Misplaced Pages

:Successful adminship candidacies: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:12, 1 July 2004 editCecropia (talk | contribs)Bureaucrats, Administrators12,718 edits New sysops +dwindrim +VampWillow← Previous edit Latest revision as of 13:44, 1 November 2024 edit undoCX Zoom (talk | contribs)Edit filter helpers, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers19,278 edits Reword to account for WP:ADETag: 2017 wikitext editor 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|List of successful RfAs}}
<small><From ]</small>
{{RfA Navigation|WP:RFAS|WP:RCA|WP:SAC}}
__FORCETOC__


This page lists the current year's successful adminship candidacies via ] or ]. For earlier successful candidacies, please check the ] by year. See also: ] and ].
See also: ], ]


For all past requests for adminship, see ].
<!--


*************************************************************************************************************************************
===] (Denni); (26/1/0) ends 15:49, 1 July 2004 (UTC)===
NOTICE TO BUREAUCRATS/USERS EDITING THIS PAGE
Denni has been here since January 3, with 1960+ edits to his name. He has proven an excellent contributor on a variety of subjects, and has contributed some beautiful photographs (take a look at ]). He has the right temperament for admin work -- when I asked him for permission to nominate, his remarks struck me as quite wise. He is open to the possibilities as an admin, and yet wants to be sure it doesn't keep him from contributing: I think he'll find an excellent balance, and urge you to support him. ] 15:49, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
*************************************************************************************************************************************


Please keep the dates listed on here in UTC - there are several inconsistencies that have occurred due to people using their own time zone. Thanks for your help.
:Thank you, ], ], and ]. It's a big responsibility with low pay and no respect, but I have done a 24-hour marathon for Misplaced Pages and I hope that shows how dear I hold it. I am bold when appropriate, cautious when necessary, and always ready to discuss things rationally. ] and I are currently in mediation, and I trust the outcome will be satisfactory to both of us. (BTW, yes, I am a "he", but I believe I am properly in touch with my feminine side.) ]
] 03:38, 2004 Jun 25 (UTC)


*************************************************************************************************************************************
'''Support:'''
#]
# <s>S</s>he was nominated by Jwrosenzweig, <s>s</s>he does great work, ''and'' <s>s</s>he uses my email signature. How can this go wrong? ] ]]] 16:16, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#:Nothing i hope, except that (i believe) Denni is a ''he'' :) ] 16:49, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#::Doh! ] ]]] 17:14, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# ] 16:17, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# ] | ] 16:22, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#]]] 16:23, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#] | ] 16:24, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#] 16:26, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#] 16:43, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# ] 16:49, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#]] 17:43, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#] 20:11, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# ] | ] 20:25, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# Support, pending links from Kevin Baas. Well spoken recently on foundation-l (even though I disagreed). Taking part in mediation shows that Denni is willing to compromise and build consensus. --] ] 21:23, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#]<big>&#9997;</big>] 23:20, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)
# ] ] 03:37, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# ] 20:04, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# ]] 02:46, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# ] 04:22, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC) I have had the privilege of working with Denni on the ] page. The quality of his work is excellent, and I know him to be one who is quick to encourage others. I very strongly support his nomination.
# ] 22:15, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)
# Sorry for the delay, I was away from my computer for several days! Me too, of course. ] 08:13, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#-] 08:45, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)
#Kevin Baas' arguments and links below thoroughly convinced me. Support. - ] 23:05, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#I concur with David Gerard ]<font color=blue>'''&ne;'''</font>] 23:23, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#--] 08:24, 2004 Jun 30 (UTC)
#]<font color=chartreuse>|</font>] 19:17, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# ] 02:08, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)


Please edit the sub-page below. This avoids links changing from year to year. Clicking "edit" on the section title gets there more easily.
'''Oppose:'''
# Does not work well with others. Violates policy. Obstructs transparency. See his talk page ''history'' - he deletes user feedback on his talk page, so that noone else can see it. He is currently undergoing a user dispute mediation for making personal attacks. (see the mediation page) ] 16:50, 2004 Jun 24 (UTC)
#*Please provide links. --] ] 18:37, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#**,


-->
'''Comments:'''
I think Kevin is of course well within his rights to object to Denni's nomination, but I want to point out for information's sake that Denni is undergoing mediation with Kevin himself. As someone who's been in arbitration, I know that two parties in a dispute often have exaggerated views of each other's conduct. Furthermore, I hope Kevin will refrain from turning this nomination into an attack on Denni (although of course he should respond to Hcheney's question), especially as mediation is still occurring, and I think it against the spirit of said mediation to publically air grievances in this forum. That's just my perspective. ] 19:12, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)


{{:Misplaced Pages:Successful adminship candidacies/2024}}
I'm a party to the same mediation process; it was requested by Kevin. I think it would be a dreadful precedent to take any notice of this; could only lead to more people refusing mediation when asked to agree to it. ] 20:57, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)


==Archives==
:I am in general agreement. This should definitely not be an area for extensions of character attacks/ad hominen attacks. However, I feel that people should be able to express positive views as much as negative views; criticism as much as praise, and have the right, nay the duty, to provide others with access to information which may benefit their decision. Ofcourse, one shouldn't be coercive about it. A one liner is good, so long as its not mere rhetoric - which is never good. As for Charles' comment about people refusing mediation when asked to agree to it - I highly doubt that it will have a significant effect of this sort on reasonable users. And even if it were too have this effect on unreasonable users, this would be no counterargument, as whatever helps to ensure just and responsive governance is ipso facto justified - and ''this'' is the question; what things must be weighted in respect to. ] 01:36, 2004 Jun 25 (UTC)
*] (12 total successful candidacies)
*] (14)
*] (7)
*] (17)
*] (22)
*] (10)
*] (21)
*] (16)
*] (21)
*] (22)
*] (34)
*] (28)
*] (52)
*] (75)
*] (121)
*] (201)
*] (408)
*] (353)
*] (387)
*] (240)
*] (123)


== See also ==
I feel that Kevin shows little understanding here: of mediation and its aims; of the propriety of citing it in terms such as 'undergoing', as if it were a judicial investigation; of the function and etiquette of user talk pages; of the likely effect of his remarks; of the likely behaviour of others on reading them. The matter he brings up would properly be dealt with by a simple link to the relevant subpage of the mediation page. ] 07:37, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
*]: Chart showing successful requests for adminship on Misplaced Pages.


:Hence the simple link to the relevant subpage of the mediation page. Also useful to make a brief statement as to the subject of the mediation, and some objective facts never hurt. This all does not exclude the right to make independant criticisms. Charles, chill out, okay? I didn't post a harangue here. You've already generated more dialogue, primarily of a negative nature, than my relevant, appropriate, and brief criticism. Remember, as we all seem to be in agreement on, this is not a forum for personal attacks. "Kevin shows little understanding." is, by sentence structure, irrefutably a personal attack. Notice the subject of the sentence is me, and "little understanding" is pejorative. Let's just have a vote here, okay? Peace. ] 16:12, 2004 Jun 25 (UTC)

Conveniently ] also answers for me on 'personal attacks'. ] 16:44, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

:I am uncertain when personal attacks got defined as "Voting against inclusion of vanity pages," but, if this is the new definition of personal attacks, I support them wholeheartedly. ] 22:15, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)

::Snowspinner, a personal attack is when a user makes a pejorative remark about another user. A typical format is "x person has x undesirable trait", but it may use different verbs like "shows" or "demonstrates", or it might refer to their faculties such as "x person's thoughts" or "x person's statements", indirectly but indisputably refering to the person (in contrast to arguments or article content). there are many variations of the form, but it's nonetheless pretty simple and easy to pick out. I hope this helps to clarify the meaning of a "personal attack". ] 16:39, 2004 Jun 29 (UTC)

:::I was being facetious. I looked at the VfD you cited as an example of Denni's personal attacks, and there were no personal attacks on it whatsoever - only a vote to delete the page, which I believe was entirely justified. In case I missed something, I went and looked at the other two pages just now. The rest were comments on your behavior - accurate ones at that. In fact, Denni's interactions with you convinced me that he has the temperment and determination to handal vandals and other problem users. ] 17:45, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

::::Firstly, the Vfd page was listed as a primary source under mediation for Charles, not Denni. Denni had made only one comment on that page, which was ], and a vote for deletion, as you pointed out. I informed him on his talk page that it is not in the best interests of his reputation to make ad hominem circumstial arguments, and he was... well... unreceptive and inhospitable. Perhaps this is the cause of confusion. This thread orignates from the subject of Charles, not Denni. Secondly, I don't appreciate your accusations. Nor do I appreciate your self-righteous interpretations. Trying to talk out problems with someone is not vandalism. Violating wikipedia policies and guidelines constitutes a problem. Refusing to communicate to someone who is trying to point out an injustice constitutes a problem. Attacks on people's character, like you just did in the above paragraph, constitutes a problem. (just after we've discussed the vices of such dialogue here, too!) And finally, I don't appreciate your hostility. ] 19:03, 2004 Jun 29 (UTC)

:::::That's blatantly untrue. You listed the VfD as a place where Denni made personal attacks. As for my accusations, I don't expect you to appreciate them. Regardless, this is pretty cut and dry as far as I'm concerned. You made a vanity page. Denni voted to delete it. You made vaguely threatening comments about how something wasn't in his best interest, and he got mad. If you expect me to shed a tear for you here, you're quite mistaken. Your vote against his admin nomination, while within your rights, is petty, childish, and misrepresentative. ] 20:46, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

::::::I never said that I did not list VfD as a place where Denni made personal attacks. I said that i did not say that it was a primary source. Nor did I say plural. On that page, Denni made an ad hominem circumstantial argument, which, by definition, is an attack on the person. I am certainly within my rights to point out logical fallacies. If someone is irritated by it, that does not reflect poorly on me. I didn't want to bring this onto the page, because i consider it unethical and none of anyone else's business, but you are forcing me to defend myself, as you apparently consider it their business. On Denni's talk page, in the cited history, mind you, as he attempted to repress my criticism and hide his own remarks, he called me delusional, a five-year-old, irrational, and said that i have a "social quotient of australopithecus africanus". Personally, i found these comments offensive and in blatent violation of wikipedia policy. I'm sorry if you do not see this. I don't know how i can make it anymore clear. I voted against him because i felt that this kind of behavior from an administrator would be counter-productive to the goals of wikipedia. ] 21:15, 2004 Jun 29 (UTC)

Well, Kevin, your ''doesn't work well with others'' is hogwash; and your ''circumstantial ad hominem'', to translate from semi-Latin to semi-Latin, is ''suggests you had an agenda''. But keep up the good work. ] 19:23, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

:Well denni certainly didn't work well with me, so i don't know where the deprecatory and unsubstantiated comment "hogwash" is coming from. As for "ad hominem circumstantial" (you flipped the order around), i refer you to the article ], and assure you that i understand and acknowledge everything on that page, including the fact that, by making an ad hominem circumstantial attack, denni was suggesting that i had an agenda. But thanks anyways, and thanks for the encouragement. ] 20:55, 2004 Jun 29 (UTC)

Let me be picky then: 'others' implies you know of someone else, not yourself, who has had difficulties 'working' with Denni; even at the level of your pursuing a VfD discussion onto his user talk page. By the way, the page on ] does employ the 'circumstantial ad hominem' phrase, as you can see. As it is, you have 'flipped' the statement. You appear to mean that if anyone suggests you have an agenda, this is CAH; which is therefore AH; which is therefore a personal attack; which is therefore a violation of WP policy. You state your 'interests' on your user page; are you really suggesting that even to bring these up in discussion is a policy violation? ] 21:47, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

:No, bringing up my interests in a discussion is not a violation of wikipedia policy. It is trivial conversation; "chit-chat". regarding suggseting someone has an agenda - i consider this psychologically manipulative and am always turned off to the person who does it, wherever i see it. to be considered CAH, however, it should be in point of making an argument; the part "x is false because..." is missing from your stated criteria. But if it is missing this part, and is left, instead, in the infinitive form, everything remains but the focal point; it becomes a general attack, and i would say still an attack on the person: it attempts to make what the person says less credible. I see that the page on ad homimem employs both orderings. "ad hominem circumstantial" is used twice, once in the subheading and once in the para underneath the subheading, while "circumstantial ad hominem" is used once in the para underneath the subheading. If the usage on that page is considered authorative, we are both correct in the ordering we employ, and both wrong in accusing the other of having flipped the order. I stand corrected, and am sorry for the mistake. ] 22:41, 2004 Jun 29 (UTC)

:Oh, and regarding "pursuing a vfd onto his talk page" This is factually incorrect. At no point did i solicit him to change his vote. Nor was the topic pursued. For the most part, it was Denni flinging insults and sarcasm at me, and me telling him that such behavior is inappropriate. ] 22:46, 2004 Jun 29 (UTC)

::You really like splitting hairs, don't you? ] 19:06, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)

===]; (25/0/0) ends 14:30, 1st July 2004 (UTC)===

VampWillow has been here since March and has about 1600 contributions. Lots of good new articles and edits, a good understanding of NPOV and wikiquette, and an interest in admin-type tasks (marking for deletion, advising new users on style, etc). --] ] | ] 14:27, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

:Very happy to accept (if you'll all have me, of course;-) --] 14:58, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

'''Support'''

# --] ] | ] 14:27, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# ] 14:34, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC) Looks fine to me.
# ] 14:37, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# ] | ] 14:50, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# ] 15:05, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)
# ] 15:14, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC) (even though it would make her "not normal" ;-))
##I did wonder if anyone would remember that ... ;-) ] 15:19, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#] --] ] 15:21, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#] 15:38, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#] 15:51, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#] ] 16:08, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#] ]]] 16:17, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#] 16:47, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# ] - ] 18:46, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#]<big>&#9997;</big>] 23:20, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)
#] ] 03:06, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#"This is a dumb world. In my world there are people in chains, and we can ride them like ponies." (Support.) ] 23:10, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)
# ]] 02:46, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# ] 03:09, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# ] | ] 12:47, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# ]] 17:25, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC) Mmmm-bop.
#--] 23:32, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#] 08:27, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#]<font color=blue>'''&ne;'''</font>] 23:27, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# "Bored now." :D -- ] ] 22:42, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# ditto. ] 02:04, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

'''Oppose'''

'''Comments'''

] 16:47, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC) We met at the London meet-up and - I'll say this: quieter than David Gerard.
:At the risk of not being sure if I want to hear the answer, is that a 'good' or a 'bad' thing? :-) --] 16:55, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
::Good, definitely good. But the WP soundproofing seems, well, sound. ] 20:59, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
:That's saying very little indeed ... - ] 17:07, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

===]===

I've been an active member since November 2003, have a couple thousand edits under my belt and have been in the community long enough to understand the integral nature of ] and the NPOV policy in maintaining credibility and sustainability of this project. Although I turned down a previous suggestion of admin nomination in the past because of time obligations (full time school and full time work), I now have the time - and thorough understanding - of the WP community to be a good admin. Also, since I declined nomination in the past, think it is cheesy for me to ask someone to nominate me now - so I'm sticking my own neck out. Still, if there is a collective "no" to this self-nomination, I understand. I can still do 99% of what I want to do the old-fashioned way and have faith in the current batch of admins. ] 22:00, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)

:Davodd has made 3,698 edits as of 12 June 2004. --] ] 22:48, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

'''Support'''
# A worthy candidate who would have had this earlier had he succumbed to peer pressure more readily. ;-) Glad to see him ready to take on the glory and tedium that is being an admin. ] 22:46, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#] --] ] 22:48, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#Good contributions, deals with minor disagreements coolly. ] 22:51, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#]<big>&#9997;</big>] 23:06, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)
#]<font color=chartreuse>|</font>] 23:45, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#]<font color=blue>'''&ne;'''</font>] 00:40, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#] 02:20, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC) Has a great respect for community consensus; made great proposals at WikiProject U.S. Regions.
#] | ] 03:39, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# ] 23:46, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)
#] 00:11, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# Clean track record. Fair-minded. ] 01:58, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# Yes! ]] 04:01, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# From what I see, support. ] 14:39, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# ] ] 03:37, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#] 23:14, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)
#Maybe now he'll buckle down to his ''real'' work and ditch that "schoolwork" come the fall. ] ]]] 22:47, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# ]] 02:46, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# ] 20:12, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC) A good candidate. Davodd had the good sense to decline nomination earlier when time constraints would have inhibited (in his eyes) his activity on Misplaced Pages; it's very good of him to offer his services now that he is able. Give it to him!

'''Oppose'''

'''Neutral'''

===]===

OldakQuill has in the three months since he came here created, cleaned up, expanded and in other ways tended to a myriad of stubs. He seems to enjoy Misplaced Pages and I can't find any conflicts in his past here. He is a devoted, hard-working Wikipedian with insight into what makes Misplaced Pages work. He has done more than 3200 edits. ] 21:52, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
:I accept this nomination with thanks. --] 22:04, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

'''Support'''
#] 21:52, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#]<font color=chartreuse>|</font>] 22:04, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#This user has done really good work recently. Support. ]] 22:10, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#] 23:06, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#] | ] 23:13, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC) He has done a mountain of work in minutae&mdash;redirects and starts, that especially suit him for an admin's duties, IMO. Gladly support.
#] &#8597; ] 01:14, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)
#]<font color=blue>'''&ne;'''</font>] 15:44, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#] --] ] 20:50, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#] 21:49, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)
#] ] 22:38, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# ] 00:07, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#] | ] 00:44, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#] 13:20, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)
#] 00:11, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# ] 01:24, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)
# ] 02:10, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# ] 02:28, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)]
#] ]]] 19:23, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#Oldak's a great chap who has done some great work, and I gladly support him. ] 10:06, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)
#--] ] | ] 14:55, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#] - ] 18:46, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# ] ] 03:06, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# ] 10:10, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
'''Oppose'''

'''Comments'''

===]===

I have been a Misplaced Pages member since September 2003 and have contributed a little over 1000 edits to the English Misplaced Pages since then, and one or two dozen edits on the Malay Misplaced Pages. I have not been involved in any edit disputes, and I believe I have sufficient understanding of ]. I am requesting adminship to assist in administering VfD and speedy deleting patent nonsense (I used to follow recent changes a lot but have been unable to do so recently due to lack of time). I understand if I am considered too new to become an admin, especially since this is a self-nomination, and will not mind if you can provide constructive comments on my manner of contributing to Misplaced Pages, regardless of whether you support this nomination. ] | ] 12:54, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

'''Support'''
# OK by me - ] 13:44, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# A solid, relatively long-time contributor that I believe could handle sysop duties easily. -- ] 03:05, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#]] 03:43, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#I too believe in quality over quantity and your contributions definitely have quality. -] 09:01, Jun 20, 2004 (UTC)
#Qualified, has shown a good grasp of policy and etiquette. ]] 12:42, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# Quality over quantity. Calm and well-spoken in exchanges with other editors. ] 17:32, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#While he doesn't quite have a comfortable quantity of edits, I trust him and I hope sysoping him can boost his contribution. ] 01:37, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# Quality over quantity, indeed. ] 03:33, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# After consideration an review of your edits, I've decided to support. Not that it matters. You have a healthy amount of support already. Quality over quantity, I concede. I just hope you're more active in the future! ] | ] 04:35, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# Seems a good contributor, and certainly VfD needs more people willing to maintain it (IMO). ] 16:09, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# ] | ] 19:23, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#] --] ] 20:50, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# Seen good work on many articles. ] | ] 01:35, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# ] ] 03:37, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

'''Oppose'''
* <s>1000 edits? I've only been here since April and I have almost 2000. I'm kind of wary of supporting someone with only 1000 edits if they're self-nominating. The guidelines say 500-1000 edits are necessary before people should consider your nomination seriously. It also says self-nominators should "wait until you exceed the usual guidelines by a ''good measure''. Oppose, for now, but I am open to reconsidering.</s> ] | ] 02:55, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
::Yes, I read the guidelines. However, I believe in quality, not quantity. I agree that most of my edits are inconsequential, but I have contributed to several articles. I helped bring ] up to featured level. I have written non-stub articles on subjects not covered extensively in Misplaced Pages, such as ] (if American towns have articles, so can any other nation) and ]. I created the boxes for the various ]. I helped start ] and ]. I also believe that given how long I've been on Misplaced Pages, I have been able to sufficiently understand the various policies, etc. of Misplaced Pages. I have actually contributed even before September last year, as an anonymous user (I wrote 95% of ]). ] | ] 06:20, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# No offense to Johnleemk - but for now, I oppose. I think it is still to soon to judge. ] 01:57, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#] 23:14, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)

'''Neutral'''

# This may sound unusual, but I'm neutral only because of this user's relatively few discussions on his talk page and other talk pages. While this is probably a good sign, I feel it's important to be able to gauge how a prospective admin relates directly to other users, as well as editing articles. ]<font color=chartreuse>|</font>] 13:35, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

===]===
Excellent contributor, been here about a year, thousands of edits. - ]|] 02:48, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

:I graciously accept. -] 02:50, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)

'''Support'''
# ]|] 02:48, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC) (''assumed, forgot to vote'')
# ] | ] 14:28, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC) I graciously approve. ;-)
# ]... even though adminship is just receiving flak and having a whole bunch of red buttons on your console you can't touch. --] ] 19:48, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# ]<font color=blue>'''&ne;'''</font>] 22:00, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC) Heh, you don't need to be an admin to catch a lot of flak around here.
#] 22:09, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# ] 22:39, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# ] 00:23, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# ] 05:22, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#]] 09:57, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC) certainly deserves it
# ] 11:29, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC). Theresa's questions brought up some of my own concerns and Jay's responses helped to convince me that he'll make a fine admin.
#] 18:14, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#] 01:45, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#]<font color=chartreuse>|</font>] 12:42, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#]] 03:43, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#] &#8597; ] 01:16, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)
# ] 03:31, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#] 16:11, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#] 21:36, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)
#] 00:11, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# ] 02:29, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# ] 14:37, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC) One of the few names out of the 100000000000 people void that I recognize.

'''Oppose'''
# No offense personally to JCarriker. I just want to see more interactions with the community before I support. ] 02:06, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
::*None taken. Can you please elaborate on what type of community interactions your mean? It's specific enough to state your concerns, but not enough to let me know what I need to improve on. -] 08:48, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)
:::*You needn't improve on anything, per se. I'd just like to see more interactions with the community. As time passes, and you continue to work with the community, you will encounter more situations - and that will provide more examples of how you interact and react. Cheers, ] 19:21, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

'''comments'''
I hate to do this, but I feel I must.

I have a few questions for JCarriker. I get the impression he is a sensitive soul and I wonder if he knows the kind of flack he might come in for once he is an admin.

# How will you react if you find yourself listed on "review of admin actions"?
# What if someone says you are part of an evil cabal?
# Or if someone vandalizes you user page or user talk page?
#What if another admin undoes something you did, accusing you of not following procedure?
#What if someone is very rude and agressive towards you when you were only trying to help them?

I'm not saying any of these things ''will'' happen, but they might. (I have had all this and more happen to me, and so have many other admins, but then I ''am'' very thick skinned) If they happen to you how will you feel about it?

I am also troubled by your "read this before posting" note on your talk page. It comes across as agressive.

Don't get me wrong. I think you are an excellent contributor of quality work. But I do think you haven't thought this through. You said not very long ago that you felt like a second class citizen I don't want you to come under fire from some troublemaker accusing you of abuse of admin powers and then feel even worse. Admins need to be tough, very tough sometimes. Are you ''sure'' you want to be an admin? ] 15:24, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

:Please don't ''hate to do this'', you have raised only valid points. I am very sensitive and I'm usuually open and honest with my feelings. I am actually a local political activist so I have actually had perosonal experience with many of the things you mentioned.

:1. ''How will you react if you find yourself listed on "review of admin actions"?''
:*I will be open and honest as I usually am. I've had people I've known my entire life level much more hurtful allegations at me and I'm still active in politics.''
:''2. What if someone says you are part of an evil cabal?''
:*I enjoy evil cabals; especially when their members are of such high quality. I have also ''supposedly'' been a puppet for various ''mythical'' organizations in Marshall for years, so it wouldn't be the first time.''
:''3. Or if someone vandalizes you user page or user talk page?''
:*I've had some one vandalize my house after a political election, and changing my name from '''J'''ay to '''G'''ay is a common albeit annoying practice among my rivals. My user page is much more easily redeemed.''
:''4. What if another admin undoes something you did, accusing you of not following procedure?''
:*I'll react as I do now, by asking them why on there talk page before I take any action myself; preferably after reaching consensus. I'm usually a by the book kind of person, my policies should be in accordance with wiki's. I've actually had a page I created deleted, you can find my reaction here: ''please see: ]''
:''5. What if someone is very rude and agressive towards you when you were only trying to help them?''
:*I'll ask them to use wikiquette, and reiterate my statement. If that doesn't work I'll ask another party to step in, unless the situtation is too serious.
:''I am also troubled by your "read this before posting" note on your talk page. It comes across as agressive.''
:*I'm sorry to here that, I certainly don't consider myself aggressive. I added the notice becuase my wikiquette posting seemed to be being ignored. There is also an extensive welcome section. Which parts do you find aggressive? I'm open to suggestions about how to improve it.
:''You said not very long ago that you felt like a second class citizen I don't want you to come under fire from some troublemaker accusing you of abuse of admin powers and then feel even worse.''
:*I've already been accused of being a ] on wikipedia, as a white Southerner I can't imagine a more hurtful and crafted attack. One of my primary reasons for feeling like a second class citizen was that after being at wiki for almost a year, I seemed to be a generally ignored figure. I decided that this was due to both the niche like nature of my work and have since started editng pages outside of that niche.
:''Are you ''sure'' you want to be an admin?''
:*Yes, recieving adminship would signal that the community has confidence in me and that means a lot. It also makes it easier for me to combat vandalism when I come across it, something that is much more difficult without admin privelages.
:I hope this answers your questions, I am of course still available for more answers and elaborations. I hope you will consider supporting me Theresa, but if you don't I know it's because you have my and wikipedia's best interests at heart.

:-] 17:34, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)

::Thanks for answering my questions. I am very happy with your answers and have added my vote to support. As for the note on you user page, we'd best discuss it there. ] 05:22, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

===]===
Great contributor - untold thousands of edits either under this name or at previous name ] since March 10. He was nominated a couple of times a month or two ago, and there seems to have been a general sense that more time was needed. But many people seem to become admins after three months or so, and he's made tons and tons of edits. ] ] 21:53, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

:Thanks for the nomination. I accept. ] 03:08, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)


'''Support'''
#] ] 21:53, 13 Jun 2004 UTC)
# Support strongly. ] 23:04, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)
# ]] 23:50, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#] 02:04, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# ] 02:07, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#] 16:50, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)
#] 17:53, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#] --] ] 18:41, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#]<font color=blue>'''&ne;'''</font>] 18:45, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#] 19:10, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#]<font color=chartreuse>|</font>] 17:52, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# ] 18:02, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#] 19:46, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# ] 23:23, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# ] 23:32, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# ] 07:22, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# ] 21:39, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)
# ] 00:18, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)
# ]] 03:43, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#]]] 23:38, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# ] 01:25, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# ] | ] 01:47, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# ] 03:32, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

'''Oppose'''
#Impolite POV warrior. Generally good editor, but thats not what this job entails. Seems to have no grasp of ] nor ]. ] ] 00:49, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

'''Neutral'''

'''Comments'''
*I'm inclined to support, given my limited contact with Andy. Sam (or others), if you believe he's been uncivil or impolite, please offer a link or two? The only times I've seen Andy even get upset are in conversations with ], and while of course it is always better to remain calm, anyone here who's worked with WHEELER knows that frustration is often a product of that interaction. I intend to support in a couple of days, but will wait to see what counter-evidence there may be -- thanks. ] 16:41, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
**I was refering mainly to the regularly acidic dialogue on ], particularly in the archives. He utilized ad hominem arguments regularly, and pressed a "socialism has never ''truely'' existed (except maybe in cuba...)" POV. ] ] 17:50, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
***I don't recall ''ad hominems'', and I ''certainly'' don't recall any praise of Castro's Cuba. I do remember some of the "socialism has never truly existed" stuff, but only in talk. I've had some disagreements with him over edits (at the page Sam cites, for instance), but I've always thought he's handled it pretty well. ] ] 19:03, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
****Sam, I've read through the last three archives at the page. I had to go all the way to the end of March to find behavior of Andy's that seemed at all questionable to me, and I would say that, given the context, Andy was behaving essentially like everyone else -- that is, there was a bitt of "point-scoring" and rhetoric flying around, which he took part in for a while. It isn't significant enough to cause me much concern, especially given that, since that time, he has shown a remarkable amount of calm on that page, even during WHEELER's frenzied assertions that Nazism was "LEFT LEFT LEFT!!!" Anyone who can hang on to their senses in that situation has enough patience for me, especially as I see no ad hominem attacks even in Andy's more wild discussions from late March. Andy is welcome to have opinions that I disagree with, as long as he handles himself well, and I believe he has. ]

===]===
A great contributor, has made about 2500 edits, his recent work categorizing World War II is admirable. I feel he needs to be rewarded for all the hard work and dedication.] 23:08, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

:Thanks Patton, I accept your nomination. ] 10:43, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
'''Support'''
#] 14:55, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#Support. ] has also made good contributions to articles about strategy games and works of science fiction. ] 19:30, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#] 16:31, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#] --] ] 18:41, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#] 16:25, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#] 21:40, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)
#] 04:04, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#] 05:40, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#]] 03:43, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#] 18:03, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#] | ] 18:06, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC) Thought I already voted for him...
#] 18:17, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC).

'''Comments'''
*I'm not sure adminship should be considered a "reward". ] 19:30, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
**I strongly agree with the above statement. ] 18:01, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)
*His edits look good. How's his dealing with editing conflict? - ] 19:54, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
:I've only dealt with a few admittedly. When a conflict does come up I'll ask the other party to talk it over on the discussion page in question. So far I haven't had anything go beyond that as an agreement has, so far, always been reached. ] 21:26, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
*It doesn't sound like Oberiko's work is in topics that are particularly controversial. ;-) There's certainly nothing wrong with that. ] 00:22, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

===] ===
Dave Iberri has been doing a phenomenal amount of maintenance and quality improvement of articles pertaining to ] and ]. He is scrupulously adherent to policy and helpful whenever called on. He is the stuff administratorship is made out of. ]&nbsp;|&nbsp;] 15:55, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
*1500 edits, here since January, in case anybody wanted to know

:Thank you for the nomination. I humbly accept. --] | ] 22:14, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)

'''Support'''
# ]&nbsp;|&nbsp;] 15:55, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# ]. --] ] 17:35, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#]<font color=blue>'''&ne;'''</font>] 18:06, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#] 20:11, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# ] 20:35, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# I thought he already was one. It must be in his blood.] 02:10, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# ] | ] 16:25, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# ] | ] 16:30, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#] 16:39, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#] 17:13, 2004 Jun 12 (UTC) Support regardless of evil O'Reilly philia :=)
#] &#8597; ] 19:05, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)
#] 16:26, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

'''Oppose'''

'''Neutral'''

'''Comments'''
*I'm supporting, even though I'm skeptical of anyone who admires ]. At least it seems he has a better grasp of "Fair and Balanced" than O'Reilly and hasn't adopted O'Reilly's tactics for squelching dissenting opinions. ]<font color=blue>'''&ne;'''</font>] 18:06, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
** Shouldn't we judge Dave by his work, rather than by his stated affiliations and views? ]&nbsp;|&nbsp;] 13:55, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
***Well, um, that's what I thought I was doing. I am supporting him despite my skepticism. ]<font color=blue>'''&ne;'''</font>]
** So why make the point? ]&nbsp;|&nbsp;] 09:28, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
***Because O'Reilly is a highly biased, POV-monger, disingenuously advertising his show as a "no-spin zone". I am extremely skeptical of anyone who claims O'Reilly as a role model. Despite my dislike of O'Reilly, I think Diberri has not shown any O'Reilly-like tendencies in editing Misplaced Pages. Are you suggesting that I can't use the comments section to make comments? ]<font color=blue>'''&ne;'''</font>] 15:05, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
**** For the record, I never claimed that ol' Billy was my ''role model'' or that I ever ''admired'' him (Bkonrad's words). Indeed, on ] I merely point out that many of our social/political views are ''in alignment''. If some have misinterpreted that as admiration, then hopefully I've clarified my intent. To be honest, I'd hoped these comments would be more about me as a Misplaced Pages editor and less as a political commentator ;-) That said, this comments section has made for a delightful read :-) --] | ] 15:41, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)
***Diberri, I'm sorry for a lack of precision in paraphrasing what I recalled seeing on your user page. I did not in any way intend the comment to portray you in a negative light. I really was just trying to make a snarky comment about O'Reilly while pointing out that your edits are of better quality than O'Reilly. I hoped that people might find it amusing--sorry if anyone misunderstood. ]<font color=blue>'''&ne;'''</font>] 16:12, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
*I'm supporting, even though I am sure O'Reilly would hate my pro-choice secularism. There needs to be diversity in the pool of admins. --] ] 19:51, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)


===]===
A solid contributor ~ 4000 edits since arriving in January. Always calm when the editing gets hot, he would make a good admin. ] 10:11, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

:I accept - ] 10:49, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

'''Support'''

# ] 10:11, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# Support. Excellent contributor, and brings a lot of experience from usenet in dealing with controversial issues. - ] 10:41, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# -- ] | ] 10:49, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# Support, David's a man you can rely on to do a good job as an admin. &mdash;] 10:51, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)
# Support. ] 11:01, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)
# Support. ]&nbsp;|&nbsp;] 11:09, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# ] 11:46, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# ]. --] ] 13:54, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#Yes, no question. ] 14:09, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)
#] 15:20, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)
#] | ] 16:04, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#I was going to wait until the end of the month to nominate him, but what the heck. ]] 03:37, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC) :-D - ] 23:42, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# ] 03:41, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# Definitely. ] 04:08, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# ] 05:01, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# I know it's becoming a cliche to say this here now but I thought he already was one. Support. ]] 06:45, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# DG is ok. -- ] 11:05, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# Support. Known him online since before I knew of Misplaced Pages. ] 11:50, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# I also thought he already was one.... Level-headed, clear, friendly, and helpful -- will make an excellent sysop. -- ]<font color=chartreuse>|</font>] 11:54, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# ]<font color=blue>'''&ne;'''</font>] 14:30, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# Support. Met him at the London ] and he seems a nice enough chap ;-) --] 14:34, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# --] ] | ] 14:40, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#]]] 15:39, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#An excellent choice who perceives with real clarity the issues at this site. ] 17:08, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#Support. ] 18:07, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# ] 18:24, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# Patiently not taking crap from MNH wins him my vote. ] 02:10, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#] 16:39, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#] &#8597; ] 05:48, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)
#Showed good judgement and restraint when dealing with MNH. ] 15:42, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# Haha, I thought he already was one. ] | ] 02:35, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# ] 10:32, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#--] 22:51, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# ] ] 20:45, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# ] | ] 02:05, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#] 02:06, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# ] 02:08, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# ] 18:02, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# ] 02:01, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

'''Oppose'''
''none''
'''Neutral'''
''none''
'''Comments'''
''none''


===] ===

I would like to apply to be an Administrator again. ] 17:54, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

'''Support'''

#] 18:13, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC) Unless he was forcibly removed as an administrator, or something along those lines, I see no reason why a former administrator shouldn't be allowed to return.
#Support. ] 19:18, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#Support (again). -- ] | ] 19:36, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC) -- add just a comment. When he first looked for reinstatement, I asked whether a vote was really necessary. I still wonder why, since his temporary de-sysoping was voluntary at his request.
#] --] ] 20:23, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#Support. ] 20:25, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#] 20:37, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
#]]] 20:58, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#Yep. ] 21:04, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
#Absolutely. Welcome back in advance ;-) ]<font color=chartreuse>|</font>] 21:11, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# ] 13:44, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# ] ] 14:30, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC) I'm not really sure this should be necessary tho, he was already voted in
# Not necessary at all. Admins in good standing who voluntarilly gave up their status should be able to return without a vote. Oh, and he's a good contributor, by the way. ] 16:59, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# As there was no reason for him to lose it in the first place, I see no reason he should not have his adminship back. ]] 17:11, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#] &#8597; ] 20:10, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)
#I thought he already was one. Oh wait, he was :). ] ]
# Definitely. -- ] | ] 05:20, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#Why not? - ] ] 16:27, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# ] 10:34, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#]] 05:13, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# Support. ] 06:36, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

'''Comments'''

*What were the circumstances that led to you losing administrator status? - ]]] 18:19, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
**This diff from March 23 shows PMA requesting voluntarily to be de-sysopped. As an editor on semi-vacation currently, I understand completely his weariness, and applaud his desire to take up "active duty" once again. ] 19:19, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)


===]===
I'm nominating Elf. She is a *great* contributor, and I have absolutely no doubts about her ability to use admin powers wisely. She was nominated a little while back, and I (and several others) opposed only on the basis that she was too new and it would set a bad precedent. She's been here since January and has some 3000 contributions to her credit. ] 19:49, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up that I'm listed here. I gladly accept. Maybe easier to say yes after 4 days of wikifree vacation. :-) ] | ] 19:52, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

'''Support'''
# ] 19:49, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
# I seem to recall supporting her last time. She doesn't seem like she'd abuse her powers, and she's pretty easy to work with. ] 19:50, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# No more vacations for you. -- ] | ] 19:59, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#Glad to see her accept this nomination. --] 20:07, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#She turned down an earlier nomination because she felt she wasn't ready yet. Glad to see her back. ] | ] 20:09, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# ]<font color=chartreuse>|</font>] 20:22, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#] 20:26, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC) I am unable to refuse anything to elves.
#Support strongly ] 20:30, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
# ] 20:39, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# ] 20:44, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# Yay for Elf. ] 21:50, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# Ditto. --] &#8597; ] 23:52, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
# ] | ] 00:13, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
# ] 02:29, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# ] --] ] 02:50, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# Support. &nbsp;&ndash; ] ] 04:25, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# Support ] 20:31, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
# --] 20:38, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC) Good contributor
#] 21:06, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#]<font color=blue>'''&ne;'''</font>] 21:12, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#] 22:07, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
#Support - It's the song! ;-) ] 00:33, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# ] ] 07:55, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC) I don't often vote here, but will happily make an exception for Elf.
# ] 09:15, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC) Yes, Elf can do it.
# Of course. ] 16:45, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# Strongly support. ]] 16:59, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# I seem to be late to the party - an enthusiastic support for Elf, whose positive demeanor and valuable contributions are an excellent model of Wikipedian behavior. ] 19:59, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#Approve ] ] 03:27, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#Support -- ] | ] 05:34, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#] 17:09, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#Support strongly. ] 18:03, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#] ]
#Support. ] 18:06, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#Support. ] 06:36, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# Support strongly. Anybody who is so gung-ho about WP that she wrote ] must really care about our project! And the tips she offered on her userpage show that she really knows what she's doing :-) --] 02:57, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#: ] I just noticed that technically my vote wouldn't count, because ....technically, this election ended yesterday. Oh well, it doesn't seem like she needs another support anyway. 36 votes and zero opposition -- Somebody's really popular! <br clear=all>

'''Oppose'''

'''Comments'''
#<s>]] ] 11:40, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC) You are welcome, hoom hum, very welcome. ] and ]s can be friends sometimes!</s>
#*This vote is disputed by HCheney.


===]===

Jrdioko has welcomed a ton of people, he's made over 2000 edits, and has been here since March 13. I think he'd make a great admin--and also, I'm getting sick of having to deal with the stuff he tags for speedy deletion. ] 20:26, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

:Thanks Meelar for the nomination, I accept. While I usually stick to taking care of smaller tasks on the Misplaced Pages and probably wouldn't end up using all the admin privileges right away, I do think a rollback link for vandalism and the ability to speedily delete speedy delete pages would come in handy. &nbsp;&ndash; ] ] 20:55, May 28, 2004 (UTC)

'''Support'''
#] 20:26, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
#] ] 04:27, 29 May 2004 (UTC)
#]] 16:00, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
#] 19:18, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
#] --] ] 22:25, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
#] 17:45, May 31, 2004 (UTC)
#]<font color=chartreuse>|</font>] 20:26, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC) Excellent contributor.
# ] 02:29, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# ] 20:36, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
# ] 21:10, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

'''Oppose'''
#] 18:07, 30 May 2004 (UTC) Respectfully oppose. This nomination is premature. ] 18:07, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
#Too early. ] 18:09, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

'''Neutral'''
#I don't oppose, but I would rather wait another month before supporting. Two months seems a little early in this case. ]] 22:30, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

'''Comments'''
#(originally under neutral) ] ] I can't find any of the speedy deletions being referred to.
#*I know there was at least one within an hour of this post, and I seem to remember at least one more during the past couple hours. ] 20:46, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
#*I believe deleting an article erases everything from its page history and the user contributions of those who made edits to it, so none of the pages I tagged to be deleted should be in my contributions (unless, of course, they was never deleted). &nbsp;&ndash; ] ] 21:00, May 28, 2004 (UTC)
#*Ah, good point. I was thinking you used ], but if all you did was add the tag that's not going to be anywhere in the history. Looking at meelar's deletions in that time period, they look indisputable, so I'll move my vote to support. ] ] 04:27, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

===]===

See ]. It's late enough so that all the voters are happy. --] &#8597; ] 07:45, May 28, 2004 (UTC)

:Thanks for the nomination, Merovingian. I accept. Realistically it probably won't change my activities much, as I mostly enjoy formatting and editing articles. But it would be nice to be able to revert faster, and leave a more standard message (so far I've usually just done a quick copy&paste of the date/time/user stamp of the version I'm reverting to), when doing RC patrol. I'd probably only help with the most blatant speedy delete candidates, and leave the more borderline cases to the more experienced admins. ] 01:21, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
::I did think of one other admin-ish thing I'd probably do on occasion--swap articles with redirs when the redir has the more common spelling or capitalization, such as ] and ]. ] 23:47, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
:::It doesn't really effect how I'd act as an admin, but, just for the record, I have added a first draft trying to explain what I feel should be included, at ] ] 08:41, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

'''Support:'''

#] &#8597; ] 07:45, May 28, 2004 (UTC)
# ] 07:52, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
# Good work on VfD. ] 14:05, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
# Turtles move very deliberately, I am told, so if Kingturtle approves, he must be here long enough. Besides, he has some gray hair, which indicates wisdom. -- ] | ] 14:19, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
# ] 14:25, May 28, 2004 (UTC)
# ] | ] 15:08, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
#]<font color=chartreuse>|</font>] 16:10, May 28, 2004 (UTC)
#] | ] 16:11, May 28, 2004 (UTC)
#] 16:25, May 28, 2004 (UTC)
# ]] 22:30, 29 May 2004 (UTC)
# ] | <small>]</small>. Deletitionist of the scrupulous sort. 16:36, May 30 2004 (UTC)
#]] 16:01, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
# ] 18:13, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
#] 19:30, 30 May 2004 (UTC). I'd like to specifically note that I am not opposed to deletionist admins - I think admins should be a good mix of deletionists and inclusionists.
#Support. &nbsp;&ndash; ] ] 19:47, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
# I agree with Meelar, Jfdwolff, and Snowspinner. --] ] 22:22, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
#]'''] 02:53, May 31, 2004 (UTC) Strongly support
# ] 17:27, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
#] 17:42, May 31, 2004 (UTC)
# ]] 23:22, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
# Certainly support. Good work on the tutorial. ] 06:00, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#Strongly support. Far from being a deletionist, he has saved ''many'' articles from VfD by researching / improving. ] | ] 09:00, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# It's a little earlier than I'd like, but I support reservedly. ] 15:35, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
#]] 19:07, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC) "Two thumbs up. Way up!"
# ] 20:46, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# ] 02:29, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#]]] 18:18, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#] 20:27, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#--] 20:40, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC) Good contributor
#]<font color=blue>'''&ne;'''</font>] 21:16, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#] 22:24, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

'''Comment:'''

How long has this user been here? ] 07:50, May 28, 2004 (UTC)
:4332 contribs since February 22, 2004. --] &#8597; ] 07:55, May 28, 2004 (UTC)


===]===

Around 3000 edits since 05:42, 9 Nov 2003 . Mirv will make an excellent administrator. He helps raise the bar for other contributors and is always level-headed. Earlier today I was surprised to find out that Mirv hadn't become an admin a long time ago; he should've been. ]

Thank you 172, I accept the nomination.

Regarding the questions raised by ] and ] below: As I to RickK when he , I agreed strongly with the ideas behind the summary, never mind the harsh language in which they were expressed. In retrospect I ought to have asked that the summary be made less abusive (or ]) ''before'' giving and maintaining my endorsement, and I apologize for not doing so.

I hope this explains things to everyone's satisfaction. ]] 18:01, 25 May 2004 (UTC)


'''Support'''

#] 10:22, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
#Mirv has done a lot of good work on Middle East topics. -- ] 10:31, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
#] 10:51, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
# Mirv aka No-One Jones is a great editor, and a good user I will fully support him for sysop! ] ''']''' 11:07, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
#I always thought he already was one. ] 11:18, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
#I like the idea of an admin named '''M'''ultiple '''I'''ndependently targetable '''R'''e-entry '''V'''ehicle... Not to mention ey are an extremely well qualified user. --] ] 13:13, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
#] 13:15, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
#]<font color=blue>'''&ne;'''</font>] 14:23, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
# ] 15:43, 25 May 2004 (UTC). See comments below.
# ] '''] 15:48, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
# ] 18:07, 25 May 2004 (UTC) My concerns are now addressed.
#] 20:27, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
#]] 15:38, May 26, 2004 (UTC)
#] 16:48, May 26, 2004 (UTC)
#] 17:42, May 26, 2004 (UTC)
#] 22:41, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
#]<font color=chartreuse>|</font>] 13:29, May 27, 2004 (UTC)
# After reviewing the question raised, I still support Mirv. Mirv has a long history of fairness and dedication to the project. ] 23:26, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
# ] 14:26, May 28, 2004 (UTC)
# ]] 16:04, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
#] 17:50, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
# ] 18:13, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
# ]|] 01:46, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
# ] 17:27, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
# ] 17:44, May 31, 2004 (UTC)
# I support Mirv. ] 07:26, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

'''Oppose'''

#]] 21:30, 25 May 2004 (UTC) '''''Oppose.''''' No problems with this user early on, and he seemed impartial in my conflict with 172 at ] (where 172 was clearly wrong), but the stated issue shows very poor judgement both in (a) calling a user an "ignorant fuck" (his explanation above notwithstanding), and (b) endorsing the ''sentiment'' (a case of a wise user handling an ignorant user), which shows either a failure to understand the conflict before commenting ''or'' a very shoddy reading of events, neither of which reflects good judgement.
#] ] 20:52, 26 May 2004 (UTC) based on recent endorsement of personal attack. (would likely support at a later time)

'''Neutral'''

<s>#] 14:26, 25 May 2004 (UTC) Unable to support due to his endorsement of Danny's original statement in the RfC regarding 172 (See ).</s>

'''Comments'''

I have indicated my support for Mirv's adminship above. Mirv is a fine, upstanding contributor who has made valuable contributions and who has familiarity with and involvement in admin-related matters. I did note his endorsement of the , which I consider inappropriate, and all the more so because Mirv did not avail himself of the opportunity to distance himself from the comment when RickK brought it to his attention. However, because this is a relatively minor ''faux pas'' in the greater scheme of things, and since it appears to be an isolated event, I still support Mirv for adminship. ] 15:43, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

As a note, I invite Mirv to explain the endorsement above either here, in e-mail, or on my talk page - prior to it I would have supported, and so I would welcome some explanation, as I would like to support. For the time being, I'm downgrading my vote to neutral. ] 15:59, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

Overdue for adminship, and the isolated instance of endorsing a statement with abusive language is the '''only''' thing I have ever seen Mirv do that I consider inappropriate. I would not deny Mirv adminship on these grounds, any more than I would support de-sysoping Danny for writing the language initially. The statement has since been rewritten, and with that I think we should all be able to put it behind us. --] 20:27, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

:All I can find are people talking about the endorsement. Could someone point me to the specific endorsement in question? ] 03:21, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
::Check the link in Snowspinner and UninvitedCompany's comments, and read the statement I was endorsing. ]] 04:16, 27 May 2004 (UTC)


===]===
Bkonrad has been here since February and made over 3500 edits. I've worked with him on a large number of pages about U.S. history and can say he is level-headed and is an extreme pleasure to work with. Will make an excellent administrator.-- ] | ] 05:08, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

:I gladly accept. Thanks. (Moink asked me about a month ago and I had wanted to wait until after I finished moving--but I suppose now is as good a time as a week from now.) ]<font color=blue>'''&ne;'''</font>] 15:48, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

'''Support'''
# ] | ] 05:08, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
# ] | ] 05:37, 22 May 2004 (UTC) Decumanus said it all.
# Three cheers. ] 06:41, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
# Thought he was one. ] 15:15, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
# ] | ] 16:04, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
# Seems like a fine ]. ] 20:57, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
# I've had some disagreements with him, and the experience was painless. He seems like a good candidate for admiral/emperor/whatever this is for. ] 21:14, May 22, 2004 (UTC)
# Heh --] &#8597; ] 23:23, May 22, 2004 (UTC)
# Yesyesyesyesyes. :) ] 00:29, May 23, 2004 (UTC)
# ] 02:09, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
#Older may not equal wiser, but calmer does equal better, at least for sysops, and Bkonrad has shown a level head and good judgment in abundance. --] 17:42, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
#]] 00:52, May 25, 2004 (UTC)
# Wonderful. ] 07:42, May 25, 2004 (UTC)
# ] 10:53, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
# ] '''] 15:45, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
#]]] 16:18, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
# You mean he isn't already? --] 16:20, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
# Support, of course. ] 21:44, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
# ] 02:50, May 26, 2004 (UTC)
# All for it. ] 03:38, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
#]<font color=chartreuse>|</font>] 13:29, May 27, 2004 (UTC)
# ] 14:27, May 28, 2004 (UTC)


===]===
Tom has been here since late February 2004 and made well over 1000 good edits in that time. The primary reason I'm nominating him is however his work initiating and maintaining the ] project, with which I think he has demonstrated suitability (and hopefully willingness!) for doing administrative tasks. ] 00:35, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
:Thanks very much indeed, I accept :) ] 09:43, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
'''Support'''
#] 00:35, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
#Adds good content, interested in administration (as demonstrated by his thoughtful discussion on how best to implement the AOTW idea,) and generally good guy. ] 01:51, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
#Sounds excellent. He'll be a good one. ] 21:18, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
#]. --] ] 02:37, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
#] 13:15, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
#] ] 19:54, May 27, 2004 (UTC)
#] 14:44, 28 May 2004 (UTC) Under the three months I would usually use, but looking at Tom's track record, I think the case can be made for early acceptance. I certainly don't want to reject this and give him the slightest sense that his contributions are anything less than phenomenal.
#] ]

'''Oppose'''
#Nothing personal here. I simply don't think Tom- has enough experience in the community yet. I will definitely support in a few months, if his track record continues. ] 02:15, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
#I too feel this is premature. Tom does not yet meet the ] I try to follow when voting here, and I share Kingturtle and Angela's sentiments. ] 21:13, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

'''Neutral'''
#Tom has done some great work setting up the article of the week, but I'm not convinced he yet has enough experience with other areas of Misplaced Pages. I certainly don't oppose his adminship, but I feel it's slightly too early to support. ]] 00:52, May 25, 2004 (UTC)

'''Comments'''
*I see Tom-'s first edit taking place 8 Mar 2004, not late February. ] 21:22, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
**It was before I signed up for an account on . ] 21:47, 22 May 2004

===]===
Jerzy has made 5000+ edits since September 2003. In addition to many fine edits, he has in the past been involved with organizing ] and ] and I believe he will put his powers to good use. --]] 00:36, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

:<s>Awaiting acceptance from Jerzy of nomination.</s>
:My goodness.
* In favor, i will point out that it would save effort by the ever-generous Angela, since i could do my own deletes when they are required for moves.
* Potentially on the negative side:
** I've got a fairly odd brain, perhaps most relevantly when it comes to making subjective judgements; some might want to think hard enough about this proposal as to consider how well i understand and compensate for those oddities.
** I am a confirmedly pseudonymous user, and some may decide that makes me in some senses less accountable than typical hard-core editors who, if i perceive correctly, are almost always more fully public.
** I have a few internally imbedded insects, and i might nag the community about them, a ''little'' more often as an admin than i presently do (and if i do, then you were warned ). Two policies come to mind in this regard; altho i think they need to be complied with (and altho i correct others' deviations from them), i consider them both bone-headed and look forward to the time when others agree with me:
*** Day, month, and year of birth and death in the first sentence of a bio.
*** Applying the casing rules for article titles to titles of sections.
** I do not consistently monitor ], ], or ], tho i regard doing so a "civic responsibility". I'd like to do a lot better at that, but hope only to do a little better, and may do no better.
** My understanding of an admin's mandatory responsibilities is "do no harm, or back off when you realize you did". I consider that a shockingly low standard, but that's the extent of the commitment i'd see myself as taking on.
** I'm the sort of person who would get this far, without having hired a campaign manager. Hey, there's no ] page; where do i recruit one?
** My sense of humor is nowhere near as clever as i usually imagine it is.
:That's what i've got; i accept the nomination; you decide.
:--]] 15:17, 2004 May 20 (UTC)

'''Support'''
#]] 00:36, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
#Seems to have a good understanding of Misplaced Pages. ]] 00:58, May 20, 2004 (UTC)
#]]] 02:33, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
#] 03:25, May 20, 2004 (UTC) Meep.
#] 03:36, 20 May 2004 (UTC) - thought was already one.
# Fair, even-minded. Interesting in custodial activities. ] 06:04, 20 May 2004 (UTC)~
# ] 07:08, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
# Bien sur! ] 09:33, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
#] | ] 12:49, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
#] 13:12, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
#] 13:33, May 20, 2004 (UTC)
# Definitely. ]] 14:51, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
# Oddness is an asset. ] | ] 16:00, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
#I like openness. What's the worst that can happen? -- ] | ] 19:01, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
# ] 19:09, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
# --] 19:57, 2004 May 20 (UTC)
# I have never been this amused by an acceptance of a nomination. ] 20:20, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
# Some day, people will give this man awards just to hear his acceptance speeches. Everything I've seen from him is good. ] 01:49, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
# At the risk of sounding clichéd, I thought he already was one. - ] 01:28, May 22, 2004 (UTC)
# Support. Fabulous choice! ] 03:23, May 22, 2004 (UTC)
#] | ] 04:57, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

===]===
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason (gotta love the name) has been around since February, is approaching 1,000 edits, and is an active member of the Misplaced Pages community. I think he would make a fine admin. -- ]
:<s>Thank you for the nomination, i accept --] 11:50, 2004 May 18 (UTC)</s>
:My name is Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason and i approve this message;) --] 21:48, 2004 May 19 (UTC)

'''Support:'''
# Seems cool-headed (would you expect otherwise from someone from Iceland?) -- ] 11:53, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
#Support - good choice. ] 13:23, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
# Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason (gotta love the name) has been around since February, is approaching 1,000 edits, and is an active member of the Misplaced Pages community. I think he would make a fine admin. -- ] (taken from nominating statement, ] 13:28, 18 May 2004 (UTC))
#] | ] 13:53, May 18, 2004 (UTC)
#Assuming that Ævar, son of Bjarmi, is not related to Halfdan the Half-troll, by way of Erik Njorl, son of Frothgar... --] 14:56, May 18, 2004 (UTC)
# ] | ] 15:04, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
#]. --] ] 17:31, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
#A user who receives support from Wik, something seen on this page about as frequently as ], has probably the most ringing endorsement one could possibly get. In fact, the sense of humor rather makes me wonder what impersonator got a hold of Wik's password. Anyway, I find nothing wrong, and the shortage of substantive edits is compensated for by the work on images. --] 20:00, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
#]] 21:30, May 18, 2004 (UTC)
#Support firmly. ]
# Cool, cool-headed, nice ] --] &#8597; ] 06:02, May 19, 2004 (UTC)
# I suppose you'll tell me he wasn't one already. ] 19:21, May 19, 2004 (UTC)
#] 19:27, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
#] 21:25, 19 May 2004 (UTC) My god, Wik supports somebody for adminship? And makes a joke? That's enough for me.
#Agree with John. :-) Also, no big deal if he hasn't done a lot of content writing, as long as he's trustworthy and wants to pitch in on site maintainance. ] 21:41, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
#Support. Notwithstanding 5/t typing errors. - ] 22:47, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
#Support. ] 18:30, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
#Support. Good image work. ]]
#Support. ] 14:20, 2004 May 22 (UTC)

'''Oppose:'''
#I'd want to see more substantive edits. ] 15:41, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
#Have to agree with Charles Matthews. Has about 800 edits but not enough breadth for me. About 100 of these concern ], about 50 ]. -- ] | ] 19:30, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
#:Although Wik's support shouldn't cause the editor to be "Crucified on a Cross of Wik," I don't see how this encouraged three users to ''support.'' Must be a full moon. -- ] | ] 21:56, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
#Not yet enough community experience, IMHO. ] 06:07, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

'''Comments:'''
*]: You are right that most of my edits here are not substantive, most of what i do here is pure maintanance, fixing licence notices, spelling errors ( adding and fixing them ;). I do however sometimes write/rewrite/expand articles such as ], ], ], ] and currently ], Cheers;) --] 17:26, 2004 May 18 (UTC)

*How do you pronounce your name :) ?? ] 09:59, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
**As soon as i find some good howto on the ] i will write my name in it on my users page, currently i dont however so i can't tell you;/ --] 13:39, 2004 May 22 (UTC)

===] ===
Kingturtle, you should like this one. Lowellian has over 3100 edits, and has been here since late last year. A fine candidate. ] 23:20, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

:Thank you for the nomination, which I accept. --] 17:07, May 18, 2004 (UTC)

:I received some news just today which may affect my summer plans. I may be traveling to a place where my Internet access may at best be limited, so I think it's only fair to let you know that whatever the outcome of this nomination, my summer editing may (depending on the plans, which are not yet finalized) drop off significantly. I expect to be back in full force in September, doing as much editing as I have since last November. --] 19:21, May 21, 2004 (UTC)

'''Support'''
# ] 23:20, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
#] 23:22, 17 May 2004 (UTC) A very good choice -- impressive number of edits!
# --] 23:57, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
#]|] 02:09, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
# ] | ] 02:34, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
# ]] 07:24, May 18, 2004 (UTC)
#] 20:00, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
#] 06:49, 19 May 2004 (UTC) Looks solid.
#]] 00:31, 20 May 2004 (UTC) was about to nominate him myself
#] 03:21, May 20, 2004 (UTC) Excellent choice.
#Nice person. Active participant. Interested in cleanliness. ]
#] 19:25, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
#] | ] 04:56, 22 May 2004 (UTC)



===] ===

Nunh-huh () has been making solid contributions since early Feb 2004 and has now made >2000 major edits, mainly on European royalty/nobility and medical issues, as well as participating in project-wide discussions, e.g. on the usefulness of navigational elements. ]&nbsp;|&nbsp;] 09:17, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

:I thank you for the nomination (though the process feels a bit like an extended ''past-life review''), and accept it gladly. -- ] 19:53, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

'''Support'''
# ]&nbsp;|&nbsp;] 09:17, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
# And I don't feel that having an informative user page--or any at all--should be a requirement for adminship. ] 17:14, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
# Definitely -- ] | ] 17:30, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
# Looks to produce good work to me. - ] 19:58, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
#]]] 20:07, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
# ] 21:07, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
# ] 21:08, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
# ] 21:33, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
# ]] 22:23, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
# ] - ] 23:19, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
# ]] 00:39, May 17, 2004 (UTC)
#--] 00:42, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
# ] 05:49, May 17, 2004 (UTC)
# ]. --] ] 12:06, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
# Of course! ] 12:33, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
# Looks good, but i am still curious about a user page -- ] | ] 13:04, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
# Why not? --] &#8597; ] 14:44, May 17, 2004 (UTC)
# Solid contributor. ] 16:15, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
# ]|] 02:09, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
# ] | ] 02:35, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
# ] 03:01, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
# ]] 00:39, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
# ] 13:36, May 20, 2004 (UTC), agree completely that no user page is needed to be an admin
# ] | ] 04:55, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
# Oh my yes. ]] 09:55, 2004 May 22 (UTC)

'''Oppose'''
# Appears to be a considerate user. If he keeps on this track, I will support at a future time. But, IMHO, not fully experienced here yet. ] 23:32, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

'''Comment'''

* His (her?) edits look good, although he is pretty new here. But why doesn't he have an user page? (redirects to the talk page) -- ] | ] 09:44, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
** There's no policy on that. ] prefers to be judged by his/her edits, and that's fine. I've seen admins whose user pages do very little to enhance understanding of "the person behind the username" :-) ]&nbsp;|&nbsp;] 11:29, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
***It doesnt speak against him. I just would like to know before I vote. Similar questions have come up at other requests for adminship votes, too. -- ] | ] 11:38, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

===] ===


I'd like to nominate Wile E., who has been a solid and involved contributor here throughout 2004. ] 14:52, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
:Thank you Charles, I accept the nomination. ] 15:33, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

'''Support'''

#] 15:20, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
#] 15:35, May 14, 2004 (UTC)
#] 15:54, 14 May 2004 (UTC) Wile's done some advanced stuff I barely understand, but the attitude (where I've seen it) has been great, and a nom from Charles Matthews pretty much assures me that Wile knows his/her stuff. :-)
#] 16:00, 14 May 2004 (UTC). Wile E. is level-headed and meets all of ].
#] 16:11, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
# ]] 16:37, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
# ] 18:42, 14 May 2004 (UTC) Quickly looking at a few contributions I thought I could evaluate, I noticed that all the ones I looked at were ''just superb:'' ], ] and ], to name three. His contributions to discussions always make sense to me.
# ] 19:38, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
# Support, no question. ] 21:06, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
# ]] 21:11, May 14, 2004 (UTC)
#]]] 21:13, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
# Good contributor. ] 22:29, May 14, 2004 (UTC)
#] 22:40, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
#About 600 article name space edits, but high quality math stuff, including major contributions. Also active on ] -- ] | ] 01:10, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
# --] 01:33, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
# ]. <strike>Misplaced Pages is not Kingturtle's exclusive country club.</strike> --] ] 19:11, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
#* That was rude and unnecessary. ] 04:44, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
#** Considering that only 3.2% of registered en: users meet Kingturtle's criteria I find eir standard to be absurd and contrary to the spirit of adminship being "no big deal". I added the message to inform other users I oppose blackballing users from adminship because they didn't fix 3,000 spelling errors/redirects/whatever without checking the minor edit box (because now minor edits don't seem to count anymore at RfA). --] ] 06:16, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
#Support strongly. ]'''] 04:41, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
# ] 04:44, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
#Support with extreme prejudice.--] 15:43, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
# ]] 22:23, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
#] 05:51, May 17, 2004 (UTC)
# Many excellent contributions ] 18:07, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
#]|] 02:09, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
#] 13:32, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
#] 21:25, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
#] 18:46, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
#]] 00:42, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
#] 07:04, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

'''Oppose'''
#Not yet enough edits from Wile E, IMHO. User still needs more experience in this community before I can support. ] 01:30, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
#Bad judgment shown. --] 02:05, May 18, 2004 (UTC)
#*Where and when? ]] 20:33, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
#**On ] where he talked about "Wik's edit warring". --] 20:58, May 18, 2004 (UTC)
#***What, you mean where he criticized you for reverting a bunch of edits that were written by someone writing in their second language when you could have actually spent time fixing them? How's that bad judgment again? ] 18:46, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
#****I don't have to fix hopelessly error-ridden material, and if I wanted to, I could as well rewrite it from scratch. If no one else fixes it, the article is better gone entirely. It is not just about his English, the German is just as wrong. Wile E. probably doesn't speak any German and so should have refrained from commenting on this at all. The same goes for you. --] 19:28, May 19, 2004 (UTC)
#*****Of course you don't have to. However, ] and ] both suggest that simply deleting text is not preferable to working to fix it up. I don't think it's poor judgment to off-handedly criticize you for deleting "illiterate" text instead of working to fix it. ] 19:42, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
#******What is there to criticize? Deleting illiterate text is better than to keep it in place. --] 19:48, May 19, 2004 (UTC)
#*******And moving it to talk, trying to clean it up, putting the page on cleanup, or any number of other things are better than deleting it. Which is what I took his point there to be. ] 19:52, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
#********As you acknowledged, I'm not obliged to do that. He can clean it up if he wants. There is still no justification for him to accuse me about "edit warring" just because I twice removed illiterate additions from an article. --] 20:21, May 19, 2004 (UTC)

'''Neutral'''
#I concure. I am not sure how long this user has actually been here, but from looking at their user page, not long. However, I could think of worse nominations. ]

===]===

~ 1950 edits, user since March 1. Seems not unreasonable, interested in process (lots of listing at ], ], dealing with user page redirects of vandals pretending to be Jimbo, vandalism reversion, replacing stub notices with the proper mediawiki message, various fixes, other useful tasks. - ] 01:53, May 6, 2004 (UTC)

:I originally accepted at 03:15, 6 May 2004, but I've just now decided to move this nomination thing here myself. It was originally commented out on my talk page by Fennec when he asked me whether I would accept a nomination. ] 23:57, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
::Sorry not to have noticed this earlier... I've been a trifle more busy than I anticipated of late :D - ] 14:35, May 9, 2004 (UTC)

'''Support''':
#] 01:53, May 6, 2004 (UTC) -- wouldn't hurt if he used the edit summary box just a little more, though :)
#] 00:08, 9 May 2004 (UTC) good work at ], so would be able to take care of things himself...
#Here for too months, and I've seen good work. ] 21:31, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
# Good contributor and I am not sure 3000 edits is a fair or often applied metric for adminship. ] 21:36, May 9, 2004 (UTC)
#Masses of vandalism control, I thoroughly approve and support Guanaco's nomination. --] 10:54, May 10, 2004 (UTC)
# ]] 14:52, May 10, 2004 (UTC)
#Support - but recommend Guanaco follows the recommendation to provide edit summaries. - ]]] 18:47, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
#Support. Misplaced Pages is not Kingturtle's exclusive country club. --] ] 19:38, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
#Seems to understand the criteria for speedy deletion, at least. ] ]
#] 04:01, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
# What I've seen from him is good. Helpful in watching recent changes. ] 04:03, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
#] 20:03, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
#] 15:03, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
#] 15:06, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
#] 21:11, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
#] 15:23, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
#Absolutely. Good work with VfD.--] 17:04, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

'''Oppose''':
#Not here long enough. Not enough edits. ] 20:26, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
#Too new. --] 20:32, May 9, 2004 (UTC)
#] 02:56, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

'''Neutral:'''
#] 02:59, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

'''Comment:'''

===]===

I was struck today by the fabulous work at ], but also recall his various informative edits. Check his work. -- ] 20:49, 2004 May 8 (UTC)

:Awaiting acceptance from Andrew.

'''Support'''
#]
#]] 22:19, 8 May 2004 (UTC) 1500 edits is enough, considering the quality of his work.
# Been here since August and made over 1450 edits. ] 23:36, May 8, 2004 (UTC)
# ] 00:53, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
# ] 18:15, 10 May 2004 (UTC), nice stuff on Penang. I remember clearly from last year. --] 18:15, 10 May 2004 (UTC)~
# Jiang likes him. And I like people named Yong. Support. (Whimsy, thy name is jengod.) :) ] 20:41, May 10, 2004 (UTC)
#Support. Misplaced Pages is not Kingturtle's exclusive country club. --] ] 19:42, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
#Support. Looked at his edits and realized that Misplaced Pages could use someone like this.--] 00:05, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
#] 02:59, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
#] 03:01, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
#Users who stay out of trouble are exactly the people we want as admins. ] 17:20, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
# ] 00:42, 14 May 2004 (UTC) - 1400+ edits and 9 months is more than I had when I made admin. Support.
# Andrew has done a lot of good work on ] and other Malaysian topics. -- ] 21:45, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

'''Oppose'''
# Far too few edits thus far for me to determine how he responds to different situations. ] 22:11, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
#:
#: With respect -- Misplaced Pages is no bootcamp and not all topics are controversial; those who go for non-controversial articles should not be discriminated. Just curious, how many do you (y'all) think is 'enough'? (I set a soft threshold of 1000.) -- ] 22:23, 2004 May 8 (UTC)
#::He's repeatedly stated a 3000 edit minimum, which I think is too high--it would have taken me years to get there if I wasn't currently unemployed (I've been spending 6-10 hrs/day on WP since March). ] 20:23, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
#: My wonder is why you bother to go through with voting on this basis, when it's fairly clear that you're the only person who feels this way, and that voting on this basis is never ever going to affect if someone gets Adminship? I mean, I understand your argument (although I respectfully disagree), but what's the point of the forlorn stand on the RfA page? Wouldn't it make more sense to work to get some kind of official standard set? ] 00:53, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
#::Actually, that's not true--rather, it will only have an impact on controversial nominations like ]. I disagree with it and wish you wouldn't, though you're of course within your rights. ] 01:52, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
#:I set the bar high. IMHO, to be an admin one must have a lot of experience using wikipedia and a lot of experience interacting with the community. I support those I feel are ready, and I oppose those I feel are not ready. Maybe gradually, in the long run, others will see why I set the bar high, and join me. Still, with that said, I also take my responsibility as a bureaucrat quite seriously; even if I oppose someone's adminship, if this peer group forms a consensus supporting an individual, I do the &quot;paper work&quot; to make that person an admin. ] 20:33, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
#:: Thanks for your thoughtful considerations. -- ] 10:49, 2004 May 10 (UTC)
#:: Kingturtle, I just want to say that even though I disagree with your 3000 edit minimum idea, this is meant to be a vote, and of course you should register your objection if that is how you feel. It is by no means a "forlorn stand". Stick to your guns, I say! --] 10:57, May 10, 2004 (UTC)
#: I don't think this is about voicing one's opinion, regardless how unreasonable or not. It is pointless to object to obviously competent people as admins to just make a point -- which is not even about the person in question really, but a separate "point" that "3000 edits is what I consider good". The issues are different and trying to stick them together confuses the issues and render them all ...pointless. <br/> But, it's his vote. He's free to use it as a tool to rub his point in (which caused the above concerns) or abuse it or actually use it. His vote. His choice. But as a community, we have offered some gentle advices, and he can ignore it if he so desires. --] 18:15, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
#::Yeah... of course, many admins don't have 3000 edits (myself included); I had barely 1,000 when I became an admin. ] 21:30, May 11, 2004 (UTC)
#I only looked at a few edits, but they didn't seem very good. ] ]

'''Neutral:'''

# I like what I've seen of Andrew's work and I have absolutely nothing against him personally. However, he's stuck to fairly narrow and uncontroversial topics (not that that's a bad thing) and hasn't interjected much on content disputes or policy issues (not that that's a bad thing either, he doesn't seem to have gotten into disputes, no doubt in part because of his consistenly solid and thoughtful contributions). But I can't support because I don't see that he has the experience implementing Misplaced Pages policy in the cases where admin power is applicable, and, additionally, because I don't believe that we need him as an admin. <br/><br/>He certainly wouldn't do any ''harm'' as an admin, and I think that Andrew's continued work should be encouraged and praised -- but that said, I don't believe that we should grant admin status simply because we like someone or because they've done good work or because they've been around for a while. We should elect people admin because we expect that they will use their admin powers to substantively improve the project. I don't see Andrew using admin powers much, and therefore I don't see a need to support him. -- ] 06:47, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
:Well, I disagree with the tenor of that. We need admins (surely). Admin powers ''should'' go to solid contributors. Really, it would be a bad idea if anyone who wanted to be an admin thought profile-raising was required. ] 09:24, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

===]===

He has made about 2000 (I believe) edits, many on medicinal topics, and has shown himself to be a conscientious and good contributor. ] 23:20, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

:I'm honoured to accept. ]<br/>] | ] 23:24, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

'''Support:'''

# Meelar
# ] 23:27, 3 May 2004 (UTC) (Man, nominations are coming out of the woodwork -- is this an unusual trend, or just a sign that we're finally recognizing that many, many editors do outstanding work here -- Jfdwolff not least of them! -- and we're too slow to respond?)
#*Something in the air, I suppose ;) ] 23:30, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
# Support. He's done some great work organising the ]. ]] 23:34, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
# Bummer, I wanted to nominate him myself. Support. ] 23:37, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
# ] 00:05, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
# ] 02:03, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
# ] 02:19, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
# ] 03:11, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
# ] 03:35, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
# ] 18:37, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
# ]
# ] | ] 23:05, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
# ] 14:31, 2004 May 6 (UTC)
# ] 19:57, May 7, 2004 (UTC)
# We need more ] -- ] | ] 09:07, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
# ]] 23:25, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
# ]<font color=chartreuse>|</font>] 00:30, May 9, 2004 (UTC)
# ] ] 00:44, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
# Just looking at the number of edits does not do Jfdwolff justice, as he tends to make large edits rather than trivial ones. A solid record of contributions. ] 01:38, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

'''Oppose'''
# Not enough edits yet, IMHO. Therefore, not enough experience yet, IMHO. ] 01:10, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
#:Note: The user has 1326 edits according to ] from April 24, 2004 -- ] | ] 09:07, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
#::Note: That is about 2/5s the number of edits I think are necessary before considering a candidate. ] 22:05, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
#::: Hmm. So I think Kingturtle sets the threshold at about 3000. According to the list (referred to above), about 166 Wikipedians fulfil your criterion (I have 3544 with rank 133, so I barely made the cut). We have about 224 administrators. Do the maths. ('''Not a vote''') -- ] 22:36, 2004 May 8 (UTC)
#::: Heavens. 3k edits? ''I'' have only 2k5 edits (less, probably), and when made a sysop, 11 months ago, I had... less. Just over 500, I think. Does this mean I should be de-sysop'ed, in your opinion? ;-) -- ] ] 00:44, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

'''Neutral:'''
# Never heard of em. ] ]
#:Take the time to review Jfdwolff's edit history. ] 00:24, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

===]===
Another user who should've been made admin a while ago. ] 22:46, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
:Information only: Everyking, according to my count, has 5,200+ edits since beginning here in mid-February, 2004. ] 22:52, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
:Thank you, I accept. ] 23:07, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

'''Support'''
#] 22:46, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
#] 22:54, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
#]|] 22:56, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
#] 23:18, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
#] 23:25, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
#] 00:05, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
# ] 03:11, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
# ] 03:24, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
# ] 03:39, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
# ] 17:06, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
# Very active. Support. ] 18:35, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
# Extreme inclusionist, voting on VfD almost like myself. ] ]
# Support enthusiastically. Mostly I've see him on VfD voting to keep things I'd rather see deleted. However, a look the links on his user page shows him filling important gaps with good articles, especially on African politcs. ] 05:07, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
# Aside from Jfdwolff, he's the only editor I've heard of, currently on this list. I think that counts for a lot. -- ]
# Inclusionism aside (there are far worse out there) he would make a very good admin -- ] | ] 23:08, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
# Sysopship doesn't affect your VfD vote. Besides, you know any admins who have gotten in trouble for '''not''' deleting something? :) - ] 05:10, May 6, 2004 (UTC)
# ] 05:59, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
# ] 06:20, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
# ]<font color=chartreuse>|</font>] 00:30, May 9, 2004 (UTC)
# ] 20:39, May 10, 2004 (UTC)

'''Oppose'''
# Extreme inclusionist, voting on VfD almost like Anthony. --] 07:25, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
::How would that make him a bad admin? ] 17:06, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
:::It's a sign of bad judgment. --] 18:21, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
::::Hmm I tend to disagree, but no matter. The important question is IMO do you think he is likely to abuse admin power? In other words, have you ever seen him engage in dodgy behaviour such as deleting other people's comments, being abusive to people he doesn't agree with, getting involved in edit wars, that kind of thing? ] 20:16, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
:::::I never saw him being involved in any content dispute, so I can't say that he behaved either good or bad there, except the matter of the inclusion of 9/11 victims, where he accused people who considered those articles unencyclopedic as being "politically motivated", refused to accept the general consensus of not including those articles and instead insisted on having a vote on each of them individually. --] 21:52, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
::::::For the record, I have more recently done some editing on the 9/11 wiki myself, and I don't intend to participate any further in those votes, although I do still think they should be put to individual votes. I agree that the consensus on the matter is plain. ] 21:57, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

===]===
Jmabel has been around since October 2003 and has about 3,500 edits. He has done a lot of nice work, including many translations (which anyone who has tried will tell you is no easy task to do well). I think he'd be a good admin. ] 18:41, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
* I'm honored, but I'm not sure I want this. Could someone get in touch with me & clarify for me what it means? I'm pretty much happy with the role I've already carved out here... BTW, Jengod, I'm not a "she", Mabel is my surname. High school was hell on that count... -- ] 22:57, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
**OK, Jwrosenzweig has convinced me that if I'm assigned this and don't much use it, no one will be bothered. On that basis, sure, if there is consensus. -- ] 23:55, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

'''Support:'''
#] 18:41, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
#]] 19:32, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
#"Thought she already was one." ] 20:09, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
#Goodness, yes! Jmabel's work on ] alone (both setting it up and doing translations) is worthy of a barnstar. Ashamed I didn't think to check if he was an admin. ] 20:25, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
# ] 20:26, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
#] 22:54, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
#] 00:05, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
#What jengod said. ] 02:20, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
# ] 03:13, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
#A qualified contributor who doesn't really want to use admin abilities, especially blocking, is all the easier to support. --] 17:07, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
#No need to use those abilities, but I'm sure you'll find them useful on occasion. Support. ] 18:33, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
# ] 20:37, 4 May 2004 (UTC) support
# Great editor. Support. ] 23:06, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
# ] 00:47, May 5, 2004 (UTC)
# ] 03:20, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
# A talented and diplomatic polymath -- ] 19:47, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
# ] 21:48, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
# ] 00:59, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
#] 21:16, 7 May 2004 (UTC)


===]===
Don't know for sure if he fits the basic requirements in terms of contributions, but I really think so. He has been here a long time. Otherwise, I see no evidence he would be a bad sysop :-); I like his contributions; he is timid so won't do self-nomination :-); and finally I love the idea of french people on en: ]

I do accept the nomination, thanks. :-) ] 07:35, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
:ah tout de même ! :-) ant

'''Support:'''

# About 2500 edits, btw. ] 17:05, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
# ] 19:26, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
# ]]
# ]<font color=chartreuse>|</font>] 00:31, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
# ] ] 00:57, 3 May 2004 (UTC) Reading antheres nomination, I feel a need to point out that my vote is based only on DM's polite, insightful, educated demeanor, and has no basis in francophilia of any sort ;)
# ] | ] 02:11, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
# ] 04:38, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
# ] 04:42, 3 May 2004 (UTC) (sigh, bureaucracy....)
# ] 08:37, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
# ] 09:46, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
# Excellent choice; intelligent and fair editor. ] 16:09, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
#] 20:27, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
#] 22:54, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
#] 02:04, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
# ] 03:14, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
#There you go! -- ] 13:29, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
#] 20:56, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

'''Neutral:'''
* <s>Kidding aside, if he's that timid, why would he want to be a sysop? But we'll see if he accepts.</s> -- ] 18:44, 2 May 2004 (UTC)


===]===
Cyrius has done an enormous amount of ] as well as being (to my knowledge) trustworthy and reasonable&mdash;an expanded user page would help in this regard. He has made ~3,500 since 24 December 2003. ] 05:57, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

:Wow, thanks, I accept the nomination. -- ]|] 14:33, May 2, 2004 (UTC)

'''Support:'''
#] 05:57, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
#] 05:58, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
#] 06:10, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
# He's done plenty of good maintainance work. I strongly support anyone willing to do that stuff on a regular basis. ;-) ] 06:57, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
# ] 08:12, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
# ] 13:37, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
#] 16:00, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
# ]
# I know it's a cliche, but I thought he was one. Support. ] 17:20, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
# ] | ] 21:48, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
# ] 04:39, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
#] 16:48, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
#] 22:56, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
#Very active. Support. ] 18:31, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
# ] 00:52, May 5, 2004 (UTC)
# ] 03:12, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
# ] 06:26, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
#] 17:50, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
# ]] 23:25, 8 May 2004 (UTC)


'''Other:'''
#<s>Support if he writes something more substantial that "Just some guy." on his user page and specifies an email address in his user preferences. ] 18:03, 4 May 2004 (UTC)</s>

===]===
AlainV has been here since last October, and has made about 1000 edits. A good contributor with good writing skills. ] 04:00, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

:Thanks! I accept the nomination. ] 06:49, 2004 May 2 (UTC)


'''Support:'''
# ] 04:05, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
# ] 04:40, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
# ] 04:49, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
# Very good choice - glad he accepted. ] 16:22, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
#] 16:48, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
#] 20:23, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
# ] 03:15, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
# Support. I believe AlainV's careful, detailed, fact-based edits to truly encyclopedic articles are uncommonly valuable. ] 15:42, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

'''Oppose:'''
#Far to few edits thus far. ] 00:47, 7 May 2004 (UTC)





===]===
Dr Reeve has been around for a few months, and has contributed good articles and some very nice images. I have not checked the number of edits, but the quality may be seen in the exemplar ] and ]. -- ] 23:06, 2004 May 1 (UTC)

:I'm pleased and flattered to accept the nomination. Thanks! - ] 18:54, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

'''Support:'''
#] 23:06, 2004 May 1 (UTC)
#] | ] 23:20, 1 May 2004 (UTC) Myk's a good calm editor who'd make a great admin.
# ] 00:19, 2 May 2004 (UTC) I thought he was one already
# Nice writings. --] 00:22, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
#550 edits is plenty for me, esp. when they're of quality. ] 00:52, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
#] 01:30, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
# A review shows generally calm and composed behavior while working on the alternative medicine articles. ] 02:20, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
# Contributor since December 14, 2003. I'm not concerned with frequency or number of edits: He's been around awhile, and he produces quality work. I support 100%. ] 03:02, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
# Much excellence. ] 05:56, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
# ]
# Calm and thoughful. ]<font color=chartreuse>|</font>] 11:27, May 2, 2004 (UTC)
#] 16:00, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
#Misplaced Pages is not an exclusive country club: adminship should be granted based on qualitative performance, not quantitative, IMHO. --] ] 19:05, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
#] 19:32, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
#] 00:29, 3 May 2004 (UTC) More than enough edits for me to conclude that he'd make a trustworthy admin.
#I don't know what 200-300 more edits would tell me that the excellent 500+ haven't already -- there's been plenty of time for Myk to get into trouble if that was coming. Does very solid work, in my experience. ] 16:10, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
#His work so far is good enough evidence of qualifications. Let's not set our edit count expectations so high that people have to make Misplaced Pages a full-time job for six months to become admin. --] 16:48, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
#Support. Supersolid, involved contributions. Good choice. ] 20:07, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
#] 22:58, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
# Support. User has ~= 650 edits. He takes pictures, too! :) - ] 13:26, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
# Support. ] 23:06, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
# ] 14:35, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

'''Oppose:'''
# Far too few edits, IMHO. ] 00:50, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
#Maybe in a couple more months. ]'''] 00:53, 2 May 2004

===]===
I'd like to nominate ] for adminship. He's been here since October 2003, and is a very effective poster and diligent in protecting Misplaced Pages from vandalism. ]'''] 04:37, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

:Thank you very much for the nomination, RickK! I humbly accept. Being an Admin would greatly help me with fighting vandalism, and I hope to be a good admin. -- ] | () ] 05:16, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

'''Support''':
#RickK
#] 04:44, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
#] | ] 05:20, May 1, 2004 (UTC)
# ] 07:33, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
# ]] 08:12, May 1, 2004 (UTC)#
# ] 15:01, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
# ] 15:03, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
#] | ] 23:39, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
#] 16:00, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
#] | ] 01:54, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
#] 04:57, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
# ] 10:26, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
#] 16:48, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
#] 20:24, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
#] 18:25, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
#] 16:01, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
'''Oppose''':

'''Neutral''':

# This objection removed by the poster - see below.
] The artist formerly known as 195.188.152.16
:User ] has alleged Made a number of edits to musician sites, mainly adding a link to and subpages, and removing some probably valid information from the pages.
::'''This is a serious allegation of removing some probably valid information. He should substantiate it.'''<br/>
:I do admit (stupidly and I regret) replacing '''modemac'''s page after he reversed all the edits that I had taken a long while (and carefully) to add, which are informative and useful, and which are not in violation of any wiki-pedia guidelines that I can discover.
:My contributions also cover several topics (as anyone can check).
:He is unsuitable for admission until he substantiates his words, and until he stops taking a God-like approach to other caring contributors.
:He caught no vandal !
::Please be aware ] that anons don't have the right to vote in this debate, neither do people who don't sign their comments. -- ] | ] 12:55, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
:::Validated by ]
::::<small>''Snippet from ]:''</small><br/>
::::Made a number of edits to musician sites, mainly adding a link to and subpages, and removing some probably valid information from the pages. Now he is vandalizing the page of ], who reverted his edits. His ''contributions'':] -- ] 01:38, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
::::<small>''End of Snippet''</small>
::::Adding links is no vandalism. Your actions on the page of ] was. Back then your actions were vandalism, and you got banned for a short period (not by me, I just alerted others to your actions). I see that you apologized to Modemac, and got a login as ]. I think this is the right thing to do, and is promising for your future contributions. I'll contact you directoy on your talk page soon. -- ] | () ] 14:49, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
:::::My relationship with ] is improving. Details on ] -- ] | () ] 15:39, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
::::::] concurs and removes objection after reasonable consultation. If ] had taken more consultative approach this would not have started.
:::::::Please sign your comments (by typing four tildes, like <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>). It makes conversations easier to follow. Also, at the risk of sounding impolite: Try using short, complete sentences, and pay attention to your pronouns. I try not to criticize folks' writing, but I've honestly had difficulty understanding this thread. Thanks. ] 17:43, 2 May 2004 (UTC)


===]===
I'd like to nominate Mark for adminship. In addition to rescuing me from ] harassment, he's been doing all sorts of good cleanup work, reference desk staffing and vandal-battling since he joined up on Feb. 6. He's got nearly 2000 edits. ] 23:41, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)
:Thank you, I appreciate the nomination, and hope to be a contributor for a long time to come. ] 00:35, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

'''Support:'''
# jengod
# ] 23:50, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC) I'd been counting down the days to nominate Mark (I like to wait 3 months) and jen beats me! Mark is an excellent candidate, great demeanor and attitude, would make a very good admin.
# ] 01:45, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
# I believe the extent and breadth of his contributions speak well for him. ] 02:14, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
# ]
# ]<font color=chartreuse>|</font>] 03:17, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC) Support <small>(although I'd like to see little more on the user page ;-)</small>
# The guy's a little new but hey, he looks like he knows what he's doing! :o) ]
# Lotsa good contribs. --] &#8597; ] 04:51, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)
# Full support for a highly-qualified user. ] 07:42, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)
# ] | ] 12:15, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
#] ] 15:32, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
# Two and a half months is plenty for an active user. ] 15:54, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
#] 16:09, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
# ] 22:10, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
# ] 07:39, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
# ] 04:58, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

===]===

I would like to nominate Rob Brewer for adminship. Rob has been here since September 2002 and seems to have an excellent understanding of Misplaced Pages and a good approach to any talk page discussions he has been involved in. His contributions to Misplaced Pages include over 3000 edits to the main namespace. ]] 10:40, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)

:Thanks for the nomination; I accept. I must <strike>admit</strike> proclaim that of late most of my edits have been minor, <strike>but</strike> and I hope to be able to return to making more substantial contributions very soon. --]] 20:22, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

'''Support'''
# ]
# ]
# ] &#8597; ] 17:23, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)
# ] 17:25, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
# ] 22:01, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
# ] 23:20, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
#As long as he agrees not to knock minor edits ;) ] 04:53, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
#:Deal. --]]
#] ] 15:32, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
#] 16:09, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
# ] 22:11, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
# ] 00:57, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
# ] 04:59, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
# ]] 22:39, 2004 May 6 (UTC)

===]===
A great user - should've been made admin a while ago. ] 07:08, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
: Thanks very much for the nomination. It is nice to be appreciated, and I accept it with all humility. I hope to continue to deserve your faith in me, and be of good use to the project. ] 12:49, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)

'''Support'''
#] 07:08, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
#Support. Chancemill has edited some contentious topics and remained calm in his discussion of them. Seems to handle conflict well. ] 08:16, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
#Angela never lies. --] &#8597; ] 08:17, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)
#]<font color=chartreuse>|</font>] 12:14, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)
# I especially regard it important to have admins with knowledge about topics that are not among the most common ones the mainstream user tends to contribute to. To me it seems that ]'s interest in Indian and Hindu topics as well as a variety of others are very valuable for wikipedia. ] 19:18, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
# ] 22:02, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
# ] 23:20, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
#--] ] 04:22, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC) I agree with Angela and Get-back-world-respect
# Excellent contributor,balanced, very friendly, sensitive, good flair for writing. ] 14:48, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
# ] 22:12, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
# ] 04:23, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
# ] 01:33, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
# ] 05:00, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
# Though English is his second language, he is *very* good in English; and also very *helpful* in correcting grammar and polishing articles. Also, very knowledgeable in Tamil, Sanskrit and Hindi. --] 05:24, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
# Polite and easy to deal with, a fine wikipedian. ] ] 05:11, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

'''Oppose'''
# Far too few edits thus far, IMHO. ] 00:59, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
# Agreed. Sporadic edits to few distinct articles. ]] 20:39, 2004 May 5 (UTC)


===]===

I'd like to nominate myself for adminship. I've made a large number of edits (according to ], 1364 or #340 ; current number is 1621) and written several large and detailed articles almost entirely by myself (see my user page), as well as contributed many images I either created myself or obtained permission for. I recently saved ] from being deleted. I haven't been very active in the "politics" of Misplaced Pages, and have never engaged in an edit war beyond a couple exchanges; I always try to respect others' content.

I want to use admin abilities mainly to write and perform SQL queries to locate pages that need correction, to help out with deleting and reverting pages and images, to make corrections on protected and MediaWiki pages, and so on.

Thanks for your support.

<u>Self-nomination was at 20:16, 28 Apr 2004 according to page history.</u>

'''Support'''
# ] &#8597; ] 21:53, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)
# Support. (Unrelated note - sysops are no longer allowed to perform SQL queries). ]] 22:41, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)
# ] 23:05, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
# ] 01:12, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
#] 02:15, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
#] 02:16, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
# Your edits are of excellent quality. --] ] 05:02, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
# ] 06:10, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
# ] | () ] 13:27, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
#] 15:02, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
#] Another A+ user!!
#Support, even if Plato does too. -] 05:22, May 1, 2004 (UTC)
# Yay. ] 05:54, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
#] 05:02, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

'''Oppose'''
# Not yet enough edits, IMHO. ] 01:03, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
#*Can I ask what your requirements are, out of curiosity? ;)] 01:05, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
#**In my opinion, one should have at least 2 1/2 months here and over 3,000 edits (not including talk pages) in the last six months. I feel this gives enough breadth of a history to judge the person's capabilities and capacities. ] 17:08, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
#***3,000!?! I expect to hit that number later this month, but only because I am currently unemployed, so I can spend 8-12 hours per DAY on WP. If I was working full time, it would take me many YEARs to reach 3,000 edits. ] 20:19, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
#***Goodness, Kingturtle... no one can say you have low standards, I suppose. But have you ever wondered why some people think of the admins as a ]? :) - ] 12:59, May 4, 2004 (UTC) (who has just now only reached edit 2352 or so)
#***Also, FWIW, there are 216 listed active admins, even tho' as of 4/24 only 166 registered Wikipedians have over 3,000 edits. And, I average 20-30 edits/hr, because I mostly do RC patrol typos and rv's and dab projects--people doing actual content contributions wouldn't come close to that rate. ] 21:24, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
#***Well that's harsh. I tend to believe someone should have a pulse, and have made it several months without displaying any severe emotional issues that cause them to make me want to murder them... ] 05:13, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
#*OK. Thanks very much. ] 17:10, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

'''Comments'''
* Sysop SQL queries are disabled at present and will probably remain so for a while.--]] 01:09, May 2, 2004 (UTC)


===]===
Has quietly amassed over 4000 edits since September 2003. In that time I have seen nothing but solid contributions from this editor. Has been especially productive in all areas related to Canada. - ] 01:18, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)

:] accepted the nomination ''''''. --] ] 04:15, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

'''Support''':
# ] 01:18, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)
# Impressive contributor. ] 03:50, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
# ] 05:17, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC) - thought he/she was one already
#] 15:53, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC) -- I've seen some very nice work.
# ]] 16:14, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC) - even if they are an agent for SD6...(at least it's not K-Directorate, I guess. ;)
#] 17:03, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC) -- <insert witty comment here>
#] 18:43, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
#] | ] 01:26, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
#] 01:42, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
#] 15:11, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC) What is a SD6-agent anyway? someone from the cold war? or a special chemical in a fabric softener?
#*See ]. ]] 15:54, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
#] 15:16, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)
#Good choice, SimonP. --] &#8597; ] 18:20, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)
#] 22:46, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
#] 23:15, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC) Yet another "I thought (s)he was one already." I heart SD6-Agent.
#] 02:17, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
#--] ] 04:15, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC) (the only reason I waited was because I didn't know if s/he accepted)
# ] | () ] 04:09, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
# Woohoo! ] 05:55, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
# I'm down with that. ] 06:11, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
# ] ] 21:59, May 2, 2004 (UTC) -- Count me in on the "I thought SD6-Agent was already an admin" bandwagon.

'''Oppose''':


===]===

Catbar has been here since December and has made about 800 edits. Solid contributor who deserves admin status. ] 04:48, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

:I'm pleased to be nominated - thank you, Meelar. I've found it interesting to work on the Misplaced Pages. I hope I can be a worthy admin. ] 05:32, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)

Support:
#] 04:48, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
#] 05:54, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC) I was wondering when we were going to get the all-cat channel on WikiTV.
#] 05:57, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
#] 06:17, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)
# Support, although 800 edits is a little weak. ] 06:29, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)
# Seems like a good contributor. ] 05:16, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
# Support. ] 17:19, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
# Looks active enough to me. ] 19:03, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
#] 01:47, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
#] 15:25, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)
#--] ] 22:28, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC) Moggy made me vote support.

Oppose:
# Not enough experience here yet, IMHO. ] 15:12, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Neutral:
# Not enough edits, but I suppose a good worker. --] &#8597; ] 13:55, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)
#Agree with Merovingian -- ] | ] 22:47, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
#*I don't think that absolute number of edits is good indication of contributor activity in all cases. Some people correct typos and formatting, or don't use the preview button, and rack up a lot of edits while others perform substantial work in only a few edits. A quick look at his user page shows several pages which he has created. Also, although it is easy for experienced users to forget, 800 is still a lot of edits. ] 23:15, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
#**That's why my vote is neutral and not oppose. --] &#8597; ] 18:24, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)
#***Yes, but neutral is just a very polite way of saying "oppose" '';-)''. ] 18:30, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
#****Well actually a neutral doesn't hurt. An oppose cancels out four supports. Neutrals are ok. :-) ] 22:06, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)
#**Thanks for your support. I wasn't going to toot my own horn, but I am proud of the fact that several of my new articles have been featured on the Main Page: ] and ] are two that I know of. While I've done my share of fixing minor typos, I do prefer more extensive contributions, when I have something to offer. ] 23:39, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)
#***And I'm proud of the work I did on ], too. --] 03:43, May 1, 2004 (UTC)
#] 02:21, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

===]===
I would like to nominate Hcheney for administrator. Not only does he have 1150+ edits since 23 December 2003 and a generally calm and collaborative attitude about his work here, but Hcheney acted very impressively when previously nominated for admin and withdrew his acceptance of the nomination when it became obvious that foul play was occurring (through no fault of Hcheney's). I think that this kind of community-minded behavior is a fine example of what a Misplaced Pages administrator should seek to embody, and I have every confidence that Hcheney will continue to act with this care and integrity in the future. ] 22:55, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

:Thank you for the nomination. I ask that the voters please consider my merits and faults as an editor and wikipedian. If any editor has questions or concerns, I would gladly address them either on my talk page or by e-mail. --] ] 00:57, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Support:
# ]
# ]. Good editor, and actions of others should not be held against him.
# Having worked with him, I can say that HCheney is a model contributor. If anyone deserves this, it's him. And I can understand being disillusioned--that was a confusing, frustrating and unpleasant situation for all concerned. However, that was in no way due to HCheney him(?)self. ] 00:15, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
# Support. ] 01:33, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)
# Support. ] 01:41, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)
# Support. ] 02:21, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)
#] 02:32, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
# ]<font color=chartreuse>|</font>] 03:04, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)
#Support. Having reviewed a random selection of his edits, I found nothing to complain about and much that was good. A thoughtful and responsible editor. ] 03:37, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
# ] 03:44, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
#Support. ] 13:34, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
#] &#8597; ] 13:51, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)
#Support -- ] 13:55, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
# Hold up, hold up... You mean he wasn't one already? - ] 14:32, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
# I've disagreed with Hcheney, but I believe he is a conscientious and well-intentioned contributor. ] 14:55, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
# ] 15:43, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
# Support: good, responsible editor. ]&#8212;]] 17:11, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
# Support: only seen good things. ] 17:36, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
#Support. Wik's objections are invalid. As much as I dislike Grazingship, Hcheney has nothing to do with that. ]'''] 23:48, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
#Support. ] 05:17, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
#Support -- ] | ] 23:40, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
#Support -- ] | ('''''') ] 06:41, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
#Support. ]] 16:14, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
#Support. I was working on a Perl parser to help me analyze User contribution pages using HCheney's contributions as test input. Then I realized that I'd better vote for him before I finished, because his time is running out. Nice work! -- ] 01:06, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose:
# He did not act impressively at all when previously nominated and withdrew his acceptance not "when it became obvious that foul play was occurring" but only in the last moment when it became obvious he would not get a consensus (when the vote stood at 15-9). His "impressive" reaction actually consisted in making a pretense of leaving , which lasted about a week. He also said "The entire RfA process has completely disillusioned me" which is strange - if he wasn't requesting adminship himself, why would he care so much about it? I still suspect that Hcheney and GrazingshipIV are the same person and he cares too much about adminship, much like Alex Plank. --] 23:56, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)
#*Hcheney and GrazingshipIV are not the same person, both the technical and human evidence are quite clear on this. They know each other from high school but now live in different cities. Their IP addresses confirm this story. -- ] 01:40, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)
#**I also can confirm that Graz and Hcheney are not the same user. Their IPs are quite different. They know each other outside of wikipedia. They are two different people. ] 01:44, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
#***If they know each other from high school, then Hcheney is clearly a liar since he claimed last time that he did not know Grazingship. --] 01:45, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)
#***Note that the technical evidence only confirms that they live in two different cities, not that they knew each other from outside Misplaced Pages. -- ] 01:50, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)
#Vandalized my website (see if you care). Lied or at least was not forthcoming about Grazingshihp last time he was nominated (and Grazingship is in my http logs reading his vandalism right after he created it, clearly they were closer than he is admitting). I'd support given a bit more time, and a bit more explanation as to his previous actions, as he has kept a low profile since withdrawing his nomination, but it's a bit too soon, IMHO. ] ]
#Still not enough experience with the community, IMHO. ] 15:15, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
#Enough weirdness with the whole weird thing from before that I think it might be a good idea to hold off for a while. ] 00:37, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Comments:
OK, I want to support, but I also want to know what's behind Wik's statement that Hcheney lied about not knowing Grazingship. I remember the original incident but I wasn't paying all that much attention to it. Can anyone remind me, and confirm/deny what Wik says? ] 02:30, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
:I'm not sure where the alleged incident was in which Hcheney denied knowing Grazingship. However, is a discussion of the issue of their relationship, begun by Hcheney. ] 03:00, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
::That statement could easily be misunderstood to mean that Hcheney denied knowing GrazingshipIV. What it actually says, I believe, is that when Hcheney was contacted by GrazingshipIV, he did not realize that GrazingshipIV was the same person who had introduced him to Misplaced Pages. Keep in mind that when Wik questioned GrazingshipIV as an inexperienced nominator, GrazingshipIV claimed to be a long-time user who had only recently gotten a username. --] 03:16, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
:::If you believe that story that Hcheney presented last time as an obvious last-ditch attempt to secure his nomination, then I would say you've crossed the line from "assuming good faith" into "gullibility". Let's review the facts. Consider this excerpt from the last nomination:
::::#Oppose - nomination by a 13-day-old user is dubious. --] 20:22, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)
::::#*If it is any consolation I have used Misplaced Pages for years. I would hope you would base your vote on the merit of the candidate rather than myself.-] 20:36, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)
::::#**It just gets more dubious. Used for years and only thought to edit 13 days ago? A likely story. --] 20:43, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)
::::#***No I got a user name 13 days ago.
:::Now what does the last line from Grazingship there imply? Apparently he's saying that he ''edited'' before but just got a username 13 days previously (as it would indeed be hard to believe that he used Misplaced Pages for years only as a reader, without ever editing). Yet the fact that he made obvious newbie mistakes after "getting his username" strongly suggests that he did ''not'' edit before. When I raised this contradiction he said: "When I said I've been using it for years I DID mean as a reader." One wonders then how to explain his statement "No I got a user name 13 days ago" above. In any case he returns to claim that he did use Misplaced Pages for years as a reader without ever thinking to edit. Not only is that unlikely in itself, it raises the question: how did he get to know Hcheney then? If you just read Misplaced Pages, you don't see usernames. Once you read talk pages, page histories, or Recent Changes, you will of course edit yourself too. When I asked him about this contradiction he did not respond. Now why would Grazingship get into all those contradictions to support Hcheney? If they aren't the same person it is crystal clear to me that this was arranged, not just, as Hcheney claims, as an offer from Grazingship which he was not going to comply with, but an agreement by both sides. Had it worked, Hcheney would have nominated Grazingship later. Hcheney's behaviour is strong evidence for this (his story about Grazingship's emails, combined with messages he left on everyone's talk pages asking to reconsider their votes; and comments like "I do not intend to continue with Misplaced Pages having the status of a joke user." showing his fixation with adminship that would not be explicable if he hadn't expected the nomination, as he originally claimed: "I am flattered that I would be nominated so early"). --] 14:42, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

::::Why do you think it's unlikely that someone would be a long-term reader of Misplaced Pages without editing? Two people I have met by chance in real life have been overwhelmingly impressed when they hear I am an editor for Misplaced Pages. They are both fans who know all about what Misplaced Pages is and how it works, but just never quite get around to editing. One has plans for things that she "really should contribute when she gets the time". The other thinks it's the best site on the net and spends hours reading it, but he's too intimidated by the whole thing to start editing.

::::As I said before, Graz got to know Hcheney from outside Misplaced Pages (yes, there is such a place). Graz noticed Hcheney's username while reading, and hatched the adminship plan. He was very keen to support Hcheney because he wanted Hcheney to support him in return. However Hcheney refused. I don't see where the mystery is. -- ] 06:54, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)

:::::I can't make the blind see. But why do you think Hcheney made his statement only in the last moment when his previous nomination was failing? Do you seriously think he received that email from Grazingship just then, and not before? Obviously (considering the campaigning he did on everyone's talk pages, and his complaining about the whole process) it was designed to save the nomination. Why did he suddenly care so much when initially he pretended to be surprised to be nominated "so early"? --] 20:21, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)
::::::]. - ] 02:47, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

:Cheney has gone around adding social security numbers to a bunch of pages. I guess this is no longer considered a bad thing, as it was when I did it? ] ]

::Can you point me to where he did this? Thanks. ] 00:49, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

::Those people are all dead. Perhaps putting their social security numbers in was unnecessary, but it's in no way in any violation of policy -- those people are all dead. You can't use their social security numbers, obviously, so there's really nothing wrong with him adding them. Of course, I've never heard of any instance in which anyone added peoples' SSNs into articles, and it's probably unnecessary, but in no way wrong, IMO. ] 01:21, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)

:::Well, I've done it, and I was called a troll for doing so. "I don't rule out a situation where it might possibly be appropriate for some reason. But to put someone's SSN in the first paragraph of an entry about that person? No, there is no reason at all for that, and it does constitute vandalism." --Moncrief ] ]

::Please note that I obtained that information from the Social Security Administration's Master Death Index file. Those Social Security Numbers were a matter of public record and anyone can obtain any SSN that was part of a death benefit claim . If this is considered improper, please feel free to remove them. --] ] 01:17, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

:::Hmmm. I think adding SSNs, both by Hcheney and Anthony, is ''weird'', but not really wrong. I think I'd probably want to remove them when I saw them, but I don't think it's at all vandalism. ] 17:16, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

::::Well, when I did it I was much less familiar with the ins and outs of Misplaced Pages, which perhaps makes it less weird. At the time I was tricked into believing that there was a law against it, but I have since discovered that the law which was cited was never passed. But I'm not sure an SSN is really encyclopedic, in the sense of the word which is used by the vast majority of Wikipedians, so I haven't added it back. A repository for such facts is certainly useful, but I'm not convinced it fits well with Misplaced Pages. Maybe wikimorial, or better yet, wikipeople... ] ]


===]===

I want to nominate XJamRastafire. XJamRastafire has been here for a loooooooong time and made many great contributions to Misplaced Pages. Go to his ] for more details. --] 23:49, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
:Information: 4,942 edits since February 2002. ] 23:59, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)


Support:

# ] -- He has worked very hard and made almost 5,000 edits to Misplaced Pages.
# To have been here that long, with that many contributions, and yet I've never seen him work tells me two things -- one, we must either have different interests or else his edits are minor, and two, he must not get into trouble. And with that many edits without trouble, I can't see not supporting this candidate. ] 23:59, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
#I've certainly seen him around the Wiki. I haven't ever seen him involved in any problems or disputes, so I support. ] 00:02, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
#] 00:09, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
#] 00:20, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
#] 02:43, 2004 Apr 21 (UTC) Funny username.
#] 08:01, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC) (Nohat thinks XJamRastafire is a funny name - Funny!)
#] &#8597; ] 09:23, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)
#]] 13:49, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
# ] 14:40, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
#] 18:38, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)
#Jwrosenzweig says it better than I. ] 02:43, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
#Very worthy, support. ] 01:48, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)
#He is around here for ages; should definitely be an admin. -- ] 13:55, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
#]] 03:37, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)
#] 08:56, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)



==Unsupported applications==

*, 8 June 2004
*, 4 April 2004
*, 5 April 2004
*, 20 April 2004
*, 26 April 2004
*, 3 May 2004
*, 8 May 2004
*, 10 May 2004
*, 11 May 2004
*, 20 May 2004
*, 26 May 2004
*, 15 June 2004
*, 21 June 2004

==Archives==


]
This page is not archived. Less recently-created admins can be found in the page history:
]
*
]
*
*
*
*
*
*

Latest revision as of 13:44, 1 November 2024

List of successful RfAs
Advice, administrator elections (AdE), requests for adminship (RfA), bureaucratship (RfB), and past request archives
Administrators Shortcuts
Bureaucrats
AdE/RfX participants
History & statistics
Useful pages


This page lists the current year's successful adminship candidacies via requests for adminship or administrator elections. For earlier successful candidacies, please check the archives by year. See also: successful bureaucratship candidacies and unsuccessful adminship candidacies.

For all past requests for adminship, see Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship by year.


2024

22 successful candidacies so far

Candidate Date Closed by Tally
December 2024 – 1 successful and 0 unsuccessful candidacies
Sennecaster 25 December 2024 AmandaNP 2300000(230/0/0)
November 2024 – 2 successful and 1 unsuccessful candidacies
Worm That Turned (2) 18 November 2024 Primefac 54.998900022(275/5/9)
Voorts 8 November 2024 Primefac 10.399930667129(156/15/4)
October 2024 – 11 successful and 24 unsuccessful candidacies
Queen of Hearts October 2024 Administrator Election 3.7047583764206(389/105/122)
SilverLocust October 2024 Administrator Election 4.6891828524556(347/74/195)
ThadeusOfNazereth October 2024 Administrator Election 3.6477231275874(321/88/207)
Rsjaffe October 2024 Administrator Election 3.5842656356566(319/89/208)
Dr vulpes October 2024 Administrator Election 3.2525219671495(322/99/195)
Ahecht October 2024 Administrator Election 3.2234008261693(303/94/219)
SD0001 October 2024 Administrator Election 3.0296999705941(306/101/209)
DoubleGrazing October 2024 Administrator Election 2.9423048631684(306/104/206)
Sohom Datta October 2024 Administrator Election 2.7592567043919(298/108/210)
Peaceray October 2024 Administrator Election 2.5233621276989(270/107/239)
FOARP October 2024 Administrator Election 2.5282995016042(268/106/242)
September 2024 – 2 successful and 1 unsuccessful candidacies
Significa liberdade 21 September 2024 Primefac 5.093734082081(163/32/10)
Asilvering 6 September 2024 WereSpielChequers 244.97550244976(245/1/0)
August 2024 – 0 successful and 0 unsuccessful candidacies
July 2024 – 0 successful and 0 unsuccessful candidacies
June 2024 – 3 successful and 0 unsuccessful candidacies
HouseBlaster 23 June 2024 Acalamari 5.6666456790901(153/27/8)
Pickersgill-Cunliffe 14 June 2024 Primefac 2010000(201/0/0)
Elli 7 June 2024 WereSpielChequers 34.499425009583(207/6/3)
May 2024 – 0 successful and 2 unsuccessful candidacies
April 2024 – 0 successful and 1 unsuccessful candidacies
March 2024 – 0 successful and 0 unsuccessful candidacies
February 2024 – 2 successful and 0 unsuccessful candidacies
Sdkb 16 February 2024 28bytes 132.49337533123(265/2/0)
The Night Watch 11 February 2024 28bytes 3.4126929957254(215/63/13)
January 2024 – 2 successful and 1 unsuccessful candidacies
Red-tailed hawk 5 January 2024 SilkTork 34.499425009583(207/6/8)
Robertsky 3 January 2024 AmandaNP 1960000(196/0/0)

Archives

See also

Categories: