biasses.

6. Question from Centrx: What is the reason behind why one should assume good faith on Misplaced Pages, other than smoothing relations? What evidence is necessary before one no longer needs to continue to assume that an established user is acting in good faith?

A: The answer is WP:BITE really to start. We are to assume that some people have a little "fun" (if you can call it that), but we're sure that they will go straight, and begin to become a good editor. We must AGF for many reasons, many of them brought up on the mailing list, well, today I believe. There was a question about a Star Trek episode being used as a source. Then of corse mayhem ensued and there was a question of whether it was verifiable. If we AGF, then we realize that they have checked their facts and we leave it be. If we don't, then someone who is perinoid would spend their whole real life™ checking every reference on wikipedia to see if it's correct. Of corse anyone is free to do that, but there simply isn't enough time to do that. Of corse, if you assume good faith, then you believe that everything's done in the best interest of the project. If you don't, then you spend your probably-short-wiki-career fighting with everyone, makeing personal attacks, legal threats, ect. It's a mind set really. If you go in with a AGF mindset, then you'll try to see everything from that angle. If you don't, then you might not get the idea of a wiki.

An established user deserves good faith. An established user is usually someone that has been here at least a month at least, and probably know's (many-most) policies. If a good faith user breaks down and starts to vandalize, or just do anything that is counter to the project, then good faith is lost, and is usually followed by ArbCom, or at least a RFC.

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

A: A policy is something that everyone on wiki must follow (excpet when WP:IARing). A policy is universal law on wikipedia, and many of them are WMF based, like WP:NPOV, and the everyone-can-edit edict. According to WP:POLICY, they are started in one of three ways. Either by making a policy for something that's already generally accepted, and has been for a while (I can't think of one at the moment), by declaration from godJimbo, the WMF, or the Devs (server related things), or by the magical thing we call consensus. Hypothetically, if we did not have WP:NPA at this moment, we could write it down, advertise it at the villiage pump, and everyone could say "Yes, that's how we do things already", and we could call that policy because it's basically writting down the status quo.

8. Could you please comment on your 2718 userspace edits? - crz crztalk 03:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

A: WP:TGS (as I remember it) mostly. User:Royalguard11/Status, because it took me a while to get the right table for it (and of corse I only use it half the time now). My monobook.js I have changed quite a bit, because I like to change it a lot. A bit was labelling socks of the Quebec Vandal (there's 51 of them). Some vandalism reverting. I used to update my userpage a lot when I used to patroll Special:Crossnamespacelinks so I would update where I had checked (because I couldn't remember). But it's mostly WP:UBM (as it is now) related things, bypassing redirects that I did with every box I adopted (without using AWB). I'm one of the more heavily involved users.

9. Question from Voice of All: You said you would help at WP:RFPP, but that area usually seems to be under control. I find that I can do other things and it rarely builds a backlog in my absence. WP:PP is another matter, I seem to be the only one that does much there consistantly. Would you be willing to help out there?Voice-of-All 20:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

A: As I understand from the page, and from your admin log, the "patrol" of that page appears to be making sure that pages aren't being protected for too long, and hoping that unprotecting will improve the articles. Now, unless I'm in left field there, then I'm sure I can pitch in and help out with that. It isn't very wise in wikipedia to have pages protected from editing for too long. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 20:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

10. Question from Kingjeff: What is your opinion of permently semi-protecting pages that are high-risk for vandalism? Kingjeff 21:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

A: As I said in my answer above, it isn't wise to have pages protected for too long. That being said though, there are some pages that recieve a lot of IP/newuser vandalism, George W. Bush being one of them. If it is getting to a point that there hasn't been any constructive eding from IP's or new users over a long period of time (say, two-three months at least), then it may be smarter to save good faith editors the trouble of having to revert vandalism perpetually, and getting edit conflicted while trying to make good edits because of vandalism, and semi protect the article for an indeterminate amount of time. Of corse, eventually everyone will forget about Bush and it will be unprotected sometime in the distant future. I would say though that as a new admin, I wouldn't be indefinitely sprotecting articles without getting a second opinion from another more experienced admin. But, then again protection time isn't specified, and may be undone by any admin at any time (without wheel-warring of corse). -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 21:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

General comments

• See Royalguard11's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool. Added to this page by Sharkface217 22:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• I did have an editor review, and it has been archived (but is still linked to from my signature, and anyone is still free to review me and I still read them). It is at Misplaced Pages:Editor review/Royalguard11. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 21:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, and before I forget for the nth time, if the community trusts me with adminship, then I will be openly adding myself to Category:Administrators open to recall. It would be hypocritical not to after I defended the idea of it at CFD. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Support

1. Nominator support you didn't beat me :P Martinp23 22:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
2. Support I almost beat you here. Basically per nom this user is a great example of what an admin should be. — Seadog 22:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
3. Support Why aren't you an Admin yet? Sharkface217 22:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
4. Support TSO1D 22:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
5. Support I know this has gotten really old but: You're not an admin?? –The Great Llama 22:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
6. Strong Support 100% certainty he'll be an enormous asset to the team Glen 23:09, December 9, 2006 (UTC)
7. Support Looks like a good candidate for the mop and bucket. (aeropagitica) 23:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
8. Support a good candidate --Steve _(Slf67) 23:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
9. Strong support. Wow, why didn't tell me about this? A great user and also a great colleague to work with in AMA. --Neigel von Teighen 00:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
10. Strong support. Of course. --SonicChao 00:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
11. Support. Without a doubt, admin worthy. AuburnPilot 00:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
12. Support per above and dealings with at the AMA. Addhoc 00:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
13. Support John254 03:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
14. Support. A thoughtful editor who can work effectively with those from diverse perspectives. Rfrisbie 04:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
15. Support Shows promise of being an admin more interested in process than in agenda-pushing. The project can always use more than that, because process is important. One mild disagreement: I don't agree with the answer given to #4 above. Making a Nazi hide that fact doesn't (to my mind) improve the project. I'd rather know who I'm dealing with. --Ssbohio 05:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
16. Support. A good editor Brian | (Talk) 05:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
17. Strong Support - crz crztalk 05:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
18. Support seems good to me, should use the tools well. James086 05:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
19. Support. Glad to give the tools to this outstanding vandal fighter. One minor concern that I have, though, is the number of spelling errors in his contributions to this RfA. An administrator who is also a native English speaker should take care to always spell his contributions correctly, in order to be both well understood and taken seriously. Sandstein 07:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
20. Support seems like a great candidate, definitely worthy of the tools. Hagerman 07:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
21. Support I'm confident that user will make a great admin. He has answered all answers very well, impressive. Good luck! ← ANAS 12:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
22. Support Good number of edits and time. Good quality edits. AMA mediator. God answers. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 13:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
23. Support A good contributor and editor. Friendly, levelheaded and hardworking. CharonX/talk 15:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
24. Support I thought he already was an admin, to be honest. CameoAppearance 17:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
25. Support. Great user, will make fine admin. Nishkid64 18:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
26. Support. No reason to oppose and with Martin nominating, I have confidence in the candidate. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 19:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
27. Support Tyson Moore es 19:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
28. Support Looks like a good editor who will make a good admin.-- danntm _C 20:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
29. Support No problems here. teh tennisman 21:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
30. Suport Congratulations. м info 01:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
31. Support What a great asset to Misplaced Pages! Katalaveno 03:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
32. Yes. Daniel.Bryant 09:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
33. Support, per nom. --Carioca 14:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
34. Misplaced Pages can always use another guard. (Radiant) 17:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
35. Support per nomination. --Siva1979 18:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
36. Support. Your work at the AMA is great, I am sure you will make a fantastic admin! Wikiwoohoo 19:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
37. Strong Support Hurry up, get the mop, get back to work, and start AD-MIN-ING :) — Deon555_desk 22:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
38. YA RLY. Admin tools would probably benefit your AMA-ness. --Deskana talk 23:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
39. Support Unlikely to abuse admin powers.--TBCΦtalk? 02:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
40. Support per all of the above. Alex43223 03:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
41. Support. G.He 04:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
42. Support Responsible, friendly and dedicated. Mop him boys. Dfrg.msc 04:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
43. Support Per all above. Mirror, Mirror, on the wall... 04:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
44. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 05:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
45. Support. Zaxem 06:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
46. Support Terence Ong 08:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
47. Support Just H 23:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
48. Support. Mainly due to moral opposition to Centrx's badgering of the candidate. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 08:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
49. Support, per Interiot's tool a lot of edits in such a short time (most edits in the last 6 months! Booksworm Talk to me! 15:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
50. Support Trustworthy editor. Xoloz 16:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
51. Support: A good editor who will use the mop wisely. s d 3 1 4 1 5 final exams! 01:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
52. Support nothing more to add --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 02:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
53. Support Sarah Ewart 06:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
54. Support. Mostly based on handling of Centrx. --StuffOfInterest 14:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
55. Support. Looks like a stong candidate. And if you can handle that grilling from Centrx, you can handle anything.- WJBscribe  19:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
56. Support very strong understanding of policy and will use the tools just fine.¤~Persian Poet Gal 20:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
57. Support Looks ok. - Yaf 21:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
58. Looks good, I don't find the opposition very compelling here. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I asked the questions above in relation to this assumption of bad faith and the user thinking that this userbox is appropriate for Misplaced Pages, but the answers to the questions above about AGF and policy formation are weak, many automated edits, and most of these AfDs are empty votes added at the end of a long list of deletes (e.g.: , , , , ). The answer to one question is simply a resort to a generic "oh, it must decided by consensus", but the answer to what "consensus" is I don't see that this user understands that consensus must comes from reference to the principles and policy of the encyclopedia. It is not a poll and it has nothing to do with political parties or a "secret formula". —Centrx→talk • 20:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
   • You know how to hold a grudge, Centrx. Though regarding to the userbox incident above, you - yet again - are twisting the facts. You, for example, failed to mention that this box was only one among a large number of userboxes you speedy-deleted from userspace. An action that was overturned with a great majority - dare I say consensus - of editors. Still, I believe everybody is entiteled to his own opinion, though I choose not to share yours. CharonX/talk 23:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
     • No, my opposition is based on the answers to the questions, which, in addition to not showing improvement about the specific issues that prompted them, show a lack of or weak understanding of policy that I was actually surprised at. I could simply have opposed initially with a few diffs if I were "holding a grudge", but I asked these questions and the result was unexpectedly weak responses. Also, I don't think any user who uses Misplaced Pages as a site for partisanship, especially of the emotive glowing userbox kind, should be an administrator. This was one of several user boxes which are absolutely inappropriate, which the user wished to be undeleted en masse either without consideration of the matter or as a part of some general principle that favors political advocacy on Misplaced Pages. There are communist ones, fascist ones, death penalty expansion ones—and a small minority of relatively innocuous political parties which are still inappropriate to building an encyclopedia. The deletion review was advertised at the user box migration project, and no where else, which is one of the major problems with polling. —Centrx→talk • 04:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
     • If you really want me to explain the comment, I will. Two-stepping is a political term, refering to when politicians are asked questions, which they ignore and instead give an answer that better fits with their party line/propaganda. The current Harper/Canadian government is excellent at it, for when they were asked an uncomforable question, they would ramble on about their five pillars, or accountability, or how everything was the fault of the previous government. T1 doesn't apply to userspace is pretty self explanitory. Supporting a political party is not a)a crime or b)a speedy deletion criterion is also self explanitory. Then I mentioned ANI, where admins did not even comment on the situation, and the only comment was a crytpic "It is regretful Centrx did not link to the pertinent discussion in his deletion edit summary." from El C. As for consensus, there are a hundred different factors that could be taken into account in every different situation. There is not one end-all-be-all definition. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
       • I know what the cliche is. The issue is assuming that I was purposefully ignoring your questions, when to my mind I directly answered them. AGF has nothing whatsoever to do with verifiability—we must not assume that everything cited is accurate and inaccurate interpretations of sources come from good-faith users—and it does not stem from biting newcomers. You simply have no idea whether I "ignored" your questions, and it should certainly have been clear to you that I did not ignore "every single question". —Centrx→talk • 04:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
       • Err, ok. I didn't see that box before, and it's pretty closely identified with Nazism. As I said on the DRV, it's hard to tell sometimes from just titles for us that can't see deleted material. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 03:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
         • There's also User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/Communist, User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/Totalitarian, User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/Fascist, User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/NPD DEU, and User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/Death Penalty, for example. It only so happens that you or others may not have a natural revulsion to them, or do not know their policies, or that you like your Saskatchewan New Democratic Party better than you like the German National Democratic Party. —Centrx→talk • 04:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
           • If you don't like the boxes, and think they should be deleted, then there is a process called MfD that you can go through to have them deleted. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose, although not for (all of) the same reasons as Centrx. Weak answers to questions are a real concern for me, and I have a hard time understanding why so much of this user's edits are to userspace (yes, I know Userbox Migration is a lot of them, but that leaves you with under 6000 other edits in six months. I expect this will pass regardless, but I hope this user will take to heart some of the criticism leveled here and proceed carefully and neutrally, rather than becoming a partisan admin, of which we have had plenty in the past. -- nae'blis 19:03, 15 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.

Tonywalton

Final (38/0/2); Ended 15:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Tonywalton (talk · contribs) – Tony spends a lot of time on NP patrol, often at the same time as me, and appears to be a conscientious and accurate editor/"speedy" lister. It would help the project if he had the sysop capabilities to act rather than list jimfbleak 15:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept the nomination.

After some time on Misplaced Pages (since July 2005) I've been nominated for adminship by Jimfbleak. Thanks, Jim! I can't see adminship changing my life or, to be honest, the way I edit. As a wise man said, it's not a big deal - or shouldn't be. I hope that all adminship will change is giving me a few more tools to allow me to improve and maintain Misplaced Pages. That and I hope I can borrow the admin mop and broom occasionally to clean my kitchen floor. Seriously though, being an admin does bear with it more responsibility, both in the use of the tools an in the fact that an admin, in my view, has been around long enough and seen enough of Misplaced Pages (and Wikipedians) to act responsibly in applying policy (and common sense. I intend to act with that responsibility.

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A:

I've noticed WP:CSD backlogs lasting a very long time. While I realise that "speedy" deletion refers to the speediness of the deletion decsion process rather than the deletion itself, large backlogs like this do mean that potentially a large number of extremely poor quality articles, including spam and complete nonsense, are visible to casual readers. I would therefore help with reducing backlogs such as WP:CSD and WP:AIV. I'd also be able to block vandals (after appropriate warning) myself, rather than adding to the AIV backlog. Tonywalton  | Talk 12:04, 9 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 tend to be a gnome-like figure. Rather than creating marvellous articles I tag speedyable pages, take part in AfD debates and so on, so it's hard to point to one contribution and say "I did that". I'm quite pleased with my refactoring of the articles referred to on Me Too!, where there was a rather confused situation which I (hopefully) made clearer for someone searching for the TV programme, though that's a very minor contribution in the face of some of the high-quality articles others have created. I'm also happy with the collaboration on Dave Follows worked out, though a cynic could retort that since this came after my nomination for adminship I was working extra hard in order to look good (not, in fact the case). Tonywalton  | Talk 12:04, 9 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, I have. On almost all occasions I've found that conflicts are resolvable by referring to policy. By this I don't mean wikilawyering, I mean that I've found that when policy is presented and explained ("This is why the policy says XYZ" rather than "Policy says XYZ, so there"). Probably my worst response to a dispute was the situation leading up to this, where a well-timed reminder from DS made me re-think my response. In that case the appropriate response was to leave the matter alone and let someone previously uninvolved handle it. As for future disputes it's not easy to give an answer that covers all cases. Probably the general answer would be "act with less emotion and remember that my POV about a dispute is one POV, and is not necessarily "right". Tonywalton  | Talk 12:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

4. Optional Question (posed by User:Ceyockey) A similar question to this was put to me recently: What does WP:IAR mean to you? Also, could you say something about the distinction between policy and guideline? The reason I ask is that you've stated "On almost all occasions I've found that conflicts are resolvable by referring to policy". Thanks. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

"Ignore All Rules", (though policy) is a statement that if misinterpreted can potentially lead to Misplaced Pages getting a name as some sort of anarchy. I hope to apply IAR as the essay on common sense advises. Certainly the letter of IAR could be taken to mean "delete anything you want to", however to me it means "keep to the spirit of what Misplaced Pages is about". On some, reasonably rare, occasions ignoring a rule (even temporarily) can lead to improvement.

As for policy versus guidelines, "Policy" to me is something basic and nearly set in stone (I say "nearly" because all policies came from somewhere, so must have evolved over time). Probably if an apparent reason to break policy is good enough, and the argument against policy is strong enough, the policy needs looking at again for a general case. By "policy" here I'm talking about things like WP:NPA or WP:NOR. Pretty much the things that are enumerated in the Five Pillars of Misplaced Pages. Guidelines are somewhat more flexible on a case-by-case basis. As an example take WP:RS. While verifiability is policy, what constitutes a reliable source is not inflexible. Guildelines on notability are notoriously difficult to define, as the WP:N talkpage shows! In a nutshell, policy sets the framework within which Misplaced Pages operates while guidelines give (as the name suggests) guidance which may, with suitable good reasons, be stepped outside. Tonywalton  | Talk 12:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

5 Follow-up: What is your opinion of WP:PRO? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

General comments

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

Discussion

Support

1. Support A very good and conscientous editor who will use the tools well.--Anthony.bradbury 12:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
2. Support I have no problems in supporting this user. James086 13:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
3. Support Seen Tony around all over the place. Very good editor, with the right attitude for adminship, i.e. no big deal! Bubba hotep 13:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
4. Support has sufficient edits, reasonable enough answers, agree this is no big deal. Addhoc 13:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
5. Supporthas good edits, and we need more backlogging admins it would seem. teh tennisman 13:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
6. Suport seems like a competent and trustworthy user who will make a great administrator. TSO1D 14:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
7. Support while your wikipedia talk edits are a little on the low side, I think you will be a great admin. — Seadog 14:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
8. Support, seems to be a very experienced editor.--TBCΦtalk? 14:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
9. Weak support per lack of WP talk edits. 1400 projectspace edits definitely helps with that. -Amarkov _edits 14:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
10. Support Right, I've voted - can I go off to the pub now, too? ;-) (aeropagitica) 16:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
11. Support Is civil, clear, and consistent with newcomers as well as other editors...even those who become a tad huffy. -Kukini 16:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
12. Support A very good editor. --Siva1979 18:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
13. Support looks alright to me.-- danntm _C 18:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
14. Support Tizio 19:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
15. Weak support not that many project talk edits, but that won't keep me from supporting! –The Great Llama 19:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
16. Support. Not much project discussion going on, but editing at other talk namespaces makes up for that loss. Nishkid64 20:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
17. Support This guy will make a great admin... need I say any more?? --SunStar Net 20:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
18. Support A good editor who deserves adminship. Sharkface217 22:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
19. Support a good candidate --Steve _(Slf67) 23:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
20. Support. A good editor with much experience. Rettetast 01:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
21. Support John254 03:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
22. Support per nom. Michael 05:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
23. - crz crztalk 05:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
24. Support no problems here, good candidate. ← ANAS 12:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
25. Support Knowledgeable, good communicator. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 13:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
26. I've spent quite a while reading through his past 1500 contribs, and I support. DS 18:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
27. Fer sure. While I note and understand the concerns raised by Ceyockey below, I can also accept that "Policy to me..." simply refers back to the form of the initial question - "What does this mean to you?" As such it was perfectly understandable, especially since the main thrust of the question was dealing with the policy of IAR, a policy which seems to conflict with every other policy. From that point of view, I don't feel it is too great a problem. Grutness...wha? 11:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
28. Support always need more, experienced people at C:CSD. riana_dzasta 11:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
29. Support. Good answers to questions, good wiki-mentality, dedicated user. --Fang Aili 16:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
30. I think this user has decent common WP:SENSE and would be a good admin. (Radiant) 17:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
31. Support M&NCenarius 19:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
32. Support Great guy and good editor. Mirror, Mirror, on the wall... 04:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
33. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 06:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
34. Support Terence Ong 08:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
35. Support. Not especially familiar with this editor, but the record looks OK from what I can tell. -Hit bull, win steak 15:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
36. Support I see no reason to oppose this candidate. Dionyseus 07:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
37. Support: No reason to oppose. s d 3 1 4 1 5 final exams! 01:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
38. Support Sarah Ewart 06:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

1. NeutralWeak oppose Tonywalton's heart is in the right place and the intentions are good. However, I am concerned about the candidate's loose understanding of policy while noting that conflicts can often be resolved by referring to policy. The response to my optional question included "By "policy" here I'm talking about things like WP:NPA or WP:NOR. Pretty much the things that are enumerated in the Five Pillars of Misplaced Pages." Misplaced Pages policy isn't a quotatable commodity; it is sharp and delineated by Misplaced Pages:List of policies. Yes there is much flexibility in the interpretation of policy and yes policy evolves as it should and must; however, it has a home and a specific definition that shouldn't yield to the interpretation '"Policy" to me is ...'. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

   Tony spent some time to speak to me on my talk page. He pointed out correctly that he responded to my question as I asked it and not as I imagined it in my mind - quite fair and thanks for pointing that out. I'm shifting from 'weak oppose' to 'neutral' based on that as it was the crux of my opposition, the wording of the response and the interpretation I took from it. Regards and good luck --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

2. Neutral pending answer to question 5. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:19, 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.

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 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.

About RfB

• WP:RFB

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Current nominations for bureaucratship

Related requests

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

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

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

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