Misplaced Pages

:Requests for adminship: 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 22:04, 29 July 2004 view sourceMichael Snow (talk | contribs)Administrators19,339 edits →[] (5/14/7) Ends 15:08, 3 August 2004: removing - no chance to succeed, has gone on long enough, and only contributions of late are just poisoning the atmosphere further← Previous edit Latest revision as of 17:38, 25 December 2024 view source AmandaNP (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Bureaucrats, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators45,707 edits remove successful RfATag: Manual revert 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Process of the Misplaced Pages community}}
{{Shortcut|]}}
<noinclude>{{pp-protected|small=yes}}{{pp-move-indef}}</noinclude>
This page is where the Misplaced Pages community considers requests made for a ] to become an ]. In addition to '''requests for adminship''', the page is also used for requests to become a ]. (If you came to this page using the shortcut ] and were looking for ], please use the shortcut ] instead.)
{{Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Header}}<!-- *****Do not move this line, as it is not an RfA!***** -->
{{bots|allow=ClueBot NG}}<!--


-->
Admins, also sometimes called '''sysops''', are users with access to a few technical features that help with ]. See ] for a more detailed discussion of what this entails. The ] is a good preparation before you become an admin. Consider reading this before applying for adminship. New sysops can learn how to use the added features at the ].
== Current nominations for adminship ==
<div style="text-align: center;">
Current time is '''{{FULLDATE|type=wiki}}'''
</div>


----
Bureaucrats are simply users with the ability to make other people admins or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here. For lists of users who currently have these abilities, see ] and ].
<div style="text-align: center; font-size: 85%; color: inherit;">
'''{{purge|Purge page cache}} if nominations have not updated.'''
</div>
<!-- INSTRUCTIONS
New nominations for adminship, whether you are nominating yourself or someone else, are placed below these instructions. Please note that RfA policy states that ALL RfA nominations posted here MUST have candidate acceptance, or the nominations may be removed. Please read the revised directions carefully. Thank you.
ATTENTION: Your nomination will be considered "malformed" and may be reverted if you do not follow the instructions at https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Nominate


Please place new nominations for adminship immediately below the "----" line with the hidden comment, above the most recent nomination.
==Procedures and guidelines==
Please leave the first "----" alone and don't forget to include a new "----" line between the new nomination and the previous one as shown in the example.
A user may be nominated to become an administrator by someone else, or the user may make the request personally. The nomination is posted on this page for 7 calendar days measured from the time of nomination. During this period, members of the community may comment on the nomination and vote to support or oppose it. At the end of the 7-day period, if there is general community support for the nomination, a bureaucrat will make the nominee an admin and record this fact at ]. The process for bureaucrats is similar, but is generally by request only; new bureaucrats are recorded at ].


Example:
:'''Nomination'''. Many users become administrators by being nominated by another user. If you wish to nominate someone, get permission from them first. Along with the nomination, please give some reasons as to why you think this person would make a good administrator. (The nominator may also vote to support the nomination.)
("There are no current nominations" message, hidden if there are open RfAs)
---- (hidden comment "please leave this horizontal rule and place RfA transclusion below ")
----


Ready now? Take a deep breath and go!
:'''Self-nomination'''. If you wish to become an administrator, you can ask someone to nominate you, or you can make the request yourself. Be aware that some people scrutinize self-nominations more closely, because they don't already have a community member vouching for them; as a result, you may want to wait until you are sure that you exceed the usual guidelines.


END INSTRUCTIONS -->
:'''Anonymous users'''. Anonymous users cannot be nominated, nominate others, or support or oppose nominations. The absolute minimum requirement to be involved with adminship matters is to have a username in the system.
{{#ifexpr:{{User:Amalthea/RfX/RfA count}}>0||<div style="text-align: center;">{{grey|'''There are no current nominations.'''}}</div>}}
---- <!--Please leave this horizontal rule and place RfA transclusion below-->
----


== About RfB ==
===Qualifications for adminship===
{{redirect|WP:RFB|bot requests|Misplaced Pages:Bot requests|help with referencing|Misplaced Pages:Referencing for beginners}}
Current Misplaced Pages policy is to grant administrator status to anyone who has been an active Misplaced Pages contributor for a while and is generally a known and trusted member of the community. Most users seem to agree that the more administrators there are the better.
{{Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/bureaucratship}}


== Current nominations for bureaucratship ==
Administrators have no special authority when interacting with other users, but because they have additional abilities, other people will generally expect them to be courteous and exercise good judgment. Wikipedians are more likely to support candidates with enough experience to evaluate these qualities and determine whether the candidate is familiar with Misplaced Pages policies. Many people consider the length of time a user has been contributing, as well as the number and quality of contributions.
<div style="text-align: center;">{{grey|'''There are no current nominations.'''}}</div>
---- <!-- Please leave this horizontal rule -->


== Related pages ==
There are no definite requirements on this, but most users seem to expect three to four months of participation and 500-1000 edits before they will seriously consider a nomination. Some users apply higher or lower requirements on a personal basis, which they are entitled to do in voting on this page.
* ]
* ]


=== For RfX participants ===
===Unsupported nominations===
* ]
In some cases, a candidate will have general support but a smaller group opposing the nomination, and it may be unclear whether a consensus exists to grant adminship. If the bureaucrats are uncertain about whether there is a consensus in a particular case, they may suggest that the vote continue beyond seven days, thus giving more time to see if a consensus will develop.
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ] – RfA candidates sharing their RfA experience


=== History and statistics ===
If your nomination fails, it is not necessarily a permanent rejection &mdash; the community may just be suggesting that you "try again later." However, please wait a reasonable period of time before renewing a request, and make good use of the time to gain additional experience.
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]


=== Removal of adminship ===
If a candidate is obviously unqualified (for example, has been participating for one month and made fewer than 100 edits), the nomination may be removed before the seven-day period is over. Similarly, if the candidate was rejected very recently or the voting makes it obvious that the nomination has no chance of success, it may be removed before voting is complete. Past experience has shown that continuing the discussion in these cases only fosters ill feelings, and makes it more difficult if the nominee seeks adminship later.
* ] – Requests to remove administrator access for abuse and/or self-de-adminship
*]
* ]


=== Noticeboards ===
Note: You can see a list of past unsuccessful nominations at ].
* ]
* ]


=== Permissions ===
==Current nominations==
* Requests to mark an account as a bot can be made at ].
''Note: Nominations have to be accepted by the user in question. If you nominate a user, please also leave a message on their talk page and ask them to '''reply here if they accept the nomination'''.''
* Requests for other user permissions can be made at ].


== Footnotes ==
''Please place new nominations at the top.''
{{Reflist}}<noinclude>


]
''Current time is '''{{CURRENTTIME}}, {{CURRENTDAY}} {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}''' (UTC)''
]
]
]</noinclude><!--


Interwiki links are includeonly-transcluded from /Header
=== ] (17/0/0) Ends 21:08, 4 August 2004 (UTC) ===
-->
Stormie has been a full contributor since March 2004, and does an excellent job of patrolling for vandals and of producing his own work. Definitely should be an admin. ]] 21:08, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
:I am honoured to be nominated and gladly accept! Thanks Rick! &mdash;] 23:42, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

'''Support'''
# ]] 21:08, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
# ] 21:29, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
# ] 21:31, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
# ] | ] 22:11, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
# ] 22:51, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
# --]] 23:30, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
# ] 00:57, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
# ] 02:30, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC). Strongly support.
# ] 04:25, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
# ] 04:33, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
# ] | ] 08:02, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
# ]&nbsp;|&nbsp;] 13:01, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC) Mainly noticed his VfD work, but trust his judgment Pedia-wide
# ] 13:30, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
# ]<font color=blue>'''&ne;'''</font>] 13:57, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
# ] 15:49, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC) Quick check of 1 or 2 edits shows nice work.
# ] 15:57, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC) A good choice.
#]</font><big>&#9997;</big>] 16:17, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

'''Oppose'''

'''Neutral'''

'''Comments'''
* 2729 edits for anyone who wants to know. ] | ] 22:11, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

'''Questions for the candidate'''

A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters, if you care to respond:
:'''1.''' Have you read the section on ]?
::'''A'''. Yes, I have, and have actually been considering putting myself up as a self-nomination. Rick beat me to it. :-)
:'''2.''' Are you interested in, and do you think you'll have some time to perform, the chores that only sysops have access to do, to help keep Misplaced Pages up to date?
:'''3.''' If you become a sysop, which sysop chore or chores (], ], watching for vandals and vandalism, responding to editor requests for assistance, any other) do you especially think you would be able to help with.
::'''A'''. I'm quite an active Recent Changes watcher, so I find myself quite often reverting idiot vandalism and tagging nonsense articles for speedy deletion - admin privs would make this job easier. Also I'm reasonably active on ], and would be happy to help out with implementing the keeping & deleting at the back end of the queue, as well as voting at the front end.
:'''4.''' In your opinion, what article have you contributed the most succesfully and helpfully to?
::'''A'''. The work I'm proudest of on Misplaced Pages is mostly ]-related - I've created some new articles on players, worked heavily on some competitions (added a lot of info to the ] and ], and created ]), and keep things up to date on ] each weekend. :-)
:'''5.''' In your opinion, what has your best contribution to the running and maintenance of Misplaced Pages been? (i.e., have you reverted a bad stretch of vandalism, done extensive work categorizing articles, helped mediate a dispute?)
::'''A'''. I do the recent changes watching, copyedit & wikify new articles, and browse through ] for things to do. I've also put some hard yards into gruntwork like ]'s ] and the list of ]. Also, I've recently been trying to help mediate some edit conflicts on ], although I'm not sure how successful I've been, since a formal request for mediation was made after I started trying to help. :-)
:'''6.''' Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and will deal with it in the future?
::'''A'''. Can't say I've ever been involved in any particularly stressful or grievous conflicts yet, thankfully. Worst I've gotten has been the occasional anon vandalising my user page because I reverted some other vandalism - and that's more likely to make me laugh than make me stressed. &mdash;] 23:50, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
:Thanks and good luck!

=== ] (18/0/0) Ends 19:41, 4 August 2004 (UTC) ===
DropDeadGorgias has over 1600 edits since 5 Mar 2003 (with increased activity from February of 2004), has shown interest in issues like featured articles and deletions, and would benefit from having admin abilities. In my opinion, this user shows good judgment and an even temperament, and would make a fine administrator. --] 19:41, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
:I accept, and it's an honor just to be nominated. <i>BTW, this gender neutral stuff is really annoying. I'm a dude. I'll put a note on my page...</i>. - ] ] 20:04, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

'''Support'''
# I know I'm not the first to say this, but I love the username. --] 19:41, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
# Hear, hear -- both to the compliment on the username and Michael's assessment of DDG's suitability. :-) Strong support. ] 19:48, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
# Finally someone I'm familiar with to vote for. An excellent choice. ]<font color=chartreuse>|</font>] 19:50, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
# <cliche>He/she is not already an admin?!?!?!?!?!?!</cliche> Seriously, this is a big surprise to me! Strong support. ] | ] 20:02, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
# I thought you already were an admin. Jeez! :)--] 20:29, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
#] 20:31, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
# ] ] 20:52, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
# Great contributor ] 22:50, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
# ]] 23:30, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
#] 02:22, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
# ] 02:36, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
# ] 04:24, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
# ] | ] 08:04, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
# Unbelievable. I thought you were already an admin. ] | ] 11:59, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
# Support from the gender neutral ] 13:32, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
# ]<font color=blue>'''&ne;'''</font>] 13:51, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
# ] 15:55, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC) Good edits, and good skill using the wiki.
#]</font><big>&#9997;</big>] 16:25, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

'''Oppose'''

'''Neutral'''

'''Comments'''
* Looking through DDG's history, it's clear he or she is a hard-working user who has added much to WP. It looks like heshe lost hisher temper , but the matter was quickly resolved equitably between them. ] ] 20:52, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

'''Questions for the candidate'''<BR>
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters, if you care to respond:
:'''1.''' Have you read the section on ]?
::'''A'''. Yes - ] ]
:'''2.''' Are you interested in, and do you think you'll have some time to perform, the chores that only sysops have access to do, to help keep Misplaced Pages up to date?
::'''A'''. Yes - ] ]
:'''3.''' If you become a sysop, which sysop chore or chores (], ], watching for vandals and vandalism, responding to editor requests for assistance, any other) do you especially think you would be able to help with.
::'''A'''. I would be able to help with watching recent changes, executing deletions and removing failed deletions on vfd, and responding to editor requests. - ] ]
:'''4.''' In your opinion, what article have you contributed the most succesfully and helpfully to?
::'''A'''. Hmm, my interests are all over the board, so there are some silly articles that I've done a lot of legwork for (]), and there are some more substantial articles, like ], and ]. The most tedious thing I ever did was disambiguate all of the mathematicians on ], which is harder than it sounds because most mathematicians only go by their first initials. - ] ]
:'''5.''' In your opinion, what has your best contribution to the running and maintenance of Misplaced Pages been? (i.e., have you reverted a bad stretch of vandalism, done extensive work categorizing articles, helped mediate a dispute?)
::'''A'''. I have done a lot of work to bring some literature articles up to speed, particularly those of latin american and japanese authors. I also fleshed out a lot of the information on ], and the related artists. - ] ]
:'''6.''' Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and will deal with it in the future?
::'''A'''. I'd like to think that I've been pretty level headed about resolving conflicts. I recently had a misunderstanding with ] about thumbnailed images on ], which seemed like it was almost going to escalate into a revert war, but we were able to come to a solution that met both of our needs with the new image markup. I don't really get into revert wars, because after the first few reversions I make it a point to resolve the issue either on the article talk page or the other user's talk page before editing again. If that proved unsuccessful, I'd probably escalate to RFC, but I haven't had to resort to that yet. - ] ]
:Thanks and good luck!

=== ] (13/1/0) end 19:36, 4 August 2004 (UTC)===
I would like to nominate Kim Bruning for administrator -- in my experience working with Kim on and off for the last several months, he has been the model of care, patience, and positive attitude we need so desperately as administrators. His careful work with ] is an excellent example of his ability to interact productively and reasonably with an editor who has driven a number of admins (myself included) into dialogue that cannot be classified as entirely civil. I hope, in fact, to learn something from his ability to work with editors I find frustrating. I have spent several months waiting for Kim to accept that he is worthy of the nomination and allow me to nominate him, which only assures me that he's right for the job -- I think a reluctance to accept a position of increased authority is an excellent indication that someone is unlikely to abuse that position. I hope you will find him as worthy a candidate as I do. ] 19:36, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
:P.S. Kim has been here since February 24, 2004, and has 1,236 edits at the present time. ] 19:36, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
::I've checked ] based on Kim's comment below -- he's right, and that would add another 250 or so edits to his tally, and take him back into early December, by my reckoning. ] 23:25, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
: Accept ] 22:43, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

'''Support:'''
#]
# I agree. ] 20:02, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
# Ditto.--] 20:31, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
# Skill in dealing with challenging community members is one of the most important requirements for an admin. ] 20:42, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
# --]] 23:30, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
# Good edits ] 22:52, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
#] 02:16, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
# ] 04:23, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
# The patience shown working with WHEELER is truly exemplary. ]<font color=blue>'''&ne;'''</font>] 13:54, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
# Support. Kim's interactions with other users are exemplary. He/She's great! (j/k) - ] ] 16:03, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
# Ability to deal patiently with difficult users is one of the best possible qualifications for adminship. --] 16:13, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
# ] 16:18, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC). I'm impressed by this user's perseverence on ].
#]</font><big>&#9997;</big>] 16:36, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
#Support. I've come across Kim's comments here and there and am impressed. Kim seems to be one of those uncommon folk who are an oily influence (as in troubled waters), and that influence is sorely needed. To the extent Kim can share it, WP would benefit. Awesome admin powers would not be amiss in this case, I think. Lack of edits (see below) do not seem to me to be an impediment, in this instance. Let's hope Kim's temperament survives a year or so of WP intact, eh! ] 18:40, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

'''Oppose:'''
# More edits! (But you are a swell contributor.) ] | ] 20:05, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
#: There's a couple more under ] (I thought those had been reattributed? Ah well, no matter :-) ) ] 22:51, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

'''Neutral:'''

'''Comments:'''

'''Questions for the candidate'''<BR>
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters, if you care to respond:
:'''1.''' Have you read the section on ]?
::'''A'''. Yup.
:'''2.''' Are you interested in, and do you think you'll have some time to perform, the chores that only sysops have access to do, to help keep Misplaced Pages up to date?
::'''A'''. I usually look at Misplaced Pages during short breaks, while waiting for my computer to catch up with me.
:'''3.''' If you become a sysop, which sysop chore or chores (], ], watching for vandals and vandalism, responding to editor requests for assistance, any other) do you especially think you would be able to help with.
::'''A'''. I've managed to nab a number of vandals from time to time. Admin powers would probably be really handy for that.
:'''4.''' In your opinion, what article have you contributed the most succesfully and helpfully to?
::'''A'''. ] has gotten kind of stable now.
:'''5.''' In your opinion, what has your best contribution to the running and maintenance of Misplaced Pages been? (i.e., have you reverted a bad stretch of vandalism, done extensive work categorizing articles, helped mediate a dispute?)
::'''A'''. I've managed to keep people talking with each other, I hope.
:'''6.''' Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and will deal with it in the future?
::'''A'''.I end up solving conflicts a lot, maybe because I think it's a fun challenge. I deal with conflicts by looking at peoples' behaviour logically, and trying to figure out what's causing them to behave that way in the first place. ] 22:43, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

===User:Robin Patterson (14/2/0) Ends 03:45 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)===

I nominate ] for adminship. I know that his 605 edits since January 30 are at the lower end of Wikipedians' tolerance range, but from my own dealings with him I know that he strives for '''''quality''''' over '''''quantity'''''. I hope that all will take note of the high standard of his work, and elect him to a position to which he is well suited. ] 01:57, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
* Thank you for the votes of confidence, David and others. I may not actually ''DO'' anything with the position (seeing my main "responsibility" as a continuation of being the as a on Misplaced Pages Maori over the last few months), but one never knows. Kia ora! ] 03:45, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

'''Support'''
# ] 01:57, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC).
# ]] 02:14, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
# Good edits indeed. ] 02:32, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
# ] 03:54, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
# Absolutely ]<font color=blue>'''&ne;'''</font>] 04:15, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
# ] 05:15, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
#]</font><big>&#9997;</big>] 11:31, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
#Seems like a thoughtful, balanced contributer to me. ] ] 18:10, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
# Support, the quality is definitely there, even if the quantity is low, and I think Robin is a very helpful, friendly and level-headed contributor. &mdash;] 00:17, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
# ] 04:22, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
# (See below). ] | ] 06:29, 2004 Jul 29 (UTC)
# ] 16:04, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC) Lots of useful edits on New Zealand information. + Also contributes at another language wikipedia. (see under comments)
# A quality contributor. Being a sysop elsewhere doesn't automatically make you a sysop here, but I trust Robin is familiar with our policies, since it's probably been necessary to draw from them in the effort to build the Maori Misplaced Pages. I also don't expect admins to necessarily be highly active in that capacity, so I'm not concerned with how Robin divides time between here and there. --] 21:00, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
#In my experience, Robin would be deserving of "important and ponderous privileges" if we had any to offer here -- in the absence of them, I heartily approve of entrusting Robin with the few abilities of an administrator (and their attendant disadvantages). :-) ] 21:28, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

'''Oppose'''
#Sorry, seems like a genuine and good contributor, but far too few edits for me. ] | ] 17:54, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
#I'd just like to point out that a person's edits are not and should not be the only factor in adminship decisions. Certainly, they are an important indicator, but it should be asked as well what a prospective admin will do for Misplaced Pages. No offense, but it seems like Mr. Patterson is quite involved with the Maori Misplaced Pages, and, as he himself has stated, "may not actually ''DO'' anything with the position." Perhaps more people need to view adminship as an important and ponderous privilege rather than a social title. --] 06:04, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
#:Adminship is ''not'' an important and ponderous privilege. It's the technical ability to perform certain administrative actions, and the trust from the community that one can perform those actions in an accepted and helpful manner. At least, that's how it ''should'' be; in reality administrators are (through no fault of their own) somewhat revered as Important People and their admin status gives them an elevated social position. I am therefore supporting this nomination on the grounds that whether or not this user intends to, or will, make use of their privileges, there is no reason for hir ''not'' to have them. ] | ] 06:29, 2004 Jul 29 (UTC)
#*On the contrary: ''Fewer'' people should view adminship "as an important privilege" -- or else, we need to change the official policy ("no big deal"). In the meantime, since adminship remains officially nothing more than acknowledgement that a contributor is competent and trusted, a contributor's intention to use admin options (or not) is hardly relevant. ] 06:40, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
#:Lysine states that adminship involves the giving of trust from the community to the adminee. This is exactly right, and this is why adminship is important. Among other things, admins have the ability to ban users and IP ranges from accessing and/or editing the Misplaced Pages, to use the revert function, to move and delete pages, and to protect pages. While admins do not have unilateral leeway over executing such responsibilities, these certainly are not unimportant abilities. I disagree with the tendency for people to be viewed as qualified for adminship solely based upon edits. If people should recieve adminship after reaching some quota of edits, then voting is unnecessary. However, since adminship ''is'' important, I don't see why we should grant a person adminship if he or she is going to be inactive. Do we elect people to ]s who publicly claim that they won't have time to attend sessions or vote on laws? --] 08:10, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
#:*You're missing the point of a wiki. Yes, an admin is able to protect pages or ban users. But an anonymous user is able to come along and edit nearly any page of our encyclopedia. We don't restrict that ability to registered users, on the logic that, "It's too important." (You may have noticed that fact is our single most consistent source of criticism.) We've chosen to restrict a few select options, and our official policy is basically: "Anonymous users shouldn't be able to ban people; and since registration is free, there's little difference between an anonymous user and a day-old user ID. So we'll restrict these few options temporarily -- once we're sure you're on the level, you're in." As has been stated time and again and again: If you want to change the official policy, then do so. Otherwise, abide by it. ] 13:50, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
#::People should ''not'' automatically receive adminship after a certain number of edits: rather, a certain number of edits may be regarded as the base qualifications for adminiship. There are generally a fixed or limited number of members of a legislative body; it is therefore important to elect those who will make the most desirable difference. However, there are no practical limits to the number of sysops at any one time, so there is no inherent disadvantage to appointing sysops who may end up doing less work then their fellows. I agree that number of edits is not the sole, or most important criteria for adminship; however, proper assessment of a nominee's temperament can only take place after they have reached a certain amount of participation, which in real terms often translates to a minimum number of edits or length of time. ] | ] 08:23, 2004 Jul 29 (UTC)

'''Neutral'''

'''Comments'''

* The idea is to determine whether we can trust Robin Patterson not to do anything crazy with admin privileges. One way is to look at some number of edits, and some period of time to statistically figure out if someone is trustworthy. But there's more ways. In this case Robin Patterson also contributes at another language wikipedia, and is apparently trusted there already. This tips the balance in this editors' favor for me. ] 16:12, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

'''Questions for the candidate'''

A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters, if you care to respond:
:'''1.''' Have you read the section on ]?
::'''A'''. Yes, some of it more than once, a few months ago.
:'''2.''' Are you interested in, and do you think you'll have some time to perform, the chores that only sysops have access to do, to help keep Misplaced Pages up to date?
::'''A'''. Slightly, and yes, but see my main reply above.
:'''3.''' If you become a sysop, which sysop chore or chores (], ], watching for vandals and vandalism, responding to editor requests for assistance, any other) do you especially think you would be able to help with.
::'''A'''. Anything requested, but no guarantee of noticing anything urgently, because my visits are relatively rare and short compared with those of some contributors. My ] timezone may be an advantage.
:'''4.''' In your opinion, what article have you contributed the most successfully and helpfully to?
::'''A'''. I don't recall anything outstanding; but my village, ], and city, , have substantial contributions, with more to come if I get time and can avoid more distant distractions such as ] and ]. There was also the list of trees that I added after creating it for the . ] 06:14, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
:'''5.''' In your opinion, what has your best contribution to the running and maintenance of Misplaced Pages been? (i.e., have you reverted a bad stretch of vandalism, done extensive work categorizing articles, helped mediate a dispute?)
::'''A'''. Misplaced Pages Maori (see main response above) and the welcoming of newcomers. ] 06:14, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
:'''6a.''' Of your Misplaced Pages edits and experiences thus far, what is your biggest regret?
::'''A'''. '''None of the world's estimated 130,000 ] speakers has yet shown his or her hand in any significant way''' (except in the English Misplaced Pages).
:'''6b.''' What do you wish you'd done differently?
::'''A'''. Found WP years ago... ] 06:14, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

:Thanks and good luck! -- ] | ] 05:19, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)



===] (13/0/0) Ends 00:59, 2 August 2004 ===

] is an ''encyclopedia addict'' and on Misplaced Pages since 18 Dec 2003. He has 1713 mainspace edits and 2812 edits altogether. He is active in almost all areas of Misplaced Pages (], ], ], ], ], ], etc.). He got three of his new articles on ] (], ], ]), and is currently working on turning ] into a ]. A calm and reasonable editor in exchanges with other editors. He has been nominated for adminship before on 25 Mar 2004, and the main objection was the lack of experience on Misplaced Pages. I believe he has now enough experience and would be an excellent admin. -- ] | ] 00:59, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

:Thank you, Chris. I ''am'' honored and accept this nomination. ] 19:23, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

'''Support'''
# ] | ] 00:59, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
# ] 03:35, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
# ] 06:17, 2004 Jul 26 (UTC)
# "A statement of trust and appreciation." Indeed. ] 06:25, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
# ]|]]] 10:08, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC) Teached one ex-communist resident about copyright-me.Thank you.
# ] 12:03, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
# Very good at maintenance. --]</font><big>&#9997;</big>] 13:08, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)
#] 17:12, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
# Seems just what an admin should be. ] ] 18:33, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
# Patient and polite character when dealing with problematic users is just what an admin should have. Also very good contributions and maintenance. --] 21:21, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
# ] | ] 22:42, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
# Positive record, no abuses. ] ] 22:53, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
# ] 17:01, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC) Good at maintenance.

'''Oppose'''

'''Neutral'''

'''Comments'''

''Questions for the candidate'''

A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters, if you care to respond:
::Oh yeah. The standard questionnaire. My answering here does not relieve any responsible voter from checking him- or herself and form his or her own opinion.
:'''1.''' Have you read the section on ]?
:'''2.''' Are you interested in, and do you think you'll have some time to perform, the chores that only sysops have access to do, to help keep Misplaced Pages up to date?
:'''3.''' If you become a sysop, which sysop chore or chores (], ], watching for vandals and vandalism, responding to editor requests for assistance, any other) do you especially think you would be able to help with.
::Answer to (1), (2), and (3): I'm not running for a political office here, and neither am I applying for a job. I accepted the nomination because I'd be willing to expand some of my housekeeping activities a little bit if the community considers me trustworthy enough&mdash;getting the "janitor's keys" would allow me to do some of these chores myself instead of having to . I would have declined Chris's offer for a nomination if I wasn't familiar with the relevant ].
:'''4.''' In your opinion, what article have you contributed the most succesfully and helpfully to?
:: See the nomination statement by ], or check my ].
:'''5.''' In your opinion, what has your best contribution to the running and maintenance of Misplaced Pages been? (i.e., have you reverted a bad stretch of vandalism, done extensive work categorizing articles, helped mediate a dispute?)
:: Nothing spectacular. I'm helping out a little bit here and there.
:'''6.''' Of your Misplaced Pages edits and experiences thus far, what is your biggest regret? What do you wish you'd done differently?
::Not having checked up on the nominator of my prior to nomination.
:Thanks and good luck! -- ] | ] 05:21, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
::You're welcome. ] 12:14, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

===] (54/6/2) Ends 17:06, 31 July 2004===
A good, good, good editor. Had the unfortunate experience of coming through RfA way too early. But he's a good deal more established now. He's eager and energetic and has already delved into chores-type activities. I can't think of a single non-admin Wikipedian right now that would be better suited for adminship. 2629 edits, been registered for 3 months, 6 days. - ] | ]
: I accept. ] 17:18, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)

'''Support'''
# ] | ] 17:15, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
# ] 17:19, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
# I thought he already was an admin! Full support, of course. ] 17:20, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
# <strike>I do believe Snowspinner is a he.</strike> Either way, I support. ] 17:21, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)
# It's still very early for my tastes (just above my personal minimum) but my interactions with Snowspinner convince me he'll make a fine admin. ] 17:24, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)
# ]|] 17:46, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
# I said I expected to support after he'd been here 3 months, and ... -- ] | ] 18:46, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
#] 19:51, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC) Hell yeah.
#Support strongly. ] 20:45, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
#-"- --] 20:58, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
#]] 22:58, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
#] 23:11, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
#Most definitely. ]'''] 23:23, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)
#] 23:25, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
#Couldn't agree more. ] 00:39, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
#] 00:56, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
#] | ] 01:22, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)
#] ] 01:42, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
#About time. ]] 01:43, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
#]|] 01:49, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
#Yes. An exceedingly worthy Wikipedian. - ] 01:52, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
#I supported last time, so I guess I had a good reason for doing so :). ] ] 02:20, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
#This guy's okay in my book. - ]] 06:44, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
#Support -- ] | ] 07:19, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
#Support ] 07:27, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
#]</font><big>&#9997;</big>] 09:30, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)
# ] 18:41, 2004 Jul 25 (UTC)
#Of course he should be an administrator. He is so nice... ]] 20:18, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
#*Sarcasm? ] 21:11, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
#::Of course this is not sarcasm. Snowspinner is a really nice guy... He supported my nomination in June, and when my nomination failed, he posted comments on and asked what I can do to get their support the next time... That is so nice... I am also impressed by his edits... How can ''anyone'' not support Snowspinner? --]] 02:08, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
#] 21:11, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
#]<font color=blue>'''&ne;'''</font>] 21:52, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
#--] 21:53, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
# ] 22:14, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
# Definitely. ] | ] 06:26, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
# ] 12:00, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
#- ] 13:07, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)
# Darn. I wanted to be one of your top 3 supporters. Missed ], I guess. - ] ] 13:08, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
# ] (no relation) 18:16, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
# Support, just because I don't want to be in the same group as Avala; fractured logic like that could be contagious. j/k, snowspinner's great. - ] ] 18:47, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)
#What the...you're '''not''' an admin yet? Unbelievable! An excellent Wikipedian who carries himself well and makes great edits. ] | ] 14:46, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
#]]] 17:43, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
#] ] 23:24, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC). Hate to ruin the nice even 40 :D
#] 23:36, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
#Love your work. &mdash;] 01:14, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
#Support. I'm sorry I overlooked your nomination earlier, Snowspinner. You have my unqualified support. ] 10:37, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
#] 17:14, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
#] ] 18:39, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
#] 19:32, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
#] 22:56, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
#] 23:29, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
#Yes, of course. ] ] 02:07, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
#] | ] 12:14, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
#] 12:46, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
#]&nbsp;|&nbsp;] 12:57, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC) Avala's rioting is senseless.
#] 16:29, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC) You can tell a lot about a person from how they deal with their own mistakes.

'''Oppose'''
#]|]]] 10:01, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC) - You have support of the GP, who calls other users "cunts", and uses fascist abbrevations. It is outrageous and I can`t get over it. My vote can still turn to '''yes''' but not under any condition, I am very sad to vote '''no''' because of third party, but I am affraid that users like GP will be able to continue with such behavior. ]|]]] 10:01, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
#*This very well may be the dumbest, dumbest, dumbest vote I've ever seen on RfA. Vote on the candidate's merit, not that of the people supporting him... ] | ] 11:51, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
#**I don`t want to be in the same group with such people as GP. And please don`t call my votes - dumb. We have no personal attacks policy in here.] 12:14, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
#***Sorry, but that vote is dumb. If you don't want to be in the same group, then just <u>don't vote at all!</u> Voting against someone on account of something they have absolutely no control over and that relates in no way to their potential to be a good admin... makes you look like an 8-year-old. ] | ] 12:52, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
#****Just utterly baffled here. a) Who is GP? b) What actions, exactly, would you have wished and expected Snowspinner to take? Not taking sides, just puzzled. ] 13:07, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
#*****To answer your first question, Dpbsmith, I think "GP" means ]. --]</font><big>&#9997;</big>] 13:19, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)
#*****On b) It looks like you are asking the question to blankfaze but presumably you mean avala. ] ] 10:33, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
#******This thing with Avala has been going on for a while, for more see ]. -- ] 02:46, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
#*I'll second the opinion that your vote is dumb. (A personal attack would be calling ''you'' dumb.) It's unfortunate you can't muster the maturity to separate one user's behavior from another's reputation -- but it's not surprising, reviewing your history. Glass houses, pal. ] 18:07, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
#*Well, I, for one, am glad. I think George Washington should be the only American to have the honor of being elected unanimously. Waitamminit, is Snowspinner even American at all? Rats, I should have asked him that before I voted! - ]] 10:24, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
#:<strike>Are you ''kidding''?</strike> Oh, yeah, you are. The not funny thing kinda got to me for a minute, there. ] 15:16, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
#*I have decided to vote to support the nomination solely because ] has not voted in opposition. - ]]] 17:43, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
#I oppose solely because people are jumping on Avala for opposing. Who cares? If he feels like opposing, then allow him that privilege. Frankly, I don't care what his reasons are. And anyway, Snowspinner has 40 votes in favor... I do expect people to jump on me for this one as well. And Cribcage -- have you even read the personal attack page? If I were to say, "articles written by Cribcage are dumb", that's obviously a personal attack... or, "every article written by ugen64 is racist"... ] 21:40, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
#*If it makes you feel better, I think your vote is just as dumb. ] 02:38, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
#**No, dumber. At least Avala's was (peripherally) related to the current nomination. My discretion as a beaurocrat is to totally ignore both Avala's and this objection, and I recommend any other beaurocrat do the same. If this weren't such a landslide in Snowspinner's favor, I would make frivilous objections like this a serious policy matter. ] 18:47, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
#Oppose. . ]
#::::(Personal attack was "Snowspinner is a jerk." I feel that especially on voting records like this, confidence in the system requires transparency, and transparency requires not altering someone else's words. I also note that ] was never passed, and so is not policy. ] 23:51, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC))
#*I think Lir should have been banned a long, long time ago -- but for the record, I don't like the idea of censoring others' comments, particularly on a ballot. ] 02:43, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
#**I don't think Ambi was out of line. It was an unsubtle and unequivocal personal attack, and was well justified under ]. I'd have done it if it were any RFA other than my own. ] 13:50, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
#**::: But ] was never passed; it's partly Snowspinner's reliance on non-policy policy that led to my vote. ] 23:51, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
#**:::*That's a reasonable point. ] 19:53, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
#*** I prefer to leave a link to the diff showing personal attack removal. But that's me. -] ] 17:05, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
#****Here is the link: . I looked at it and thought "is that all?" but it is a direct personal attack and the removal is appropriate. - ]]] 18:11, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
#:I think that Ambivalenthysteria should remove, or all personal attacks or none. ]|]]] 09:40, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
#Oppose. sorry snowy maybe next time!--] 22:00, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
#Reluctantly oppose. After reading ], in which Snowspinner includes as "evidence" against Avala that Avala opposed Snowspinner's previous nomination here, and that Avala ''nominated'' a candidate Snowspinner finds unworthy, I'm worried that Snowspinner doesn't clearly enough distinguish between his personal opinions and Misplaced Pages policy, and is too likely to see mere differences of opinion as actionable "rule breaking". I say this as someone who also finds Avala difficult, and as someone who had planned to vote for Snowspinner both here and for ArbCom. ] 22:54, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
#:My objection was not that Avala nominated a candidate that I find unworthy - it's that he does not seem to consider "engages in edit wars and deletes other people's polls" to be a reasonable grounds for opposition, while finding "I don't want to be on the same list as person X" to be reasonable, which is part of the larger problem of not respecting or engaging with the community of Misplaced Pages and its consensus and conventions. Since that's unclear, I'll edit the evidence page to make that clearer. Sorry for the misunderstanding. ] 23:07, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
#Oppose, based on the tendency for confrontation and rash judgement evident on his edits to this page. ] 23:14, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
#:In the name of openess, I think, though I'm not sure, that what zocky is objecting to is that I removed a pair of nominations under the policy that obviously unsupported nominations may be removed. I did so because they were becoming exceedingly vicious and hateful, and, in the case of one of them, because it appeared to be posted by a sockpuppet and seemed designed to foster exactly the kind of flame war that it did foster. Were I an administrator, I would have done exactly this, and probably warned some people for personal attacks as well. I say this by way of saying that, yes, I am willing to be decisive in my actions. If something is causing a problem, I will attempt to fix it. I will note in my defense, however, that I did not remove the nominations once they were reinstated. I will be decisive - I will not be stubborn and insistent. Unless there's something else entirely that you're referring to here, in which case I confess curiosity as to what it is. ] 23:24, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
#::That is a part of it. Removing a nomination in less than 24 hours on an international website means that people from some parts of the world don't even get to see it. I call that rash judgement, yes. The other is including "Avala's limited fluency in English" as a reason to oppose his RFA. That's either a serious misunderstanding of Misplaced Pages (which I choose to believe) or a sneaky perpetuation of personal antipathy. I found both very undesirable in someone who is trusted with the Delete button.] 23:44, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
#:::Limited fluency in English is a perfectly valid reason to oppose. This is the English Misplaced Pages. Admins especially should be fluent in the language as they must communicate frequently with other users. ] | ] 23:48, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
#:::Honestly, I don't think the amount of time matters as much as you do... there's just no way that Avala's nomination is going to pass, and I think that was clear when I removed it. A nomination with 12 votes in opposition, which was what I think it had at the time, needs 40 supporters to pass. Only one RfA has ever passed 39 votes. It was not concievable that it was going to pass, no matter how many people had time to vote on it. Clearly there was disagreement with this. I stand by my decision, but I'm not rushing to take it down again, as I said. As for the other... I personally attribute a lot of Avala's seeming hostility to difficulty expressing himself in English. I find that a more sympathetic opinion than that he's a hothead. I think we're reacting to the same set of behaviors here, at least, though attributing different causes to it. Looking at my wording, though, i can see how it could be misinterpreted - I'll clarify. But both of those are neither here nor there, and I don't want this to turn into a lengthy debate on the matter. Feel free to bring it up with me on my talk page or on IRC if you want (And please do - I'm happy to explain myself). I just wanted to note that my approach towards this page regarding Avala's nomination and its removal would in fact be consistent with my approach towards conflict as an administrator, so that, should anyone else find it extremely objectionable, they would be aware and would vote accordingly. :) ] 23:54, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
#::::OK, I think I'm entitled to the last word on my vote. Removing anything of consequence in less than 24 hours keeps even regular editors, who take time to follow the running of Misplaced Pages, out of the loop and denies the user's right to reply to objections.
#::::The other thing is, Avala's English is nowhere near as bad as you claim. I read all his comments on this page carefully. He has problems with articles and tenses, but so do most Slavic speakers. All his text is in fact perfectly understandable, if one reads it carefully. ] 01:08, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
# It is a reluctant opposition and does not reflect any personal feelings I might have toward Snowspinner's past or continuing contributions to the site and project. However, I reviewed the evidence against Avala, and I felt that there were a number of occasions when an appeal to a broader community might have easily forestalled the animosity. Avala's English is not fluent, and he is a citizen of the former Yugoslavia. Consequently, some of his arguments were hampered by the language barrier, but, additionally, many of Snowspinner's misunderstandings were caused by not seeking out other, more fluent, English speakers from the area to help negotiate opinions. After a certain point, it seems like the fight was about the fighting, and not about any particular issue, article, or decision. That it reached such a point without outreach, without seeking the aid of neutral parties, does reflect somewhat poorly on Snowspinner's reactions to a belligerant fellow editor. Finally and ultimately, though, I feel that Snowspinner's time on Misplaced Pages is simply too brief. I say this not because I believe there is a magic number of days or edits, but because the motivation to move to administrator quickly worries me. If one's desire is based upon getting one's will, then it is bad. If one's desire is based upon changing the course of the project, that, too, is bad. If one's desire is to particpate in a social world of admins, then, I feel, the motivation is suspect. Only if the desire is based upon duty and a belief that the project is far more important than any of the project's participants is it appropriate. I do not in any way whatever mean to imply that I believe that Snowspinner's motives are bad. In fact, I think Snowspinner is a reasonable, intelligent, and dilligent contributor to the project who has shown himself of the highest commitment. Instead, I oppose because I feel that it takes a great deal of time as a regular user to show a person's continued perseverance and to establish how such a person will react to others in opposition. I do not think there is enough of a track record. Hoping by all means that I offer no offense and provoke only thought, ] 17:53, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)


'''Neutral'''
#<s>Well, after some consideration, I am compelled to oppose here. I do not often vote in such things, but I am not at all certain I agree with many of this user's views on WP administration, particularly regarding resolution of disputes without recourse to enforced procedure and regulations. Specific examples include Avala's RfAr evidence (which, while not containing any specific objections which would on their own disqualify a user from adminship, exemplifies my general feelings), and an opinion that mediation is not helpful; however, I also have a broad non-specific objection to hir general attitude and opinions in such matters. While adminship should be something bestowed upon anyone willing to enforce the community's decisions, rather than an ability to enforce one's own views, there is at present a certain status associated with adminship and it does result in one's own opinions, however inadvertantly, carrying more weight than a normal user's. I therefore cannot personally support adminship for those whose desired procedures differ so much from my own. ] | ] 00:27, 2004 Jul 29 (UTC)</s> Having considered this further, I am changing my vote to neutral; not because my opinion has changed, but because I do not feel comfortable opposing a nomination on the grounds that I personally disagree with the direction the community is taking. The solution to the exhalted admin status seems to be in having more admins, not less. ] | ] 06:41, 2004 Jul 29 (UTC)
#]] 11:55, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC) For the same reasons as Lysine.

'''Comments'''

A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters, if I care to respond:
:'''1.''' Have you read the section on ]?
::'''A'''. Yes.
:'''2.''' Are you interested in, and do you think you'll have some time to perform, the chores that only sysops have access to do, to help keep Misplaced Pages up to date?
::'''A'''. Yes. Hell, I already do some of those chores. Now I can just speedily delete things myself instead of having to tag them and wait for someone else to do it. :)
:'''3.''' If you become a sysop, which sysop chore or chores (], ], watching for vandals and vandalism, responding to editor requests for assistance, any other) do you especially think you would be able to help with.
::'''A'''. I watch recent changes for vandal updates and either revert or tag them for speedy deletion. I intend to continue this. I track vandalizing users and report them frequently to ViP. I intend to continue this, and also to monitor ViP for reports that need to be dealt with.
:'''4.''' In your opinion, what article have you contributed the most succesfully and helpfully to?
::'''A'''. At the moment, I'm pretty proud of ]. I would be proud of ], but I got distracted before I really finished work on it. Oh, and ] is pretty spiffy, though also in need of expansion. (Yes, I confess, I have a bad habit of writing half of an article before flitting off to some other task. But I really like the halves of articles I write!)
:'''5.''' In your opinion, what has your best contribution to the running and maintenance of Misplaced Pages been? (i.e., have you reverted a bad stretch of vandalism, done extensive work categorizing articles, helped mediate a dispute?)
::'''A'''. ]. It didn't pass, and I'm sympathetic to people who say it needs more work (I intend to put that work in once the vote ends), but I think it's a great start towards a real problem.
:'''6.''' Of your Misplaced Pages edits and experiences thus far, what is your biggest regret? What do you wish you'd done differently?
::'''A'''. ]. I tried to settle a dispute between some users and wound up basically pouring gasoline on the fire, leaving the article still a mess. I should have stayed a bit cooler, and couched my objections in existant Misplaced Pages policies like verifiability. Big learning experience. ] 17:27, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)
:Thanks and good luck! -- ] 17:27, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)

There is one condition for my support. Could you give up of support (he supported you earlier) of ] who called me "cunt", then he said "I will shit on your kings picture" etc. He used abbrevation ZDS of ] movement, the fascist movement. Only thing I ask to give up of him and similar users to show that you are an example of dealing with such users and that you are ready to become an admin. ]|]]] 20:13, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
::For more about Avala and his way of doing things see ].-- ] 02:44, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
:::I never requested comment of ] attacks, for an example when he called me a cunt. ]|]]] 09:40, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
:I am uninterested in doing favors in return for support, for obvious reasons, however, to make clear, I have never supported personal attacks, and, in fact, actively oppose them, including GeneralPatton's attacks to Avala, as well as Avala's hostile responses. Personal attacks are against Misplaced Pages policy, and there is no excuse for them. ] 20:21, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)

Favor? I just wanted to make things clear. I will be neutral for the next few days to see the situation and then I will decide. ]|]]] 20:26, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
:Maybe it's none of my business, but I'm curious since you announced it: What does "to see the situation" mean? Is it basically, "I like to follow the pack -- so if there's a consensus, that's how I'll vote"? ] 06:20, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

For everybody's reference, the previous (failed) RfA can be found at . ] 22:30, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)

==Self nominations for ]==

:'''Self-nominators, please review''' the qualifications above. Many editors feel that self-nominees should "exceed the usual guidelines by a good measure," have an account name that is ''many'' months old and have ''many'' hundreds of edits. This is not to say that self-nominators are necessarily any less qualified than "sponsored" nominations; however, many editors use their knowledge of the nominator as a "jumping off" point for considering nominees, and it is human nature to be more skeptical of those asking for a position than those being proposed by others. If you self-nominate, a good solid background is therefore very important.



==Requests for ]==

*Request by ] moved to ].

''Please add new requests at the top of this section (and again, please update the headers when voting)''

==Other requests==
*]
*]
*Requests for self-de-adminship on any project can be made at ].
*Requests to mark a user as a bot can be made at ] following consensus at ] that the bot should be allowed to run.
*] on ]

]
]
]
]
]
]
]

Latest revision as of 17:38, 25 December 2024

Process of the Misplaced Pages community

"WP:RFA" redirects here. You may be looking for Misplaced Pages:Requested articles, Misplaced Pages:Requests for administrator attention, Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests, or requests for assistance at Misplaced Pages:Help desk. Note: Although this page is under extended confirmed protection, non-extended confirmed editors may still comment on individual requests, which are located on subpages of this page.
↓↓Skip to current nominations for adminship
Advice, administrator elections (AdE), requests for adminship (RfA), bureaucratship (RfB), and past request archives
Administrators
Bureaucrats
AdE/RfX participants
History & statistics
Useful pages
Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.
Policies on civility and personal attacks apply here. Editors may not make accusations about personal behavior without evidence. Uninvolved administrators and bureaucrats are encouraged to enforce conduct policies and guidelines, including—when necessary—with blocks.
Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)
Current time is 19:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC). — Purge this page
Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)
Current time is 19:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC). — Purge this page Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

About administrators

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

About RfA

Recent RfA, RfBs, and admin elections (update)
Candidate Type Result Date of close Tally
S O N %
Sennecaster RfA Successful 25 Dec 2024 230 0 0 100
Hog Farm RfA Successful 22 Dec 2024 179 14 12 93
Graham87 RRfA Withdrawn by candidate 20 Nov 2024 119 145 11 45
Worm That Turned RfA Successful 18 Nov 2024 275 5 9 98
Voorts RfA Successful 8 Nov 2024 156 15 4 91

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

Nomination standards

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

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

Nominations

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

Notice of RfA

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

Expressing opinions

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion, decision, and closing procedures

For more information, see: Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats § Promotions and RfX closures.

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

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

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

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

Monitors

Shortcut

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

Current nominations for adminship

Current time is 19:53:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Purge page cache if nominations have not updated.

There are no current nominations.

About RfB

"WP:RFB" redirects here. For bot requests, see Misplaced Pages:Bot requests. For help with referencing, see Misplaced Pages:Referencing for beginners.

Shortcut

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Current nominations for bureaucratship

There are no current nominations.

Related pages

For RfX participants

History and statistics

Removal of adminship

Noticeboards

Permissions

Footnotes

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