Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:43, 16 April 2006

Policies on civility and personal attacks apply here. Editors may not make accusations about personal behavior without evidence. Uninvolved administrators and bureaucrats are encouraged to enforce conduct policies and guidelines, including—when necessary—with blocks.

• WP:RFA
• WP:RFX

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

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

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

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

About administrators

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

About RfA

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

Nomination standards

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

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

Nominations

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

Notice of RfA

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

Expressing opinions

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion, decision, and closing procedures

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

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

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

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

Monitors

• WP:MONITOR

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

Current nominations for adminship

Add new requests at the top of this section.

Nominations must be accepted by the user in question. If you nominate a user, leave a message on their talk page and ask them to reply here if they accept the nomination. If you intend to nominate yourself, please take note that while there is no hard and fast requirement for nominating, editors with less than three to six months experience and 1,000–2,000 edits very rarely succeed in becoming admins.

Please remember to update the vote-tallies in the headers when voting.

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

Rockero

Final (52/15/10) ended 01:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Rockero (talk · contribs) – Rockero has been an active editor for six months with over 4300 edits. He has improved the content and neutrality of articles particularly concerning the Southwest U.S., Mexico, and Hispanic topics. In addition he has created new articles, spotted and repaired vandalism, worked on a range of categorization and template efforts, and helped create a new wikiproject. During this time he has followed important Misplaced Pages policies and norms, and interacted with other editors in a collegial manner. He has been recognized by the community with appreciations, DYKs, and barnstars. Altogether he has shown that he is a valuable and trustworthy editor who is committed to the success of this project, involved in its procedures, and who is willing to perform a variety of functions. On account of all these factors, I believe he ought to be an administrator. -Will Beback 06:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. --Rockero 00:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Full Support Excellent editor. Very helpful and active in the community and WikiProjects. Always supportive and able to resolve differencies peacefully. Joelito 00:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
2. Support. Great work so far! DarthVader 02:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
3. Support - Richardcavell 02:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
4. Support Looks good. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 05:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
5. Support - I guess I should get my name in here too. -Will Beback 05:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
6. Support A good editor. --Siva1979 14:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
7. Support, el Misplaced Pages requiro mas de adminstratores mexicanos. JIP | Talk 14:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
8. Support good editor --rogerd 15:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
9. Support good editor. Some AfD activity wouldn't hurt though. --Tone 15:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
10. Support --Jay(Reply) 17:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
11. Support Wow. The oppose votes make absolutely no sense. Why has no one commented on this? KI 18:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
12. Support per KI. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 19:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
13. Support, like KI, I'm concerned at the trivial arguments being used against someone who seems to me to be a good wikipedian and quality editor. Bucketsofg 20:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
14. Support. Well, I dunno, I trust this guy... Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 02:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
15. Support Would make a great administrator. Funnybunny 02:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
16. I support you.--Adam 03:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
17. Support, seems good. Kusma (討論) 04:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
18. Support--Jusjih 14:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
19. Support Strong, active editor. He shows every sign of being willing to use his powers for good. Give the guy a broom. -CTSWyneken 16:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
20. Support Active, experienced editor. _-M P-_ 18:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
21. Support, excellent choice. --MPerel 21:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
22. Support.  Grue  21:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
23. Support. Editor with good contributions to article space. Seems likely to exercise restraint in use of admin tools. I am troubled by the rationales for many of the oppose votes. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
24. Support: Will Beback does not nominate editors who are not well-qualified. Jonathunder 22:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
25. Support per my criteria. Batmanand | Talk 23:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
26. Wholehearted and unconditional support. I rarely participate in RFAs, and I have probably voted most often to oppose editors that I don't think should be administrators. I've seen User:Rockero do many fine edits on the Southern California topics that are on my watchlist. I can recommend him as an admin unreservedly because I trust his judgement. I am extremely disappointed in some of the oppose votes I see below that show the many of the voters have not really examined Rockero's edits. For all of those who are voting oppose per User:Freakofnurture, they should also be copying his Tentatively oppose. 03:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
27. Support, fine edits on topics not always covered by biased Misplaced Pages, including translations from the Spanish Misplaced Pages on non-Mexican related areas. Mariano(t/c) 05:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
28. Support For one, there is only one admin to every ~1,220 articles and ~1430 users. I.E., they number at less than 0.1% of the total population on Misplaced Pages. I'd say that is too few. At least 0.1% would be adequate. An idea you should apply if deemed necessary- Watch any new admin's actions closely for the first thirty days to make sure they are fit for the job. --Shultz IV 08:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
29. Support Good editor, Shyam 11:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
30. Support Calm person, good editor, thoughtful, started a WikiProject, positive energy Joaquin Murietta 14:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
31. Support WP needs more admins who specialize on a narrow range of topics. Wile E. Heresiarch 19:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
32. His work is specialized because he focuses on what he knows best, and the call for more diversity in his edits is misplaced. An editor who uses editing tools to write what he knows how to write will likely be an administrator who uses admin tools only when he knows what he's doing with them. Which is exactly what we need. --Michael Snow 21:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
33. Support Tim Q. Wells 22:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
34. Support, I had a few misgivings about bias but the answers to the addition questions suffice. SorryGuy 00:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
35. Support Joe I 02:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
36. Support. a positive and constructive editor, unlikely to abuse sysop tools.--cjllw | TALK 02:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
37. Excellent editor and Wikipedian. Rockero, you have my full support. (^'-')^ Covington 02:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
38. Support a good user Jedi6-(need help?) 03:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
39. Support. Whilst there are a number of oppose votes there seems to be no evidence that he will misuse adminship. I'm going to Assume Good Faith. RicDod 09:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
40. Support. Looks like an experienced and positive editor. Thumbs up! —Lesfer 17:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
41. Support. An experienced editor. --HolyRomanEmperor 18:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
42. Support, I had a few doubts with regard to administrative duties, but considering that this user is very active, maintains civility, and the support from other posters whom I respect, I'm going to support.--Jersey Devil 00:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
43. Support. He has been very helpful to me as a fledgling editor, and though his range of topics may appear "narrow", that is a red herring. His treatment of those topics is diplomatic, civil, and fair, and wikipedia could use an administrator with extensive knowledge on those topics. Murcielago 01:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
44. Support, per Michael Snow's excellent analysis above. Some of the reasons to oppose are quite frivolous, IMO - we need more editors dedicated to particular areas of Misplaced Pages, not less. Titoxd 06:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
45. Support good user.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 06:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
46. Support experienced and unlikely to abuse tools. .:.Jareth.:. 07:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
47. Support seems like a nice bloke. Thumbelina 17:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
48. Support Nothing to disqualify. Should make a good administrator. FloNight 19:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
49. Support. This user has my full confidence. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 20:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
50. Support -- I don't think this editor is well-qualified but he seems cool, clear, and extremely able to learn on the job. I think he'll grow into adminship nicely. John Reid 23:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
51. Guettarda 00:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
52. Support, looks good. --Terence Ong 16:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - A little biased. EKN 03:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)EKN

   Could you provide evidence of a bias for the benefit of voters here? Thanks. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

2. Tentatively oppose. Perusal of his edits to article and project namespaces indicates focus on a narrow range of topics. May support in the future, if he makes a reasonable effort to branch out a bit and discover what pages lurk in other corners of the encyclopedia (or maybe if he makes a sincere commitment right now). Maybe one day a week on non-Hispanic topics, establish a rapport with a wider range of editors and administrators. — Apr. 16, '06 <freakofnur_xture|talk>

   You're voting oppose because because he edits too much on Hispanic articles...? What does the subject of the pages he edits have to do with his ability to perform as an administrator? Please explain. KI 18:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

   If I understand Freakofnurture, the concern here is a narrow range of editing, not the focus of that narrow range. JoshuaZ 21:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

   Exactly. Don't play the race card here. If all his edits were related to Martin Scorsese films, for example, I'd oppose just as strongly. And I love Scorsese films. — Apr. 17, '06 <freakofnur_xture|talk>

3. Oppose, per freakofnurture. —Doug Bell 07:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose Orphan pictures, barely active enough in the wikipedia community. Masssiveego 08:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

   Please remember that all pictures used on project, user, or talk pages are listed as orphan pictures on Interiot's tool. --TBC 12:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

   I also fail to see why it matters whether or not someone's pictures are orphaned. Perhaps they outlived their use? Why does this cast down on a candidate for adminship? --Darth Deskana (Darth Talk) 17:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

   I agree that it shouldn't affect an RfA, but unused pictures (and all free pictures, really) should be on Commons, unless they're fair use, but then they can't be orphaned or they're deleted. --Rory096_(block) 17:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

   So, if you upload a picture and someone finds a better one to replace yours in the article you are forever banned from being a sysop? I don't understand. Afonso Silva 21:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

   Pictures that have little use on wikipedia can be put up for deletion by the user in question. It shows the user in question has either wasteful, negligent tendencies, or an inability to understand the pictures process, which means the user cannot be trusted at this time. Please bring this topic up again in Misplaced Pages request for adminship talk page, or leave a message on my talk page. Masssiveego 21:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

5. Oppose - Virtually no participation on WP:RFA, WP:AFD, WP:RFC, has also advertised his adminship on user page (Sounds like more of a peeve I know, but adminship is not a popularity campaign). --Knucmo2 13:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

   The lack of participation is a valid point, but having a message on his user page regarding his RFA is not. Many users encourage this. Users who interact negatively with potential admins and see the link to the RFA — Preceding unsigned comment added by KI (talk • contribs)

   The point is valid. From What RfA contributors look for and hope not to see: "Advertising" your RfA: Some editors do not like to see an RfA "advertised" by the nominee on other people's talk pages or on IRC. RfA is not a political campaign. The intent is to develop consensus. Impartial evaluation of a candidate, not how popular they are, is the goal. --Knucmo2 15:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

   The point is not valid, the quote says "Some editors do not like to see an RfA "advertised" by the nominee on other people's talk pages or on IRC." (emphasis added) There is no mention of one's talk page, and in fact given that often the users who one disagrees with have one's talk page on their watchlist, putting such a notice up is in fact anti-advertisement. JoshuaZ 15:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

   Even so, it doesn't invalidate my vote whatsoever. --Knucmo2 15:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

   I personally see no harm in putting up a message on one's user page. Since users click on a user page to discuss/learn more about a user, a message may attract support as well as oppose votes. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

6. Strong Oppose Darth Vader said to me that I should have 1,500 edits before I should run again. So you should have about 500,000. General Eisenhower 17:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

   Please do provide reasons for opposing. As it stands it looks like a bad faith vote stemming from your failed Rfa. Joelito 17:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

   I read that and figured about the same thing. And no bots have 500000 edits. -- Jjjsixsix /_(c) @ 23:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

   Remember to remain civil. Computerjoe's talk 19:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

   Wow! Now I'm really glad I voted against GE's nom, as if the scolding on my talk page wasn't enough. Does this sort of behaviour represent what Community Justice is all about? I'm also concerned about this Misplaced Pages Supreme Court you claim to be Chief Justice of... Pete.Hurd 19:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

   Nope. This doesn't represent Community Justice. However, this isn't the place to criticise a third-party. Computerjoe's talk 19:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

   I urge you to remove this bad faith vote. It is a pretty shocking interpretation of my comment on your RfA if you are serious about your reason here. DarthVader 03:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

7. Oppose I have concerns regarding their judgment, though my vote is liable to change pending the user's answers to my questions. Cheerio, Oge Naws 21:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
8. Weak oppose. On one side, he seems like a good editor and could be a promising janitor. I am certainly pleased about his diligence (and patience!) on answering so many questions below. On the other hand, I am somewhat concerned about the answer to questions on admin tasks below (1, 3, 4, Tigersharks question 1) below. I feel an editor should have some experience in catting, helping newbies, vandal fighting to begin with. This, perhaps, is the wider range of topics FreakofNurture would also like to see. Also, the fact that you're relatively new, and mainly make a vast number of minor edits makes it harder to read what type of admin you would be. No contributions on WP:AN/I or WP:RFC or similar pages make it harder to assess what type of judgement calls you would make, which are so vital for an admin. Feel free to comment on my vote. The Minister of War 09:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose Not sure that the candidate has made a case for needing the tools. Vandal fighting is mentioned, but doesn't appear to have made any edits to WP:AIAV (I'd like to see some experience here before supporting). Deletion is also mentioned, but I would have preferred to see more than a handful of edits to AfD pages. TigerShark 10:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
10. Weak oppose, definite potential, but need to see more participation and demonstrated understanding in projectspace, per many above. No-one is questioning commitment or motivation, take it all on board and you'll be sweet in a couple of months. Deizio 23:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
11. Oppose. Projectspace is an important aspect, because admins end up making policy.—thames 02:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

    Admins do not make poilicy they just enforce it. The community makes policy. Joelito 04:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

    You're right. However, the gulf between the written policy and the practical implementation based on admin interpretation and consensus is substantial.—thames 17:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

    I agree with you on that. Joelito 17:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

12. Oppose per freakofnurture, not ready yet, nothing personal. --Cyde Weys 02:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
13. Strong Oppose. The promotion to adminship could greatly sway perceptions of the Border Protests which are ongoing in America. His clear biases are self-evident that he could become dangerous when given powers above the average editor. IP Address 08:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

    Please present evidence of his editing bias. Even though the user has clear biases in his personal life his edits clearly show his commitment to NPOV while editing this encyclopedia. Joelito 12:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

    Ah, one of his gracious beneficiaries. You know damned well what I mean! For the record, I explicitly disagree with Will Beback's liberalist false presentation of Rockero. Rockero is an activist locally known from his area and Misplaced Pages is supposed to discourage such behaviour here. That Will Beback follows some rules and thinks it is alright to bypass others in order to press for his perceptions, is a clear example of his NPOV difficulties. I could hardly trust any nomination by him, thereby also extending my lack of consideration for Rockero. IP Address 13:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

    Comment Can you give an example of a POV edit by Rockero or not? And also, please be careful of WP:NPA. JoshuaZ 18:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

14. Oppose per freakofnurture. More time to gain experience will be helpful in this instance. Xoloz 16:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
15. Oppose, no experience in areas where admins need experience. See above oppose votes for where you can gain such experience, and I'm sure you'll make it in a few months (if you don't this time). Proto||type 12:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral Not really pushed to support. No real reason to oppose I guess, but not fully convinced he is qualified. I might change my vote later. Moe ε 01:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

   Neutral pending responses to my questions Switched to oppose TigerShark 05:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

   Neutral but leaning support. The user is involved in a lot of high quality content edits but not enough of the other "policy" parts of Misplaced Pages. Then again, Jimbo himself says that Adminship isn't a "big deal" and in a perfect world every reasonable user with a decent knowledge of policy would have access to Admin tools. So I'm conflicted between these two rationales, but like Moe I might change my vote later seeing how things develop.--Jersey Devil 10:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

   Switched to Support.--Jersey Devil 00:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

2. Neutral but leaning oppose. He's a good editor, with many high quality edits as Jersey Devil said, but I'm a bit concerned about the administrative side of it, particularly his answer to JoshuaZ's fourth question. — FireFox • T
3. Neutral, perhaps later. - Mailer Diablo 14:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

   Neutral pending answers to further questions from JoshuaZ below.--Jusjih 16:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

4. Neutral, answer to question 1 makes me think he doesn't need admin tools much. --Rory096_(block) 18:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC) Now leaning towards oppose per revised answer to 4, BorgHunter 1 and Oge Naws 2. --Rory096_(block) 22:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
5. Neutral not leaning to either. Computerjoe's talk 19:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
6. Neutral leaning towards support. Would be support except for the answer to question 4 which indicates a lack of knowledge about relevant policies. JoshuaZ 21:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC) Now neutral leaning towards oppose. I'm further concerned by the revamped answer to question 4. It appears that the candidate had time to see if there were any relevant policies, and basically knew that his answer was inconsistent with current policy, and yet his revised answer is still far from following policy. Furthermore, his answer to Tigershark's first question and the user's lack of visible vandal fighting (together with his intention to use his admin tools to help fight vandals) makes we worry. However, his contributions are of first class and he clearly has the right intentions, so I don't intend to oppose for now. JoshuaZ 12:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
7. Neutral Tempted to give support simply to offset some of the most unfair and ridiculous reasons for opposition I've ever seen. However, others got there first and my natural inclination here is to be neutral. Not particularly swayed either way. --kingboyk 23:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
8. Neutral leaning support per JoshuaZ and Kingboyk. No real reason to support, however, but less reason to oppose. -- Jjjsixsix /_(c) @ 23:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
9. Neutral leaning to support, looks like a great editor but I have to think about it. Poke me on my talk page if I haven't changed my vote in three days time. --Terence Ong 10:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
10. Neutral Per Moe's comments above. Netkinetic 12:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
11. Neutral not sure Jaranda 03:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• See Rockero's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool and the edit summary usage with Mathbot's tool.

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

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

A: What I'd most like to do is help new users with problems and questions. I'd like to help out with categorization some, and I can help with reversion of vandalism, article deletion, and wherever else I am needed. Now that I have discovered Misplaced Pages:Backlog, I can keep my eye on it and help out there.

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

A: I think I did well on Estela Ruiz, if I do say so myself. By the time I wrote it, I had enough wiki-experience to include notes and references, so it represents my first article as a well-versed editor. Although Huei tlamahuiçoltica... was one of my first articles, it is still one of my favorites. And I think I did a good job of mediating disputes between rival editors at Save Our State, which has been stable for quite some time now. I am proud of the leadership role I had taken on at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Mexican-Americans/Chicanos and the efforts the team has made to expand information about this under-covered topic on Misplaced Pages.

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

A: The only real conflict I have been involved in was with User:69.163.64.163 (and User:70.35.25.53, who may have been the same person) over the content of Onterio Varrio Sur. That was the one time I became frustrated. After numerous attempts at dialogue, I ended up listing the article at WP:3O. The conflict is ongoing, but I have not been heavily involved in it. Aside from this, there have been several times when I have been accused of being everything from a "Aztlan fanatic" (Talk:Bronze race) to a "Mecha member" (Talk:Reconquista (Mexico)), usually by unregistered or very new users. There are probably more examples out there. I can only assume that these editors misinterpret my zeal to provide information about an under-represented group on Misplaced Pages as political or ideological zeal, but I cannot speak for them. (In fact, I would prefer to not even speak for myself, but rather to allow my edits here to speak for themselves.) Despite these conflicts, I have not involved in any edit wars and have always let personal attacks slide. I hope to continue to responding in a cool-headed fashion and to use blocking privileges sparingly if at all. I will also consult with other editors and admins for advice as new situations arise.

Questions from JoshuaZ

1. Please discuss a bit more your work with Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Mexican-Americans/Chicanos.

A: As a member of the Wikiproject, I filled in the project page after it was created by User:Joaquin Murietta and have participated in discussions about what direction the project should take. I have formatted and expanded articles falling under the project's purview, and created several new ones. I have attempted to encourage the participation of other project members by recognizing their contributions.

2 Are there any admin powers that you would like to give to all users? Why or why not?

A: It doesn't seem to me that granting all users admin privileges would be particularly beneficial to the wikipedia. If the purpose of this question is to assess whether I take this adminship seriously, the answer is yes, I do.

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

A: If I had any fantastic ideas about how to improve WP, I would propose them in the appropriate places. I have my criticisms, but don't we all?

4 Under what circumstances will you indefinitely block a user without any prior direction from Arb Com?

A: None. I said "none" because at this point I wouldn't feel comfortable blocking anybody. Not until I get in the trenches and learn a little more. Now that I have done a little bit of reading (although much more remains to be done), I suppose I would indefinitely block in cases of gross violation of NPA without direction from ArbCom. It's sort of the same reason I have mostly Hispanic articles--just a comfort level. As I learn more, I become more comfortable. That is, I won't access admin powers I don't feel comfortable using. If the community dares entrust me with a mop and broom of my own. (updated 02:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC))

Further questions from JoshuaZ

5 What would you say to concerns that your editing has been in a narrow range of articles? JoshuaZ 14:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

A: Well, we write about what we know. I write mostly about Mexican-Americas issues because that's my field of expertise IRL, because there is a need for it, and because many of the articles on that topic are inaccurate or otherwise lacking. However, I have edited many other articles about which I know nothing for grammar, spelling, formatting, and especially adding categories. I have also created articles outside of my "narrow range" to quicken redlinks, chimed in on talkpage debates, and helped out other WikiProjects. If I haven't deviated greatly from my preferred topic, it is because there remains so much work to do there.

6 What would you say to concerns that you have strong biases about a variety of Mexico related topics? JoshuaZ 14:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

A: I'd like someone to point out an example of when I have demonstrated a bias. True, I work mostly on Mexican- and Mexican-American articles, but I also strive to adhere to the NPOV policy. I do not whitewash the history about which I write. The example that comes to mind is my biography of Rodolfo Gonzales. The violence in Denver is not mentioned in any of the biographies on him, which leads to a more heroic image for the man. But I included all the information I found in my research, even though it impacts the image of a man many in the community venerate as a hero. My bias, if I have one, is toward accuracy and good writing. I think it is unfair to accuse me of bias without providing an example or an explanation. (It gives nothing specific to respond to and leaves me with this label of "biased" and no way to shake it).

Questions from TigerShark

1 Why would you be a good administrator?

A: I don't know if I'd be the best administrator. As I mention on my userpage, my focus is on content-generation. And as some have noted, I am not that involved in th "Misplaced Pages community" (Misplaced Pages and Misplaced Pages talk namespaces), which is what is expected of sysops. What I do know is that I want to help this project, and that I can follow rules and be fair about applying them. If the community feels that granting me sysop tools will be beneficial to the project, then I will do my best to use them for that purpose. If I find they don't help or I'm in over my head, I'll renounce them.

2 You recently reverted content here. Could you please explain why this was definitely "nonsense" (I genuinely do not know enough the about the subject to verify this), and give your thoughts on the suitability of that edit summary in this instance?

A: Where do I begin? This is one of the many articles I have on my watchlist that is in need of rewriting, verification, and some purging. Like most of what I have on my watchlist, I'd like to improve the quality of this article at some point, but for now I keep my eye on it for vandalism, which tends to be racist. When I read the latest edit, the first sentence seemed like it might provide some good information, but what followed was just racist stereotyping. Calling the names Jaquanda and Deshaun "ghetto" is utterly racist, and the statement "another term for this ehavior is 'keepin it real.'" is just nonsense. Does it purport that "keepin' it real' is another term for this stereotypical behavior? And what relation, if any is there to the word "homie"? As to the question of whether there is racist stereotyping associated with the word "homie", the answer is probably yes. But simply reproducing those stereotypes is not the best way to go about it. Upon reflection, I probably should have asked the anonymous contributor to provide some verifiable source for the claim. Or maybe I should have copied the addition to the talkpage. But as the article is in need of revision anyway, I didn't see much harm in simply removing the addition. Can we really fish every worthy idea from every contribution and appropriately adapt it to the structure of an existing article so that it still makes sense and reads like an encyclopedia? Ideally, yes, and when contributions are helpful, that's precisely what I try to do. But in all practicality, it's just not possible with every contribution. I beg your pardon if I was rash, but I really don't have the time to be that meticulous. I find it better spent doing comprehensive improvements on single articles at a time and monitoring others for vandalism and other new changes.

Hi Rockero. Thanks for the answers. I have to admit that I made a bit of a mistake here as I only saw the AC/DC to Metallica change and completely missed the rest of the content that you reverted (that'll teach me to edit so early in the morning) :) I hope that makes a bit more sense of why I raised it. Anyway, thanks for the balanced answer to what must have seemed a slightly strange question. I am going to stay neutral for the time being, just while I give your nomination a bit more consideration. Cheers TigerShark 11:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you serious? "associated with wearing lots of cheap, gaudy jewelry bling bling" can it get any more subjective.... this revert wasn't even worth the question and so obvious i would even start to believe.....nahSlicky 01:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Slicky. Please see the explaination I originally posted above. Cheers TigerShark 10:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Oge Naws

1 In your opinion do personal attacks including civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, be construed as personal attacks or is a statement regarding the actions of the user not a statement about the user? Cheerio, Oge Naws 21:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

A: Remarks about an editor's behavior written in a civil tone should not be considered personal attacks. Of course, there is not always a clear line between remarks about a person and those about a person's behavior. More than just the words used must be taken into consideration, including the context in which they were used, the situation leading up to their use, and concerns about sensitivity towards others.

2 Expanding on question 1, how much of a difference, if any, do you see between a user stating "You are a troll" and "You are acting like a troll" and how would you demonstrate this in your decision to block? Cheerio, Oge Naws 21:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

A: The example given is a case in point. Accusing someone of being a troll is not much different from accusing someone of behaving like a troll, since a troll is defined only by their actions. In either case, I think the simple use of the word "You" gives both statements an accusatory tone, which is not the most civil tone to use. As in marriage counseling and conflict management, "I" statements are to be preferred. Credit should be given to users for attempting to refrain from attacks and remaining civil, but when there are multiple indications that an editor has acted in bad faith or maliciously, they will weigh more heavily in blocking decisions than the aforementioned attempts.

Questions from :IO

1 Are you quick to delete articles, revert sections without first discussion or giving someone the benefit of the doubt?

Foremost, do you rather delete or revert rather then verify and contribute?

A: I believe I have answered this somewhat in my answer about Tigershark's question about a reversion. I adhere to Misplaced Pages's AGF policy as closely as possible. If there is a way to include anyone's contribution, even if it requires some creativity, I prefer to do so, as it minimizes the chances that the article will be vandalized.

Question from BorgHunter: (This seemed like a pretty important question so I thought I'd drag it here from ny talkpage.)

1 Regarding your answer to Question JoshuaZ-4: Can you define "gross violation"? Also, would you do it to a first-time offender with no block history? I'm also concerned that you say "much more to be done", yet you accepted your RfA...shouldn't admins already be experts at Misplaced Pages?

A Ideally, yes, administrators should be experts. But since policy is always growing and changing, it's virtually impossible to be an 'expert'. I don't exactly know all the policies. I think this is actually an good thing, because I will have to look up everything before taking any action, which will guarantee that everything I do is according to the rules. If I am granted administrative capabilities, does that necessarily mean that I have to start using them immediately? As far as a gross violation of the NPA policy--it seemed like the most important instance in which to use the block. I suppose I'd call a "gross violation" an extremely harsh or a repeated attack. If the attack met these qualifications, I would temporarily block them regardless of whether the user had been blocked before.

Question from American Saga:

1 How would you resolve the following conflict: A new user edits an article which leads to a revert war with a member of the arbitration committee. You think that the new user's edit improves the article. Neither party will yield, compromise or give you any additional information. Do you side with the new user or with the member of the arbitration committee?

A: It depends on the situation, but in theory, I suppose it would depend on the grounds on which I thought the new editors edit was helpful. If it was because of Misplaced Pages policy, I'd favor the new user. If it were some other reason, I'd probably side with the ArbCom member. But somehow I doubt that this situation would come up.

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

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

Petros471

Final (75/12/3) ending 21:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Petros471 (talk · contribs) – Petros has been a diligent contributor who has made excellent contributions, been polite and eager to learn. He has participated in the Esperanza admin coaching program and: I think he is ready and willing to do admin activities. Academic Challenger 23:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Petros471 18:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Support I beat the nom! Computerjoe's talk 18:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
2. Support - should make a good admin, and answers show a decent understanding of responsibilities (or alot of RfA experience ;) ). Ach, only 2nd! |→ Spaully°τ 18:20, 11 April 2006 (GMT)
3. Support from what I've seen, he's quite good.  Grue  18:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
4. Great answers to questions, like what I've seen of this editor. Support ++Lar: t/c 18:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

   Comment- I see Petros471 answered Massiveego's questions and well within the time limit too, by quoting policy back at him (presumably Massiveego is measuring how well people can search policy pages?). For the record I do not expect candidates I support to be available at all times, and would not hold a candidate to a 24 hour turnaround on things. With 800+ admins it is not a 24/7 job. We are all volunteers here after all, things get done, there is coverage and no one admin need give up their entire life. No change in my sentiment of support. ++Lar: t/c 11:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

5. Support. — FireFox • T
6. Support; admin coaching is good sign. Recently saw him in action at a content dispute at WP:RFI and was impressed with what I saw - sure he'll make a good admin if he keeps that up Aquilina 20:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
7. Strong support. I had the opportunity to review Petros's edits as a part of administrator coaching and everything I saw suggests that he is well-suited for the position. I believe he will make a fine administrator. — Knowledge Seeker দ 20:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
8. Support, verily. I associate "good work" with this name. Femto 20:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC) …and am absolutely flabbergasted that I'm quoted on his user page.
9. Support per nom and review of question #2. Seems very willing to help out and able to learn from mistakes. --Elkman - 20:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
10. Strong Support Marvelous, highly trustworthy editor. Xoloz 21:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
11. Strong Support Does good work at RFI, and is an excellent editor overall.--Shanel 21:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
12. Support --Tone 21:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
13. Support Moe ε 21:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
14. support nothing but good expernices with this user, and is alwaays willing to help out Benon 22:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
15. Support. DarthVader 22:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
16. Support. Excellent. Keep up the good work. (^'-')^ Covington 22:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
17. Support. Has proven his loyalty. --SR Bryant 23:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
18. Support From what I've seen, would currently make a good admin with a calm and reasoned approach. Colonel Tom 23:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
19. Support definitely. --Jay(Reply) 00:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
20. Support, Everything seems to be in order. Vulcanstar6 01:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
21. Support, looks good. — Rebelguys2 02:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
22. Support, looks very good. Also reflects well that he turned down his first nomination for a solid reason. That shows real character, or something. —Cuiviénen, Wednesday, 12 April 2006 @ 03:52 (UTC)
23. Support. Looks good.--Adam 03:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
24. Support. How come I've never seen you? Royboycrashfan 03:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
25. Support good candidate --rogerd 04:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
26. Solid support. I've seen this guy around, making good edits. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 05:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
27. Support —Wayward 07:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
28. Support good canidate indeed. SorryGuy 07:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
29. Support He is worthy. Banez 07:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
30. Support, good user. --Terence Ong 08:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
31. Support--Jusjih 15:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
32. Support Keep up the good work! --Siva1979 15:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
33. Support - friendly, helpful and even-handed user. Stringops 16:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
34. Support - Very capable and willing. great partner when reviewing WP:RFI cases. --Zsinj 16:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
35. Support -- But caution that I nearly went neutral due to excessive automatic edit sums. I like to see what I'm buying. John Reid 17:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
36. Support Good editor. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 17:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
37. Support Well rounded. Masssiveego 18:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
38. Support Encountered user a few times in my duties. Keep up the good work! --Syrthiss 19:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
39. Support--Jaranda 20:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
40. Support Fine editor. _-M P-_ 23:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
41. Support --Rory096 02:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
42. Support No problem here! Funnybunny 03:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
43. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 04:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
44. Support Joe I 06:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
45. Support Very good person. J.J.Sagnella 10:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
46. Support - A good choice for administrator. - Richardcavell 11:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
47. Support, gladly. Sango123 (e) 20:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
48. Support because admin-tools are for janitorial work not for writting articles. Eivind 21:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
49. Support Seems to have a good attitude, although might be a bit too policy-bound. I would caution the gentleman to always remember to put product ahead of process, but otherwise he should be fine. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
50. Support, looks good to me. JIP | Talk 05:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
51. Support, no problems here. —BorgHunter (talk) 12:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
52. Support --Alabamaboy 15:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
53. Support: looks like he's ready. Thumbelina 17:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
54. Support StabiloBoss 19:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
55. Support Good watchdog is a good reason. Tyrenius 07:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
56. Support Seems to be a solid candidate to me! TruthCrusader 12:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
57. Support Helpful, good attitude. Veyklevar 12:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
58. Support Would make a good admin. Tangotango 14:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
59. Support MatriX 14:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

    Support --StabiloBoss 15:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

    Comment: Thank you for your support, however I notice you've already given it above, and it only counts once! Cheers, Petros471 15:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

60. Support I reviwed info nad contributions, and I think he should be an admin.--Brendenhull 00:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
61. Support. In examining a sample of his contributions, I see edits well-distributed by topic and by namespace. Good work combatting the proliferation of link spam (don't give up). I see no reason to oppose. — Apr. 16, '06 <freakofnur_xture|talk>
62. Strong support - we can't be having this. He already is one and has been for ages. Suggest delist as joke nom. --Celestianpower 11:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
63. Support - Has the kind of material that admins need. ty 17:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
64. Support. Great answers to the questions, and he seems like he'd use the admin tools very well. We have many registered users, and if some want to concentrate their efforts here on behind-the-scenes work and reverting vandalism, that's fine with me. In general, I do prefer people to use article talk pages more. However, for people who spend much of their time here reverting vandalism, that's not as much of a concern; I'd rather just see a simple revert and a standard warning on a user talk page, and it looks like he's doing that. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 18:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
65. File:Hand with thumbs up.jpg per above —Khoikhoi 19:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
66. Seems good. Bidabadi 21:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
67. Support Great admin candidate. ⇒ SWATJester Aim _Fire! 21:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
68. Support Looks good, no concerns TigerShark 12:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
69. Support Maybe some might feel that you need to do other article edits besides just reversion in order to be a decent admin, and maybe that is true. However, I feel that your article edits have been decent and just. You've done the work needed to be done. Great answers to the questions as well. Thistheman 22:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
70. Support per my criteria. Batmanand | Talk 23:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
71. Support. The nominee's answers to the questions reveal a patient, thoughtful user. --Danaman5 01:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
72. Support For one, there is only one admin to every ~1,220 articles and ~1430 users. I.E., they number at less than 0.1% of the total population on Misplaced Pages. I'd say that is too few. At least 0.1% would be adequate. An idea you should apply if deemed necessary- Watch any new admin's actions closely for the first thirty days to make sure they are fit for the job. --Shultz IV 08:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
73. Support will use the tools well. --Alf 10:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
74. Support Good understanding of using the admin tools according to response to all the questions. Shyam 11:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
75. Weak Support His vandal fighting technique is superb, though lacking in diversity regarding contextual edits within articles. A good facilitator, however, so giving a nod. Netkinetic 12:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose, sorry - you seem like a nice guy, but a quick review of your contributions indicates that pretty much every article edit you've ever made has been reversion. Administrators should actually have a handle on what article editing and creation is about, because that's the most important facet of Misplaced Pages, not vandal-whacking. Proto||type 08:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose candidate does not meet my criteria and I also agree with Proto in regards to type of edits--Looper5920 12:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
3. OpposeDoesn't seem like he's done enough. Jared W!!! | Write to me, why don't you? 13:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose per copyright question, even though offical wiki policy is no legal threats, copyright claims are infact legal threats (take it down or we sue basically), also seems too new. Mike _{(T C)} 20:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

   Copyright claims are specifically excluded from NLT, and for a very good reason. While it wouldn't be illegal, senso stricto, for WP to block users for making a claim to which they had a legal right, courts would look on such practice with profound disfavor should any litigation over WP's copyright policy arise. Candidate's answer is absolutely correct, and the policy should not be misunderstood. Xoloz 21:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

   I agree with Xoloz. A copyright claim is not a legal threat.--Alabamaboy 15:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

5. Oppose very few content edits to articles (for an admin). That's what we're ultimately about. Derex 21:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

   "Good writers" and "good admins", for the most part, are different sets of people. — Apr. 16, '06 <freakofnur_xture|talk>

6. Oppose Fad (ix) 20:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

   To help me know how to improve, would you be kind enough to say why you voted this way? Petros471 20:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

7. Oppose. Very low talk namespace edits. Aucaman 06:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose. Doesn't meet my standards for admin, plus as I state in my standards, vandal fighting alone doesn't provide the perspective necessary for deleting articles and resolving disputes. —Doug Bell 08:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
9. STRONGLY OPPOSE. Vanalism is an intrinsic problem of wikipedias technology, as far as existant. However article editing and contribution is something a bot cannot do, and what this is all about. Admins who constantly revert or fight vandalism tend to snap at some point and start deleting articles away like nothing, before even discussing. This does not concern any of my articles, as anyone is welcome to verify, but those of others which ultimately concerns me, as any missing article is some missing spot of knowledge in others, and apparently 90% of the internet users are incapable of proper searchingSlicky 01:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
10. Oppose until more substantive contributions —Quarl 2006-04-17 11:08Z
11. Oppose Poor judgement. --Mais oui! 22:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
12. Oppose. Being an admin is more than vandalfighting. Experience with conflict resolution and Misplaced Pages space policy issues is important.—thames 02:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral tho I don't like being neutral, there's an interesting trade-off with this user between being a good watchdog but a limited encylopedia builder. I agree with Proto's comments on reversions being the overwhelming majority of article edits but I do appreciate the other good work and a watchdog specialist admin isn't necessarily a bad thing which leads me to a neutral position. MLA 09:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
2. Neutral I'd like to see some more work in the mainspace. joturner 03:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
3. Neutral would like more content edits and article authorship. Phr 23:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• See Petros471's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool and the edit summary usage with Mathbot's tool.
• You can view my first (declined) RfA nomination. I totally see that (declining) was the right thing to do then, as I certainly didn't have enough experience to know how to react to every situation that might have been thrown at me as an admin. The extra time since then has seen me encounter a much wider range of people and events (as shown by my talk archives), so I now feel much more confident in being able to deal with the responsibilities of having the admin powers. That doesn't mean that haven't got more to learn, but that's always the case for all of us! Petros471 17:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Short answer: Continuing to work on WP:RFI, being able to deal with reports on WP:AIV, help with WP:AFD, deal with entries in Category:Candidates_for_speedy_deletion, history merges, reverting vandalism, blocking vandals, semi-protecting/protecting pages under heavy attack, unprotecting pages where the previous problem has gone away and responding to general calls for help.

Long answer: To give more detail on when and how I would imagine myself using the admin tools (and the use of them is why I want to become an admin) I've gone through the features at WP:ADMIN, and given my reasoning.

• Protected pages: Whilst on RC patrol, or if alerted by another editor, I would semiprotect pages under heavy vandalism. This would probably be for short periods- for example if one article was under attack heavy by multiple IPs/new usernames I would apply semi protection. This allows blocks to be applied, without constant reverting of the article (which clutters the page history, and useful edits probably wouldn't get through the constant vandalism/reverting anyway).

• Deletion and undeletion: I would probably start on the obvious speedy deletes. Of all the articles I've tagged for speedy only one was not deleted (a userpage not created by the user that only contained vandalism. Durin thought it was best to let the user decide if it should be deleted.) If I had any doubt over a possible speedy I would discuss with another admin, PROD or AfD as appropriate. Later I would probably help out with AfD closeout, however I would watch AfD for a bit longer first (except maybe in the most obvious of cases).

• Reverting: Very useful! I know there are scripts out there- but I never got godmode light to work. Pop-ups is great but still not the 'real thing' with reduced server load/increased speed etc. As a believer in good edit summaries I would only use rollback for vandalism.

• Enforcement of Arbitration Committee rulings: I guess if I come across someone violating a ruling I could issue the appropriate block or ordered sanction, however I can't imagine myself getting involved in this.

• Hiding vandalism from recent changes: Not sure I'd use this.

• Block and unblock: Blocking vandals would be very handy- despite the large number of admins around it still can take a while to grab the attention of one. I've seen reports on WP:AIV for hours (sometimes) without action, or had to pester admins on IRC. This is obviously one of the admin powers that can cause great harm if misused, therefore I will be sure to seek advice in non-blatant cases, and see blocking (and the threat of blocking) as a last resort.

• Design and wording of the interface: Can't imagine doing this.

• Other: I might carry out protected moves if needed (and it was clear that there was consensus to do so). I would probably pick a few pages from Special:Unwatchedpages, however my watchlist is already long so I would be careful to only select ones I was serious in watching to keep it manageable. Viewing the history of deleted pages would be useful in some cases reported to WP:RFI. I also recently came across a copy and paste more, where two article's history needed merging- something that I would be able to fix myself if I was an admin.

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

A: Compared with many editors on this site, I am not a prolific article contributor. I am requesting to be an admin because I believe the tools provided will be very useful in the sort of work I do on Misplaced Pages. I can't imagine my article contributions greatly increasing in the short-term, as I don't think that is where my skills are- I am more able to provide 'support services' to other editors, to allow them to get on with the job of writing an encyclopedia, and preserve their writing from being destroyed. However I have done some article work. In terms of expansion I have taken Environmental chemistry out of article stub status, although there are now section stubs, which I indent to keep working on. I have done some external links cleanup (for example see I Ching), and other general cleanup.

As for other contributions that have particularly pleased me, it is hard to point to specific ones. Any time that I managed to prevent some obscene vandalism being presented to a unsuspecting site viewer, found and removed sneaky vandalism, that a vandal stops after a warning (or better, when someone has been warned and then makes useful contributions). Any time something I do gets a 'thank you', when I've moved something forward, or made someone feel like Misplaced Pages is a place to stay and make useful contributions. They are all things that please me!

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

A:There are two things that caused me any stress. The first was when I was pretty new here, I added a link to my own external website on the article Dragon Age. This got me into a conflict with User:Toonstruck (see Talk:Dragon Age, User_talk:Petros471/Archive1#Dragon_Age_stuff, and User talk:Toonstruck). Whilst I later realised adding my own site was wrong (and why!), I was accused of things that I didn't do (such as removing other 'rival' links). This made me realise from first hand experience the importance of WP:AGF and WP:BITE.

The second was the whole 'Dreamguy/Elonka' dispute. I don't really think it is appropriate to go into details here, so I will point you towards this, this and subsequent sections in that talk archive. That whole incident did teach me a lot, including how I think a good admin responds.

The first incident (DA link) was dealt with by use of talk pages, and by seeking outside advice (from User:Evilphoenix, found via WP:MEDCAB - note that page wasn't in its current form then, I used IRC). Understanding where the other editor came from, as well as checking that I was(n't) in line with policy/guidelines helped a lot in getting rid of my stress in that case. It also had a nice outcome as I helped the other editor with some editing questions (like use of talk pages/signature), so I don't think he could have been too mad at me :)

As for the second incident, the main cause of stress was seeing a good faith attempt at trying to help being 'blasted'. That made be realise that not everyone wants help. Therefore I now only try to help people that have clearly asked for it, or where it would appear to be appropriate (for example helping a newcomer fix a mistake that they made because they haven’t had the chance to read all the volumes of help/guidelines/policies). At the time I responded as I thought was appropriate, and then after watching the situation develop to a point where I could be of no further assistance I removed the related pages off my watchlist and stopped worrying about it.

In general I don't really get that stressed by things. Understanding where a user is coming from always helps, as does assuming good faith (if at all possible, and sometimes even beyond), always doing my best to stay civil/make no personal attacks, following the WP:1RR for cases that aren't simple vandalism etc. If it came to it I could always go on Wikibreak, but usually removing pages off my watchlist is the best thing to do if a discussion is getting pointless. Vandal attacks, and the usual run of things aren’t really a problem (hey if they want to vandalise my user/talk pages I'd rather they be wasting their time doing that than be doing the same thing to other users, who may not feel the same way!)

I hope these answers have helped you, feel free to ask any further questions, or ask for clarification! Petros471 18:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Question from Masssiveego 05:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

For notice, and answer within 24 hours.

1. Are copyright claims legal threats?

No. To quote the official policy Misplaced Pages:No legal threats: "NOTE: "No legal threats" does not mean, of course, that claims of copyright infringement are not to be made. If you are the owner of copyrighted material which is on Misplaced Pages, a clear statement about whether it is licensed for such use is welcome and appropriate. Copyrighted material not licensed for Misplaced Pages (with very limited fair-use exception) is not welcome on Misplaced Pages.". Petros471 11:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

2. Are sockpuppets banned?

It is important to note that a ban is not the same as a block. To answer the question- no there is not a blanket ban on sockpuppets- only the abuse of sockpuppets. The sock puppetry policy makes this clear, however use of multiple accounts is generally discouraged. Sockpuppets may be banned by the Arbitration Committee, or certain others. This is likely to happen when proven sockpuppets continually cause disruption and abuse editing privileges. Petros471 11:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

3. What is a vanity article?

The vanity guidelines do a good job of describing vanity articles as vanity information presented in the form of an entire "any information that was placed in any Misplaced Pages article that might create an apparent conflict of interest, meaning any material that presents the appearance of being intended to in any way promote the personal notoriety of the author, or one of the close family members or associates of the author"

Vanity articles are generally ones where the author of the article is either the subject of the article or closely associated with them. This can also apply to companies/bands/inventions etc. A clear example would be something along the lines of: "Subject is a well known student at school name who enjoys playing football", where the author of the article is either the subject or a friend of the subject. These are easy to spot as they are not verifiable, and do not meet notability guidelines, such as WP:BIO. More complicated cases can happen when the subject of the article is more notable. In these cases it would be better to politely advise the author of the importance of WP:NPOV (and related policies), and therefore it might not be appropriate for them to edit that article, but rather give suggestions on the talk page. Petros471 11:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Siva1979

Final (33/21/17) ending 22:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Siva1979 (talk · contribs)-- Siva has been here for quite some time and has managed to rake up over 4000+ 6000+ edits! It's surprising. Not only that, he also participates in SGpedians' Notice Board actively. He also has contributed a lot to football related articles. A good editor and an asset to Misplaced Pages!--Tdxiang 陈 鼎 翔 Contributions Chat with Tdxiang on IRC!SGpedians' notice board 09:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Tweak in edit number by LV 17:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I humbly accept this nomination. --Siva1979 15:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. Seems level-headed, knowledgeable of Misplaced Pages, and unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Elkman - 15:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
2. Support. My only dealings with Siva were surrounding the 1911 Britannica import, and the fact that he (unprompted) has acknowledged where he went wrong gives me no reason not to support. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 16:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
3. Support Little new still, but level-headed and thorough. His mophood will benefit Misplaced Pages. Xoloz 17:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
4. Support very good editor, even if new. - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 17:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
5. Support Three months is enough experience for me, especially with a good candidate like this one. good luck.--Alhutch 18:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
6. Support seems good.  Grue  18:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
7. Support --Jay(Reply) 22:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
8. Support. DarthVader 22:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
9. Support. have seen this editor around. --Andy123(talk) 22:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
10. I'll support ya- interested in the project, the added tools will be good for this editor.--Adam 03:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
11. Support good candidate --rogerd 04:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
12. Support. Three months is sufficient for me. Editor seems to make up for lack of talk page edits with user talk page edits. Everything looks fine to me. Pepsidrinka 12:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
13. Support CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 17:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
14. Support _-M P-_ 23:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
15. Support, good editor. I think he's quite levelheaded. Sure, he should probably talk page a bit more, but agree as above he user talk pages quite a bit. I see no problem -- Samir (the scope) 02:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
16. "Adminship is no big deal" - Mailer Diablo 04:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
17. Cabal support as nom!-- 陈鼎翔 贡献 Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 09:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
18. Strong Support - Siva1979 is operating as an admin should, with deep involvement in the wikipedia namespace. - Richardcavell 11:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
19. Weak Support no big deal. Eivind 21:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
20. Strong Support I leave no comment. What this member did speaks for itself. Ω Anonymous anonymous Ψ: ''Have A Nice Day'' 00:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
21. Support, adminship is no big deal. --Terence Ong 03:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
22. Support, judging by his contribs, a unique editor and wikipedian who can bring a lot to the table.--The ikiroid (talk parler hablar paroli 说 話し parlar) 14:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
23. Support, he helps wikipedia.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 22:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
24. Support, seems very helpful.Crew29 13:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
25. Super-strong support Should make an excellent administrator. Well done! Kilo-Lima| 15:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
26. Support I don't have any 'x months, y edits' criteria. Candidate seems exceptionally nice and helpful in every instance I've seen, I think there's evidence they'd make a good janitor. --W.marsh 18:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
27. Support - Likes to tidy up and has been in involved with Adminship and VFD. --Knucmo2 11:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
28. Support My only experience with the user is very positive. Managed to make a controversial point diplomatically. Gotta respect that and the desire to clean up vandalism. -CTSWyneken 18:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
29. Support per my criteria. Batmanand | Talk 23:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
30. Support For one, there is only one admin to every ~1,220 articles and ~1430 users. I.E., they number at less than 0.1% of the total population on Misplaced Pages. I'd say that is too few. At least 0.1% would be adequate. An idea you should apply if deemed necessary- Watch any new admin's actions closely for the first thirty days to make sure they are fit for the job. --Shultz IV 08:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
31. Support. He is a very good editor. Carioca 14:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
32. Support. Looks good. -- No Guru 15:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
33. Support. Helpful user, good editor. —Lesfer 17:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Some experience only comes with time. --NormanEinstein 17:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

   Decent editor, but with only 53 total talk page edits across all talk namespaces, communtiy interaction is just too low at this time. Sorry, but oppose. --LV 17:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC) Moron... only over 2000 in user talk. Think before you type, I-Who-Should-Not-Be-Named.

   • after reviewing the history, it appears LV made that comment to himself...riiiight. Vulcanstar6 01:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
     • That is irrelevant. Going by NPA, LV has no more right to insult himself than he has to abuse others. Tintin (talk) 07:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
       • There is such a thing as following the spirit of the policy rather than the letter... --Darth Revert (talk) 14:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose. Too soon, with not enough evidence of experience. Edit count isn't everything. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose. I like the feel of Siva. There is a sense of dedication to duty, and a willingness to do routine tasks, such as posting many "welcome" templates. However, there is a sense of wanting to attempt beyond ability in order achieve, as is evident from edits and talk page responses, for example the following:Hi Siva1979, thanks for your series about German towns. But may I say that the material from that old encyclopedia is, most of the time, so outdated that it's really of not much use. I think it generally would take no less time cleaning up one of those articles than translating one from de.wikipedia afresh (I tried once in the case of Frankenhausen.) You might want to consider if it wouldn't perhaps be more efficient to simply list the topics under "requested articles", and wait for someone to come along and work from the German? Lukas (T.|@) 11:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC) The use of old encyclopaedic material has been brought to Siva's attention before that. I think there is a little more learning and understanding that needs to take place, and I hope that Siva will persist, take on board the advice, because I believe he has good intentions, but is not yet ready. Tyrenius 00:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose Per above. Masssiveego 05:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose Too new to wikipedia. High edit count doesn't do it for me and this is a good case of why, very narrowly focussed edit counts and a lot of procedural edits (welcoming) as well as the creation of large numbers of stubs including some that I believe should be redirects (Leyton-Wingate F.C.) as well as edit count inflation on a couple of articles by doing many similar things one at a time. Not really noticed the importance of this user on AfD. Also the comment on thanklessness below suggests room for development in the field of community awareness (Misplaced Pages:Esperanza). MLA 09:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose: too new, and not much interaction on article talk pages yet to see colaboration. Give it time. Jonathunder 12:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose, moved from neutral. The Major League Handball AfD below tips the balance for me. Apparently there are several AfDs where there is doubt on whether Siva1979 actually read the article; in this one, he seems to have voted just on the title. Kusma (討論) 16:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose -- May be good admin material in time; I hope you'll take positive criticism to heart. John Reid 17:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose right now. Still too new, and the AfD/apparently not reading the article issue isn't encouraging, though I've noticed Siva1979 addressed it below and admitted to oversight. I think in another 6 months if Siva1979 continues to do good editing another RfA nom would be in order.--Isotope23 18:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
10. Oppose as above Pete.Hurd 05:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
11. Oppose, sorry. Too new, and pledging to 'pay attention from now on' is never a good sign. His heart is in the right place, but needs a little bit more seasoning. Proto||type 15:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
12. Oppose Fad (ix) 20:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
13. Oppose. Keep this up, and I will support your nomination in a few months time. (^'-')^ Covington 04:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
14. Oppose. Looking through your contributions to article space, I see football, football, football F.C., and more football. I was going to vote neutral, with a recommendation to explore other topical areas where your presence as an admin might forseeably be requested, but seeing the Major League Handball AfD puts a major hook in me. That just screams of knee-jerk "keep, it exists" inclusionism, and I cannot support this candidate with any semblance of good faith. Please accept this as constructive criticism. The suggestion of checking out the rest of this web site still stands. — Apr. 16, '06 <freakofnur_xture|talk>
15. Weak oppose. A little on the new side, although not enough in and of itself for an oppose. However, after looking at this and thinking about it for a couple days, the reasons given in previous oppose votes tip the balance for me. —Doug Bell 09:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
16. Oppose per freakofnurture and Doug Bell. Mackensen (talk) 14:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
17. Oppose Back in February Siva was active at WP:MEA he created a number of stubs the Misplaced Pages:1911 Encyclopedia topics list. This was great except sometimes the info from Britannica and especially from this version, is quite out of date and occasionally racist. A few examples of the articles he created: Conibos, Malleco, Pagri, Flumini Maggiore, Fonsagrada. Conibos, is a particular problem which states "They have since been converted and are now a peaceful people". I like Siva and appreciate his contributions but I don't think poor articles like these should be created for the completions sake. To be fair he wikified and properly stubbified the articles, but there was no other effort to expand information other than what was in Britannica. I wouldn't expect these kind of contributions from a more experienced editor. Check the new non-football articles from and Wait a few months and continue with your other excellent contributions and I will support you--Reflex Reaction (talk)• 22:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
18. Oppose. Too new, only three months as a Misplaced Pages editor. *drew 03:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
19. Oppose: Too new. --cj | talk 09:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
20. Oppose, enjoy editing wikipeia for some more time. Shyam 10:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
21. Oppose: 4000 of the 6000 edits mentioned above seem to be welcome msgs. Regardless, has good potential to reupp in say 6-9 months perhaps. Netkinetic 12:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Correction - About 1900 of my 6000 edits are welcome messages. --Siva1979 15:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral No reason to oppose. Great and valuable contributor on Misplaced Pages but a little too new for my standards. I can't vote support knowing that he's only been here since January. Moe ε 16:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
2. Neutral leaning support another month would be great. Computerjoe's talk 16:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
3. Neutral, leaning to oppose. A bit too new. Too few (21) talk page edits. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 16:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
4. Gimme some time to think. Voted changed from above. --LV 17:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
5. Neutral would support, but a bit new, and this combined with a noticeable drop in article edits, which should always be the focus, makes me want a bit more time (unless he/she is using show preview a lot) CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 18:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

   Moved to oppose:

   Neutral for now, still thinking. On one hand, Siva1979 is one of the nicest editors around, always supportive and he responded well (in the end) to criticism regarding his 1911 articles. On the other hand, I would like to see more useful contributions at AfD -- Siva's are almost always plain votes "delete per someone above", "keep per someone above" and almost never bring any research or real discussion. One particular AfD here makes me believe Siva sometimes votes based on other votes alone instead of on the article, which is worse than useless at AfD. Kusma (討論) 18:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

6. Neutral I greatly appreciate the fact that he supported on my own RfA and has made useful contributions to the project and is a very nice guy but his lack of time here and inexperience in certain namespaces prevent me from supporting. Gizza 22:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
7. Neutral leaning very weak oppose per Kimchi.sg. NSLE _(T+C) at 00:45 UTC (2006-04-12)
8. Neutral, leaning towards oppose. I'm not always sure that he completely thinks through AfDs all the time, per Kusma and Blnguyen's examples. If he's been called an "inclusionist," that's fine, but I'd like to see more reasoning. — Rebelguys2 02:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
9. Neutral. Great editor, but three months doesn't cut it. Royboycrashfan 04:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
10. Nuetral. I trust this user with rollbacks and blocking, but closing AFD's? I don't know... three months isn't a very long time... and all the admin capabilities come at once. I can't support, but I have no strong reason to oppose. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 05:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
11. Nuetral. Wait two or three months and I will be glad to support you. SorryGuy 07:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
12. Nuetral. I will support two months later.--Jusjih 15:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
13. Neutral too new --Jaranda 20:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
14. Neutral Don't think siva is admin material. J.J.Sagnella 10:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
15. Neutral, too few talk and project talk edits, otherwise no major problems. JIP | Talk 16:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
16. Neutral Too many valid reasons given in the "oppose" section to support. However, I have no strong feelings either way. (Is the plan, by the way, for everyone in Singapore to get adminship?!) --kingboyk 21:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

    Nope, we are not trying to do that, kingboyk. There is no such plan of everyone in Singapore to get adminship. --Terence Ong 03:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

    So it's a secret plan, then? Kusma (討論) 04:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

    Nah, we don't have such plans in mind. I would like to clarify that SGpedians' do NOT have this motive. --Terence Ong 04:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

17. Neutral as above. Ashibaka tock 22:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• See Siva1979's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool and the edit summary usage with Mathbot's tool.

When I click on Mathbot's tool, it says "Server problem or the user may not exist." Strange! — Kimchi.sg | Talk 17:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC) Never mind, it is fixed now.

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

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

A: I have done some New page patrol and would like to have the additional tools of an admin to speedy delete test and attack pages. I would also increase my involvement in AfD articles to increase the efficiency of keeping or deleting articles that have a common overwelming response or vote. Admin powers could also help me to delete redirects with history that block a move, or to merge histories of pages moved by cut and paste.

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

A: I am pleased to be able to remove all the red links of English soccer clubs in the National League System - from step 1 to 6. I am also pleased to create links for all the English soccer leagues from step 1 to step 7. Although most of these articles I have created are just stubs, I am planning to increase the content of these articles in the near future. An immense amount of research needs to be done but I am relishing this challange. I also wish to give credit to other users who were able to expand some of these articles into having a more encyclopedic content. I am also doing a thankless job of welcoming new IP addresses and users. I noticed that many new users and especially IP addresses lack a formal welcome message into Misplaced Pages. This could create a cold atmosphere in the Wiki community (eventually leading to an increase in the number of vandals) if this area of work is overlooked.

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

A: There have not been any major conflicts. However, in the first few weeks of editing, I experienced some opposition on the way I had been contributing for the 1911 Britannica. I learned from my mistakes and somewhat improved my contributions. In the initial stages, I felt a bit of stress because I thought I was not doing a good job and I was only trying to help out. But I used the comments received from other users to improve my edits. In the future, if I receive any negative feedback, I would use this opportunity to move my edits to a higher level. In this way, I would become a more solid contributor to Misplaced Pages.

Questions from JoshuaZ. (As always, additional questions are optional, but answers are appreciated).

1 You have under 30 edits to article talk pages. Can you explain why and please explain how this does not indicate a general lack of involvement in helping to construct good articles?

A One of the fundamental reasons for having such a low amount of edits to article talk pages is the lack of time I have right now. Rest assured, I will be concentrating on having more edits in this area of Misplaced Pages in the near future. I agree with you that this shortfall indicates a general lack of involvement in helping to construct good articles. However, I have managed to remove some red-links for non-league soccer clubs by starting new articles about them. Although I am lacking in involvement in improving these articles to good-article status, I have at least sowed the seeds on having a topic about them in Misplaced Pages.

2 Are there any admin powers that you would like to give to all users? Why or why not?

A No, I would NOT like to give any admin powers to ALL users. The reason is obvious; new users would tend to abuse some of their new found powers. Secondly, some new users would be unfamiliar on how to use these former exclusive admin powers. The best solution is to take part in a RFA and be a admin through merit, thus gaining additional powers. I feel that there will be less chaos on Misplaced Pages by this method. Users have to prove themselves before being given any admin powers. These admin powers do a great amount of change on Misplaced Pages.

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

A I hope that nominations for bureaucratship would not be so stringent. Currently, a user must have at least 90% of positive votes before being eligible for bureaucratship. I feel that we should lower the requirement slightly to about 75%-80% of votes. We have too few bureaucrats on Misplaced Pages compared to the total number of users here. The requests for adminship success should also be lowered to about 55%-65% of votes. By doing this, I feel that more users, especially the newer ones, would be encouraged to improve the quality of their edits, thus making Misplaced Pages (in an indirect manner) a more enjoyable place to be in.

4 Under what circumstances will you indefinitely block a user without any prior direction from Arb Com?

A This would be an extreme case of vandalism. For example, if a user has been blocked repeatedly (at least 3 or 4 times) before (at least 24 hours to one month for each block) for serious vandalism and returns back to Misplaced Pages by continuing his/her unsocial actions despite several warnings (such as You might be blocked indefinitely), I would indefinitely block the user without any prior direction from Arb Com. His/Her presence in Misplaced Pages would be a liability to the project. But of course, I would seek the opinions of some experienced administrators first before undertaking this extreme form of action.

Question from Blnguyen. (As always, additional questions are optional, but answers are appreciated).

1 You seem to have a strongly inclusionist philosophy on AfD, which is fine. However, your Keep votes at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Pennichuck talk and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Major League Handball would appear to condone inclusion of schoolyard nonsense inventions. How do reconcile this with an expectation (perhaps not universally agreed) that administrators should be ambassadors for Misplaced Pages, and in that sense should prevent WP from declining into a dumping ground?ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 01:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

A Firstly, I wish to state that you are correct to notice that I have a strong inclusionist philosophy on AfD. Secondly, I agree that administrators should be ambassadors for Misplaced Pages, and should prevent WP from declining into a dumping ground. But I feel that the article 'Major League Handball' had a potential for expansion. As for the article 'Pennichuck talk', I admit that it was an oversight on my part to vote for the article to be kept. On hindsight, I should have voted Delete. I thank you for pointing this out to me and I would endeavour to be more thoughtful on my part in voting for future discussions on AfD.

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

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

No Guru

Final (66/0/0) ended 04:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

No Guru (talk · contribs) – No Guru is around WP:AIV often, and has been a registered user here for over 2 years (only heavy activity in the last 4-5 months). He's active in fighting vandalism, articles for deletion, and working several articles up towards "Good" status (or better). Well-versed on the policy end as well - don't let the relatively small Project-space count fool you. Check out interactions on user talk pages, article talk pages, and his own page, and you will find ample evidence of policy knowledge. To me the copyright stuff stands out especially. Deletion, vandal-fighting, and copyrights are three areas we can never have too many admins watching, and I'm confident No Guru will not abuse the powers. (ESkog) 03:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: -- Thank you. I Accept. No Guru 04:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Support per the above statement. (ESkog) 04:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
2. Support seen this person around, very good user.--Alhutch 05:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
3. Support, won't abuse the tools. -- DS1953 06:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
4. Support. Keep up the good work! DarthVader 07:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
5. Support. Have seen his edits around. A good user. --Andy123(talk) 10:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
6. Support. Article on Pepper Martin clinched it. Now go get Gashouse Gang up to featured status! Mackensen (talk) 11:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
7. Support. Good editor with a lot of experience. Not likely to abuse admin powers --TBC 11:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
8. Support. Good user. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 12:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
9. Support --Rob from NY 12:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
10. Alrighty!. :) - Mailer Diablo 14:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
11. Support --Terence Ong 14:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
12. Support A good editor. --Siva1979 15:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
13. Support Moe ε 16:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
14. Support.  Grue  18:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
15. Support. Good contributor, seems generally knowledgable. -Colin Kimbrell 18:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
16. Support. — FireFox • T
17. Support. --Tone 21:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
18. Support. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
19. Support --Jay(Reply) 22:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
20. Support. Excellent Wikipedian. Keep it up. (^'-')^ Covington 22:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
21. Support. For my money, a strong vandal fighter merits being an admin. Vandalism spoils great articles for the short time it is on them and someone happens to access them. Vandalism undermines article credibility. Please keep on fighting it. Tyrenius 00:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
22. Support. Good to see strong experience in writing articles to complement the greate anti-vandal campaign.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 01:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
23. Support, looks good. Vulcanstar6 01:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
24. Support, great editor --Deville (Talk) 02:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
25. Support - great editor, super fast responses to "the list" of questions, well deserving of my support -- Tawker 02:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
26. Support, looks good. — Rebelguys2 02:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
27. Support, looks good from here.--Adam 03:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
28. support good candidate --rogerd 04:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
29. Support as per above. SorryGuy 07:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
30. Support per nominator. --Arnzy (Talk) 14:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
31. Support, will do fine. Proto||type 15:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
32. Support--Jusjih 15:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
33. Support. NoGuru is a thoughtful editor who'll do well. RGTraynor 15:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
34. Support John Reid 17:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
35. Support CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 17:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
36. Weak Support Could be a tad less harsh. Masssiveego 18:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
37. Support good user --Jaranda 20:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
38. Support good editor. --a.n.o.n.y.m 20:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
39. Strong Support Very well balanced, experienced editor. _-M P-_ 23:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
40. Cleared for Adminship --Pilot|guy 03:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
41. Support per nom. OSU80 05:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
42. Support, looks good to me. JIP | Talk 05:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
43. Support—Quarl 2006-04-13 07:26Z
44. Support, but get to work on those page moves. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
45. Support Definitely should be an admin. J.J.Sagnella 10:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
46. Support - Yep. Nothing more needs to be said. - Richardcavell 11:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
47. Support. Giving him the mop and pail will allow an effective vandal-reverter to be a vandal-reverter. Bucketsofg 12:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
48. Support. As per all of the above Anger22 15:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
49. Support Rama's Arrow 16:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
50. Support "better late than never" support from Gwernol 19:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
51. Support meets the majority of my criteria. Good user. — Deckiller 22:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
52. Support. Thunderbrand 14:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
53. Conditional support—he uses the "minor edit" tag too often when the edit isn't minor. IMHO, warning about an image's liscense isn't anything minor.--The ikiroid (talk parler hablar paroli 说 話し parlar) 22:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
54. Support Fits like a key to a lock! TruthCrusader 12:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
55. Support per nom. Tangotango 14:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
56. Support MatriX 14:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
57. Support - Sango123 (e) 16:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
58. Support. Baseball fan, doesn't go overboard. Good distribution of edits, definitely has experience. No reason to oppose. — Apr. 16, '06 <freakofnur_xture|talk>
59. Support. At first, I was surprised to see that only 7 out of more than 1,100 user talk page edits were to his own talk page. But after cross checking, I found his responses to comments on his talk page on the commenter's talk page. The responses seemed always polite and reflected a good ability at conflict resolution, so thus my support. —Doug Bell 08:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
60. Support. Bumped into him a few times before in recent changes, seems trustworthy. Elle _{vécut heureuse} (Be eudaimonic!) 17:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
61. Support Vsmith 01:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC).
62. Support Don't know your work that well, but from what I've seen, you're good to go. Thistheman 22:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
63. Support per nom, good record of contributions, and well-reasoned answers to questions below. --Elkman - 22:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
64. Support per my criteria. Batmanand | Talk 23:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
65. Support - RexNL 23:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
66. Support, excellent contributions. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
67. Support a great editor, excellent admin potential gidonb 02:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
68. Suppport. See no cause for concern here. Jayjg 03:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

• Neutral Although this could change pending on answers to the questions below. I've decided to change my vote to support.OSU80 16:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• See No Guru's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool and the edit summary usage with Mathbot's tool.

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

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

A: I expect that I would be busy with dealing with and blocking (as required) vandals that are posted at WP:AIV but I have a particular interest in copyright issues. I would plan spending time clearing out articles (and images) that are clearly in violation of copyright. I would also be interested in dealing with articles that meet the criteria for speedy deletion and would be willing to help out in that area as well. I would expect to expand my activites eventually but these 3 areas would be my immediate focus.

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

A: I consider myself to be somewhat of a WikiGnnome so I have spent a fair bit of time with fixing bad links, stub sorting and the above mentioned RC patroling. In terms of adding content I spend most of my editing time on baseball related articles (especially pages of retired players). Upon registering at Misplaced Pages I was a bit surprised to see that two of my favourite ballplayers, Rico Petrocelli and Pepper Martin did not have articles so I was happy to start them. I enjoy researching baseball teams from the 19th century and as a result have started articles like the Cincinnati Porkers one (while it is stubby in appearance I hope to continue to add content to it over time). I am also glad that I was able to locate some public domain images of hockey and baseball players that I could add to articles.

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

A: While I would say I used to get frustrated by heavy POV pushers I have learned over my time here how to back away from editing when required. Editing in baseball related articles and my WikiGnome activities don't lend themselves to much conflict. Hostility from vandals doesn't bother me very much. Most of the stress I have felt at Misplaced Pages has been self-inflicted.

Questions from Tawker stolen from JoshuaZ and Rob Church and NSLE. They are optional but may help myself or other voters decide. If I have already voted please feel free to ignore these questions though other editors might find them to be of use.

Comment. I will work through these questions starting tomorrow except for #5 which I would like to address straight-away. No Guru 05:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Update. I have now answered questions 1 through six and expect to answer the rest later today or tomorrow. No Guru 17:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Update. All questions are answered now - let me know if you need me to clarify anything. No Guru 23:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

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

   A - Assuming that the Sockpuppet accusation has been verified I would warn the user to cease the abusive behaviour. I would want to check out WP:SOCK to ensure I was clear on policy. I would also ask for advice from another admin if I was unclear on how to proceed.

2. While speedying articles/clearing a backlog at CAT:CSD, you come across an article that many users agree is patent nonsense. A small minority, of, say, three or four disagree. Upon looking the article over, you side with the minority and feel that the article is salvagable. Another admin then speedies it while you are making your decision. What would you do?

   A - I would most likely leave a message on the other admin's talk page to sort out the issue as this scenario seems more like a miscommunication than anything else.

3. You speedy a few articles. An anon keeps recreating them, and you re-speedy them. After dropping a note on their talk page, they vandalise your user page and make incivil comments. You realise they've been blocked before. What would you do? Would you block them, or respect that you have a conflict of interest?

   A - I would warn the user fully using templates all the way to test4. I recognize that this could look like a conflict of interest so I would ask another admin to investigate wether or not a block was required.

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

   A - If I felt I had information that the other admin needed to know about or was asked to contribute to the process I would do that. Otherwise I would feel obligated to let the WP:RFAR process progress as normal.

5. How would you respond to users who argue that your work has been almost exclusively in vandal fighting(even the article which you are most proud of you only have 14 edits, most of which are adding pictures) and that this lack of constructive (rather than anti-destructive) edits gives them reservations about making you an admin?

   A I am proud of the vandal fighting I have done but I think it would be incorrect to say that my edits have been almost exclusively in vandal fighting. I edit articles, I disambig links, I welcome new users, I fix bad links, I sort stubs, I contribute on RFA's and Articles for deletion and I flag suspected copyright violations (articles and images), I patrol Newpages, etc... Also, the articles I mentioned above are ones that I have created and added content too over time -- I haven't added images to them so I'm not sure what you're getting at.

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

   A - I am in support of this proposal. I would like to see editors with a proven track record (say 1000 edits and 3 months of activity) be given rollback privileges if they wanted it.

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

   A - Well, according to the Blocking policy there are some circumstances where an indefinite block is appropriate (Personal attacks which could place users in danger, posting personal details about other editors Usernames which are invented to impersonate others - like someone did to me. I am a cautious person by nature and don't like making mistakes so I would always refer back to policy before doing something serious such as blocking a user indefinitely.

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

   A - I think the safe thing to do here would be to wait longer for further consensus to build. If no further opinions were forthcoming I think it would be appropriate to re-list it (as I have seen done) to seek further consensus.

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

   A - Personally I would not feel comforatable closing AfD that had very vew contributions (say less than 4). Better to wait for or seek further consensus to be safe.

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

    A - I have faced a lot of challenges in my personal life that I have had to overcome which has (I believe) given me the benefit of perspective. I don't forsee facing any circumstances as an admin that would cause me to act erratically or to feel overwhelmed.

11. Why do you want to be an administrator?

    A - In my opinon the amount of vandalism that goes undetected and the number of copyright violations that exist bring into question the credibilty of Misplaced Pages. I would like Misplaced Pages to be a credible and useful research tool. I believe that as an admin I can play a (very small but useful) part in helping that to happen.

12. In your view, do administrators hold a technical or political position?

    A - I see the admin role as a technical one.

Questions from Masssiveego 05:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC) Can I get an answer within 24 hours?

1. To your comment of.. Please stop adding barnstars to my page. No Guru 20:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Is there something wrong with recieving barnstars that you like to tell us about?

A - The user in question User:EdRooney was involved in vandalism. I didn't want to accept a barnstar from him as I don't think it was in good faith. See his edit contributions, talk page and the edit history for Geno Petralli for more information on this.

2. To your talk page of ..

"Leave Geno alone. No one that has written on this page has bothered you. Have you nothing better to do than attack people's work? - Keith Creel"

"What's twaddle? Did you do a wiki story on "twaddle"? It's all legit and from the references mentioned below. If you don't know about Geno Petralli and/or think his life is a joke, then leave it alone! Seriously, an 8 year old kid with cancer is no joke. - Jim Sundberg"

Please don't detroy the Geno Petralli page

An 8 year old boy with cancer posted those photos and wrote most of the enteries. have you no sense of shame?

I told you he doesn't give a damn about you or your sicko kid, B&^&*! Get lost and stop sending me messages! If you don't like start your own wiki-world! EdRooney 21:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Could you explain the above?

A- I'm just going to have to refer you to the talk page for the Geno Petralli article mentioned in reply to your previous question.

3. The 3RR

Please stop. You're getting redy to violate the 3RR policy on User talk:68.74.185.144. Please notify an admin before continuing to revert. SWD316 talk to me 04:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Can I get an explaination please?

A- This is a discussion I hade with another editor about the 3RR policy:

This was posted on my talk page - Please stop. You're getting redy to violate the 3RR policy on User talk:68.74.185.144. Please notify an admin before continuing to revert. I replied thusly

His reply was

Yeah, but looking at your contributions, it didn't look too good when it says, revert vandalism 7-8 times in a row. Oh well. Cheers!

And I replied again.

He replied with this -

A fine motto indeed! But remember when doing that to an article, it might be content dispute, then it might turn into a motto you might regret. lol.

And I replied again.

And he replied one more time with the final comment of the discussion.

True, true. I thought I would just throw that out there. Let's not get into a arguement over vandals, it's just silly. Talk to you later!

I was happy with the way the discussion went. See my talk archive and his as a reference.

4. For the talk page post Spare me

...your pithy comments. You need a lesson in manners. The article contained incorrect information, so I've removed it. This is an encyclopedia, not a rumor mill.-DSJ2 04:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Why is this user irate with you?

A - This is a comment I received from a new user after I reverted his edit (which was a deletion of source content}and left a standard warning on his talk page {test1}. You would probably have to ask him why he was so irate with me.

I engage in a lot of vandal fighting and I receive my fair share of criticisms and complaints from people who are annoyed with me. I don't know what else to say about it. I hope this answers your questions adequetly.

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

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

Pagrashtak

Final (53/3/0) ended 03:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Pagrashtak (talk · contribs) – Pagrashtak has been with Misplaced Pages since July 2005 and has in that time contributed over 3700 edits. He is a very active member of the CVG WikiProject, where he helps out a lot with maintenance issues and the discussion page. It should be noted that he is by no means limited to editing video game articles though. He did play a major role in getting The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask and The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker promoted to featured articles. Pagrashtak has also been quite active on WP:FAC, WP:TFD, WP:AFD, WP:RFA, and I think he has a sound understanding of Misplaced Pages processes and policies. jacoplane 22:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept; thank you, jacoplane. Pagrashtak 01:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Support First support. Jedi6-(need help?) 01:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
2. Support. Has done good work in the CVG field. Thunderbrand 02:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
3. Support - tends to be a bit reversionist, but otherwise it's all good. - Richardcavell 02:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
4. Support. --Rory096 02:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
5. Support — BUT, you need more interaction with others; you have <300 user talk edits. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 02:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
6. Support, would benefit from the tools.--Adam 03:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
7. Support, resolved issues. Vulcanstar6 03:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
8. Support Well-rounded wiki-career, fine editor. Xoloz 04:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
9. Support Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A B A Select Start! Now your nomination gets 30 free supports! ⇒ SWATJester Aim _Fire! 04:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
10. Support Here's two thumbs up for a committed Wikipedian and a fellow gamer. (^'-')^ Covington 04:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
11. Support. Fine editor. DarthVader 07:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
12. Support, looks good. --Terence Ong 08:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
13. Support. I recall bumping into the user somewhere, mfd maybe, and he had a good grasp of whatever it was that needed doing, so based on that I'll support. Hiding talk 08:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
14. Support - already was one, no? --Celestianpower 10:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
15. Support --Rob from NY 12:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
16. I thought he already was an admin Support--ac1983fan-Talk 13:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
17. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 14:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
18. Support. A well-balanced and experienced editor, he clearly knows what he needs to know. Rje 14:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
19. Support, level-headed contributor. ProhibitOnions 14:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
20. Support No problems here. --Siva1979 15:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
21. Support--Jusjih 15:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
22. Support Moe ε 16:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
23. Support. — FireFox • T
24. Support - Sango123 (e) 21:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
25. Support --Jay(Reply) 22:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
26. Support --Deville (Talk) 02:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
27. Support, looks good. — Rebelguys2 02:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
28. Support, great CVG Wiki Project participant. Royboycrashfan 04:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
29. Support good editor --rogerd 04:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
30. Support I've seen you around - you deserve the Master Sword mop. -- stillnotelf is invisible 05:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
31. Support, looks OK to me. JIP | Talk 15:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
32. Support John Reid 17:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
33. Support CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 17:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
34. Certainly Flowerparty? 18:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
35. Support - Chairman S. 22:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
36. Support _-M P-_ 23:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
37. Support - no issues seen, seems pretty active all around to me -- Tawker 23:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
38. Support, no reason not to. SorryGuy 01:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
39. Support. Give him the mop and pail. Bucketsofg 12:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
40. Support. Why not? Good job. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
41. Support. I have played a minor role in the Zelda articles, and have seen Pagrashtak contribute to articles, talk pages, FACs, FARCs and so on in a civil way. In line with criteria, he passed with flying colours. Batmanand | Talk 17:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
42. Support. User has demonstrated a good balance of WP activity. More talk entries would be a Good Thing, but the user interaction Pagrashtak has had seems appropriate, helpful, and balanced (overall). -- MarcoTolo 22:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
43. Support Can't think of any reasons NOT to, so hand 'em the mop! TruthCrusader 12:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
44. Support MatriX 14:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
45. Support - Hahnchen 01:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
46. Support Highway 07:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
47. File:Hand with thumbs up.jpg —Khoikhoi 19:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
48. Support. Though focus seems to be on video games, I think the most important qualities are to understand policy and to have good dispute resolution skills, and I think that the handling ESRB issue shows a reasoned, civil demeanor that would carry over well to the execution of admin duties in other areas. — TKD::Talk 20:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
49. Support. One of the most friendly useres in existence. Tarret 02:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
50. Support - Aksi_great (talk) 17:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
51. Support. I've seen this user's work, and I think he would make a great admin. -Danaman5 18:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
52. Support You've got my support. Fine editor, should be fine administrator. --FloNight 00:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
53. Support a great editor, excellent admin potential gidonb 02:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

swayable Oppose, Im sorry pag, i like you, but my desicion is based SOLELY on the fact that (from your answers to the Q's) it seems like you dont need the tools that admins have to achieve what you have said you want to. Vulcanstar6 02:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

. --Rory096 02:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Um, ok... . Vulcanstar6 03:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

He means Pagrashtak can use the admin tools to help organize and delete orphaned images. Jedi6-(need help?) 03:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

i already voted support, i see that now. Vulcanstar6 03:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

1. Oppose Not active enough with the Misplaced Pages community. Masssiveego 05:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose This user has been influential in organising the CVG community on wikipedia, however, they have kept to that side of things. Needing the responsibility primarily for image tagging and FAC, both of which they can participate in with talk pages to all but the actual deletion stage, doesn't influence me enough, as a somewhat conservative type person, that they need the adminship powers yet. Ansell 03:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose, examination of his edits to various namespaces suggests too much focus on a narrow range of topics. Bears an unfortunate resemblance to a certain editor with whom I have had bad experiences. Consider exploring the rest of the encyclopedia, and I may support at a later date. — Apr. 16, '06 <freakofnur_xture|talk>

   "too much focus on a narrow range of topics" -- That's ridiculous. We shouldn't ask people to edit topics about which they know nothing. --kramtark 20:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

   Should we be giving admin powers to people who only have experience in one area, and may be called to any of the many other areas on wikipedia to decide issues? Should we categorise admins by the areas that they know things about so they are qualified in certain areas? Ansell 07:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

   A philosophical aside. 'may be called to'? Individual admins on Misplaced Pages aren't summoned; they go where they please. A post on WP:AN will usually result in a response or reaction from one or more admins, but there's no mechanism to compel a specific admin to deal with an issue. Misplaced Pages is growing to the point where I doubt there are many (any?) individuals who are familiar with all of its policies and minutiae. A good admin doesn't need to be familiar with all aspects of Misplaced Pages. Rather, a good admin is one who has the sense to recognize when he is in over his head and to seek assistance where appropriate. Food for thought. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

   Food for thought yes, but you haven't rebutted my original argument that this person hasn't been around wikipedia enough to know when they are going to be in over their head. Its not a personal issue with the admin, just their lack of diversity doesn't show me the traits you pointed out that a good admin would have. Ansell 22:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

• See Pagrashtak's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool and the edit summary usage with Mathbot's tool.
• As I'm sure it will be a question, I'd like to address my low edit count in October and November. Around that time, I accepted a job that involved a cross-country move for me and my family. Between negotiating, packing, driving, getting set up in corporate housing, moving into a permanent residence, and getting settled, I didn't have much time for Misplaced Pages. I can say with confidence that I don't plan on doing that again any time soon, so I don't forsee another Wikibreak of that length. Pagrashtak 01:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

A: My interaction with WP:FAC introduced me to fair use rationale and appropriate image tagging. That got me interested in image work, so I think I'd start with deleting images marked as having no source or no licensing tag for seven days, as well as helping with images in Category:Images on Wikimedia Commons. I'd also start closing some discussions on WP:TFD, which now has a backlog, starting with those that have easily interpretable results, and moving on to more contentious discussions as I become more comfortable with the process. I think I'd close other XFD discussions from time to time, and I'd naturally continue to fight vandalism.

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

A: I helped The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask obtain featured status after it was nominated, which in turn inspired me to practically rewrite the entire The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker article, which then obtained featured article status with no objections. Before you dismiss these articles for being about video games, I invite you to read them: I'm quite pleased with the "Development and history" section of Wind Waker.

I created the article Health Plan Employer Data and Information Set not too long after I joined Misplaced Pages, because it was an important part of my previous job. It's a nice medium-sized article that I think might not yet exist if I hadn't written it. I only wish I had known back then of the importance of adding references, as I no longer have access to the work materials I used to write it.

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

A: I did have a conflict recently regarding the use of ESRB rating images in infoboxes. I suggested to the CVG WikiProject that we should stop using ESRB rating images in infoboxes, as the images are claimed under fair use, yet their inclusion in infoboxes is decorative. This was agreed upon and I started removing them sections at a time. A user who was not aware of the discussion saw me removing the images; he reverted the entire batch and rewrote the guidelines himself. I reverted the change he made to the guidelines, as that had been determined by consensus, but did not revert the articles immediately, as I did not want to start a multi-article edit war. You can read the discussion that followed on the CVG WikiProject's discussion page, which involved a few sockpuppets from a couple of users. After the matter had been cleared up and it had been reaffirmed that we should not use the images in the infoboxes, I restored my edits. You may observe how I handled this situation to judge how I handle conflict.

As for stress, I will admit I was disappointed to find a mass reversion of my edits, but I haven't really experienced much stress here at Misplaced Pages. If I ever sense that I'm getting stressed about something, I step away from Misplaced Pages for a minute or two rather than write something I'll regret later. Unlike work or life, I can always take a step back from Misplaced Pages when needed, so there's no use getting stressed about anything, if you ask me.

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

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

Lightdarkness

Final (124/6/4) ended 23:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Lightdarkness (talk · contribs) – I first met lightdarkness in January. Since then, I have watched him grow as a Wikipedian. He has about 10000 edits, and over 1200 deleted edits. He is involved in a variety of projects. He is active in disambiguation, stub-sorting, image tagging, tagging speedys, AfD, RC patrol, and spoken Misplaced Pages. He even founded the Wikiproject on user warning layout standardization, after noticing that lots of IP talk pages were difficult to read. He came up with the godmodelight fix, developed ARV to help RC patrollers report vandals on AIV, and wrote LDBot, from scratch, to take over the function of AllyUnion’s AFDbot. In my experience, he has always been patient and willing to help newbies, as shown here. In short, I think Jay has proven to be a valuable contributor, and is ready for the mop and bucket. Shanel 18:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I nominate as well ☎ -- (drini's page) 19:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

benon nominates as well :p Benon 00:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination(s) :P --lightdarkness 00:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Extreme nominator support.--Shanel 00:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
2. Strong Support - per nom -- Tawker 00:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
3. extreme edit conflict support one of the best candiates for admin in my book :D Benon 00:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
4. Support definitely would make a good admin. Pegasus1138 ---- 00:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
5. Strong support Great contributor, will make an excellent admin TigerShark 00:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
6. Support, activity in building an encyclopedia includes participating in the Spoken Misplaced Pages project, which I have seen him be a part of. Good contributions to AFD, including filling in for AFD Bot. Note that vandalwhacker != good admin, but the converse is also true: vandalwhacker != bad admin. Titoxd 00:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
7. Support of course, give the guy the mop.--Adam 01:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
8. Support as a trustworthy editor and valuable vandal fighter. Lightdarkness has also helped me iron out some problems with my own js tools. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
9. Support. Excellent editor. I was just about to nominate you myself. Feezo (Talk) 01:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
10. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 01:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
11. Support - yes. - Richardcavell 01:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
12. Support. Opposition for Adminship based on large number of vandalism reverts seems like an oxymoron to me.--Firsfron 01:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
13. Support all the way. --Jay(Reply) 02:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
14. Support. Absolutely; nom tells it well. ~ PseudoSudo 02:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
15. Support Naconkantari e|t||c|m 02:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
16. Support. Would make a great admin. — TheKMan 02:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
17. Support. I'd like to find something funny to say in relation to your username, but I'm at a lack of words :). -Mysekurity 02:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
18. Support Great vandal fighter would be a very good admin. --Adam1213 Talk + 02:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
19. Support very good user. I was so darn sure that this person was already an admin. kind of blows my mind that they're not.--Alhutch 02:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

    Support. --Rory096 02:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC) changed to oppose. --Rory096 04:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

20. Support Joe I 02:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
21. More like this candidate, please Support! (not everyone has to do everything. Sure, more this and that would always be good, but... (I expect to get dinged for "not enough" vandal fighting when the time comes) ++Lar: t/c 02:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
22. Strong double-conflicted support, "Whaddya mean he's not already an editor?!?" cliche in effect --Deville (Talk) 02:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

    Well, uh, he already is an editor. I think you mean admin :) -- Jjjsixsix /_(c) @ 03:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

23. Support --Y.Ichiro (会話|+|投稿記録|メール) 02:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
24. Support. All experiences with this user have been positive, and answers to questions sealed the deal. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 03:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
25. Support - My interactions with this editor have been always excellent. Deserving of mop and bucket. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
26. Support, solid answers to extended question set. Kuru 03:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
27. Oui, oui! Everything I've seen's been good, no problems here. (editconflicted support!) -- Jjjsixsix /_(c) @ 03:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
28. Strong support per nom. When first I read that Shanel was nominating Lightdarkness, I knew I'd want to vote "support" and figured I'd be one of the first three or four. Instead, twenty-plus people have already expressed support in the RfA's first three hours; perhaps that immediate and overwhelming outpouring of "support" votes says it all. Joe 03:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
29. Support - thankyou for replying to my question Lightdarkness.ßlηguγɛη | Have your say!!! 03:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
30. Like Totally Support Dude I thought you were an admin already. Can't believe you're not! Awesome editor, deserves a mop very much so. joshbuddy 03:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
31. Support, looks good. Kusma (討論) 04:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
32. Support. of course. pschemp | talk 04:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
33. Support. Excellent. (^'-')^ Covington 04:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
34. Support would have liked more time here on Misplaced Pages but what there has been has been good. :-) Jedi6-(need help?) 04:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
35. Support Knowledgeable about policy, and we always need more good people working the vandalism frontier. Writing skills are not a prerequisite to adminship - give me an in-the-trenches vandalwhacker any day. (ESkog) 04:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
36. Support Go go gadget vandal fighter!⇒ SWATJester Aim _Fire! 04:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
37. Support; this is an excellent candidate, no qualms at all. Antandrus (talk) 04:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
38. Support. Even if I hadn't seen Lightdarkness's good works, I don't think I'll ever doubt Shanel's judgement. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 05:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
39. Support. This recent rash of discrimination against those who work to stave off vandalism puzzles me. Greatly. Silensor 06:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
40. Support Merecat 06:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
41. Support. Fantastic work! DarthVader 07:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
42. Support - Wikipeda would benefit from him having the mop. —Whouk (talk) 07:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
43. Support - Fits all my requirements to be an admin, even exceeds expectations in vandal fighting. Have personally seen some of his contributions and they strenthen my belief in his abilities. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 10:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
44. Support --Terence Ong 10:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
45. Support Worthy of adminship. --Ali K 11:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
46. Support, great editor. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 12:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
47. Support --Rob from NY 12:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
48. Weak support, I don't have experience with this candidate myself, but judging by others' comments, he seems all right. JIP | Talk 13:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
49. Support Candidate seems level-headed and devoted to the project, as a vandal-dealer-wither type he should make good use of admin tools. --W.marsh 14:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
50. Support for everything Sceptre 14:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
51. Support. — FireFox • T
52. Support A good user. --Siva1979 15:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
53. Support in my experience on RC patrol and speedy deletions I've noticed lots of good contributions from this user. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 15:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
54. Support--Jusjih 15:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
55. Support Moe ε 16:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
56. Support per nom and answers to questions below. --Elkman - 16:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
57. Support JoshuaZ 18:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
58. Support. Says will help out with WP:RFI, good candidate, thought was one already, per all above; I think you get the idea... Petros471 16:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
59. Support oh yeah.  Grue  18:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
60. Support insert support cliche here Where 20:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
61. Support, always sensible. Accurizer 20:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
62. Support, trust not to abuse admin tools. — xaosflux 20:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
63. Extrene-Shanel-stole-my-nomination -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 21:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
64. Support - Definitely. Sango123 (e) 21:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
65. Support - been around for more than a year, > 3 months of serious activity, and all of that activity has been good. Great candidate, and will do the mop proud. --PeruvianLlama 22:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
66. Support This user has shown his abilities in vandalism fighting. His edits have helped Misplaced Pages get rid of vandalism. Should be given the mop so that he can be much more effective! --Andy123(talk) 22:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
67. Support. An excellent contributor and vandal whacker. --TantalumTelluride 23:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
68. Super can't-believe-you're-not-already support! --M@thwiz2020 23:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
69. Cleared for Adminship per all of the above. --Pilot|guy 23:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
70. Support good editor. --a.n.o.n.y.m 01:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
71. Support, even though I generally don't vote when the outcome already seems determined. I was extremely impressed by the answers below, and the patience displayed in answering all of them. —BorgHunter (talk) 02:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
72. Support. I've seen him around and thought he was one. I'd like to see him around in article space more, but all of the behind-the-scenes work and reverting of vandalism tells me that he could certainly use the admin tools. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 02:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
73. Support, looks good. — Rebelguys2 03:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
74. Strong Support. Very full and sensible answers below. Again, I'm especially supportive of RFAs from vandal-fighters who will be able to do their job more effectively if they can block vandals themselves. Bucketsofg 03:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
75. Support. I thought you were already an admin. Royboycrashfan 04:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
76. Support good candidate for admin --rogerd 04:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
77. Support —Wayward 07:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
78. Solid Support 1200 deleted edits can't be wrong. Support Newpage patrollers. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
79. "Whoa... he's not?"-cliche-support! Constantly beating me on reverting. --Misza13 08:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
80. Support, it is a falsehood that I am not failing to be unimpressed with his answers. --Sam Blanning 11:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
81. Support What's with the quadruple negative that guy above me used? That's hard to do. Jared W!!! | Write to me, why don't you? 13:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

    See my question to him and his answer below :-) --Sam Blanning 13:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

82. Support why not?, I'm suprised he's not a admin already to be honest. --Arnzy (Talk) 14:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
83. Edit conflict Support. Whack all those vandals out there with that mop! -- Tangotango 14:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
84. Support - I thought he was! Kilo-Lima| 15:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
85. Yes indeed! Flowerparty? 17:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
86. 'Support Vandal fighters needed as well as editors CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 17:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
87. Thought I allredy supported Support Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 20:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
88. This page is 46 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size. --Jaranda 20:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
89. Thought he already was one/thought I'd already voted/pileon support! —Nightstallion (?) 21:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
90. Support Likeable, experienced user. _-M P-_ 23:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
91. Support Let there be light..... darkness!!! - Srikeit 00:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
92. Support per question  ALKIVAR™ 01:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
93. Support. I've seen this user around quite a bit and I think that LD definitely should have the mop. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 03:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
94. Support. Knowledgeable, dedicated to anti-vandalism. Would make a good admin. T. J. Day 04:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
95. Support. Solid, respectable work with keeping the encyclopedia in good shape. And yeah, put me in with the "he wasn't already?!" camp! Warrens 05:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
96. Support, meets my standards. --Cyde Weys 05:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
97. Support I can see reason to oppose this editor.--MONGO 06:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
98. Support A good, responsible vandal fighter as well as my baby's daddy. --InShaneee 17:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
99. Support. 99 getter!--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 18:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
100. WP:100! Haha. --Khoikhoi 19:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
101. Support yes yes. — Deckiller 22:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
102. Support.--blue520 23:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
103. Support Finally got a working godmode-lite from this user. Shows a responsible no-nonsense approach in answers to questions as well.Nogwa 00:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
104. Support, Have seen them very active around Misplaced Pages. VegaDark 06:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
105. Extreme Utimate Support. 101% committed for the good of the Misplaced Pages Community! Keep it up. Ruennsheng 08:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
106. Support Whenever I see this editor he is putting in good work fighting "teh infamous vandals". I believe awarding him the mop can only help wikipedia. Well deserved. Banez 12:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
107. Support Very active fighting the vandals, should make a great admin --Scot 14:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
108. Support Daniel Šebesta (talk • contribs) 18:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
109. Robert 02:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
110. Support MatriX 14:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
111. Support to the max' Sasquatch t|c 20:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
112. Support. Seen this user around, good impression. enochlau (talk) 01:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
113. Support. Exellent editor, with admin potential since the start. --LBMixPro 06:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
114. Suppport. Answers seem to show a good understanding of policy. — TKD::Talk 19:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
115. Support I've seen him about before, and it wasn't even vandal wacking but creating some sort of programme to update a page... forget now, but the name stuck in my head Robdurbar 21:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
116. Support Unneccessary vote, but a case of "I thought the user already was!" TeKE 23:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
117. Support It's good that he also supports other wikis which are facing vandal attacks. Ucucha (talk) 07:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
118. Now support, b/c 10,000 represents such a very large commitment; I would ask that he be careful to remove the m from any non-minor edits. Otherwise Watchlists and RC's are messed up. Derex 21:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

     Note: I moved this from the "Oppose" section below. The user changed his vote but didn't move it here.--Shanel 18:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

119. Support of course. NoSeptember 18:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
120. Support I thought... :-) Prodego 22:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
121. Support per the nominator and my (limited) experience with the user. However, I would suggest (based upon the Oppose votes) that you make more non vandal reverting edits.--Ac1983fan (talk • contribs) 22:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
122. Support I've got a good feeling about this user, I think he has proven that he understands policy, stays civil and that he interacts well with other users. --JoanneB 22:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
123. Support Not that my vote will matter that much, but I feel that somebody has got to do the "nitty-gritty" work of stub-sorting and reverting vandalism. You have done all of that quite well, and much, much more. I know the vandal's work from both sides of the table, committing the act and cleaning it up. You will be a great admin. And, kudos to you for answering all of those optional questions! Thistheman 22:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
124. Support per my criteria. Batmanand | Talk 23:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Sorry, your last 500 mainspace edits have been vandalism reverts, a good portion of your 10000 are likely to be vandal reverts. By not working on (or, working very little on) articles it doesn't necessarily help build an encyclopedia, and fail my criteria. Weak oppose. NSLE _(T+C) at 00:54 UTC (2006-04-11)

   • Comment I'm a new editor, but isn't dealing with vandalism primarily what an administrator does? TeKE 23:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

2. Oppose. Per NSLE. Also, how can there be 9 support votes when he hasn't even answered the questions? Lou franklin 01:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

   There were only four questions originally, and he answered those. The rest are questions people have added only now. It's not reasonable to expect him to answer 13(!) extra questions yet.--Shanel 01:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

   Lou franklin, to address your question: the RfA questions are designed to give voters insight on candidates they are less than familiar with. I've personally worked with Lightdarkness enough to not need his personal written persuasion to trust him as an admin, thus the appearance of my vote at this time. ~ PseudoSudo 02:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

   Well, I should note that I posted the majority of those questions after I had voted support, mostly I've found more questions help an voter see what an editor is all about, I didn't need the questions to vote, I just thought the additional insight might help some voters -- Tawker 02:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

   This user is also indef blocked for POV pushing / vandalism, might be something to strongly consider. -- Tawker 03:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

   Reduced to a week pending the outcome of his ArbCom case, actually. --Sam Blanning 08:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

3. Weak Oppose Editor has only been active in the community for three months. Certainly, he has a great start, but I'd like to see a little more editing time before mophood. Xoloz 03:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose per above. --Masssiveego 04:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

   Oppose I looked at his last 1500 edits. 99% of these are marked minor. Not good, whether they are actually all minor or not. Now support, b/c 10,000 represents such a very large commitment; I would ask that he be careful to remove the m from any non-minor edits. Otherwise Watchlists and RC's are messed up. Derex 21:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

5. Oppose. --Rory096 04:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

   <rory096> i can't support someone who has the cabal behind them removing comments from RfAs - is his reason just for the record -- Tawker 04:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

   Oh, and I forgot the part about the cabal then threatening me with a block. I'm sorry I have to do this. --Rory096 04:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

   Regarding this - it was a revert by Essjay (the 'crat) it wasn't exactly appropiate on an RfA page - Tawker 04:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

   Just because he's a bcrat doesn't mean he's not a member of the cabal looking out for his friends (in fact that makes him more likely to do it). It was a valid question; I'm not sure if I want someone who says things like what appeared to be implied on their own RfA to be an admin. BTW, can you use a few less indents? I'm afraid this discussion is going to end up being one word per line on the far right of the page pretty soon. --Rory096 04:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

   I hardly see implying that a candidates statements have something to do with Masturbation as a valid comment it smacks more of a WP:POINT violation as does your vote. Pegasus1138 ---- 19:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

   All of you, please WP:AGF and remain civil. NSLE _(T+C) at 01:39 UTC (2006-04-17)

6. Oppose per NSLE. --SR Bryant 18:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Need more experience. Practically started editing in mid-January, 2006. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 03:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
2. Serious reservations based on candidate not being active long enough, and having not enough articlespace participation other than vandal cleanup. Main redeeming virtue is bot implementation skills, sort of a technical specialist rating. The following is not a criticism of this particular candidate, but rather a general outlook on my part: I'm not keen on WP having too many admins who haven't been active in article writing, since that creates bureaucracy, and maybe doesn't hold sufficiently tightly to WP's goal as an encyclopedia writing project as opposed to a giant BBS. The senior admins at my university (i.e. the dean of this or that) are mostly selected from the professor ranks rather than having purely administrative or management backgrounds and I think that gives them a perspective that's better suited for the university's functions. I don't believe in editcountitis but I consider some reasonable level of involvement in article authoring (preferably in some serious subject and preferably including writing a few articles of moderate complexity from scratch) to be an important part of the mix of characteristics of good admin candidates. The articles written from scratch don't have to be FA level or anything like that, just not trivial. Phr 05:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

   Further comment: I think users showing interest and reasonable discretion vandal reversion should be given rollback buttons more or less on request, which might reduce the need for creating so many admins. I'd have no problem at all with giving rollback to this candidate right now, but adminship should wait a little longer. Phr 05:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

3. Neutral for now. Reverting vandalism, stub sorting, VfD, and stub-sorting can give a highly inflated edit count compared to users who primarily write and edit articles. I'd like to see a little more writing, and a couple more months' overall experience. ProhibitOnions 14:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
4. Neutral, Lightdarkness is a great vandalfighter but I'm not sure anyone who has been editing for only 3 months in earnest should be given adminship.--Isotope23 18:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• every looks good, but im waiting for more votes, answers to the Q's, and things to unravel. Vulcanstar6 02:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• How can so many people be honestly surprised that he wasn't already an admin? He's been here less than 3 months. Derex 21:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• See Lightdarkness's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool and the edit summary usage with Mathbot's tool.

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

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

A: My main sysop chore would involve vandalism, making sure that WP:AIV is dealt with quickly. I would also get more involved at WP:RFI. When it was VIP, I would help sort through the reports with Pathoschild to get the reports to the right place (Which led to the creation of Template:AIV not RFI); with sysop tools, I would better be able to take the appropriate actions after investigation. I would also close AFD discussions, as well as PROD'd articles. In addition, I would tend to CAT:CSD, as recently it at times has been backlogged (I'm sure I contributed to that backlog :P).

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

A: I'm very proud of my spoken contributions to the project, most importantly Raney nickel and Douglas Adams. Raney Nickel for it's complexity (I had to read many forumlas), and Douglas Adams for it's shear length. I was even able to finish their recordings before they hit the main page, giving the Spoken WikiProject a bit more exposure. I also have a little sense of acomplisment for two of my rather recent stubs. They include Mitchel Musso and The Jonas Brothers. Both had been speedied deleted by other administrators (Rightfully so, the previous versions were very fancrufty and didn't assert notability, to any admin, they'd look like A7's). I took some time to get some solid information, and recreated the articles to reflect other stubs in their genre's (Actor, Band). I do intend to expand both of them.

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

A: I haven't run into any conflicts while editing, but there have been a few cases where users were upset about me tagging their article for speedy deletion. I would just explain to the user why I tagged it, and point them in the appropriate direction of the guideline. In a few cases, I've offered to AFD their article, so that the community can voice their opinion (Which, there is an example of on my talk page, see the subheading "Speedy Deletion"). None of this has really caused me stress... there was one user who decided to IM me, and personally attack me, and attack me because I am American (I still have the conversation if any users would like to see it). I calmly explained the situation, offered to take it to AFD (He declined), and after warning him that further personal attacks on me would warrant a block (On Instant messenger) I blocked him, and haven't heard from him since. Neither of which, caused me any stress, nor affected my mood negatively.

Questions from Tawker stolen from JoshuaZ and Rob Church and NSLE:

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

   A: First of all, I would confront the user about the situation, see if there is any merit in me continuing my accusation. Afterwards, I would list the incident at WP:AN/I, gather more information and see if other admins agree the user is using sockpuppets. Then I'd file a request for checkuser, and see where that brings us. From that point, I would ask another sysop to carry out the appropriate action, or even take it to the ArbCom, as I would be an involved party.

2. While speedying articles/clearing a backlog at CAT:CSD, you come across an article that many users agree is patent nonsense. A small minority, of, say, three or four disagree. Upon looking the article over, you side with the minority and feel that the article is salvagable. Another admin then speedies it while you are making your decision. What would you do?

   A: I would contact the admin who speedy’d the article via talk pages or IRC if they are on freenode. I'd ask them what they thought qualified it for speedy criteria; I'd give them my opinion, and discuss the most appropriate action. If we disagree, I'd suggest taking it to WP:AFD. If we agree after hearing each others viewpoints however, then the whole situation is solved. : D

3. You speedy a few articles. An anon keeps recreating them, and you re-speedy them. After dropping a note on their talk page, they vandalise your user page and make incivil comments. You realise they've been blocked before. What would you do? Would you block them, or respect that you have a conflict of interest?

   A: After leaving the note on the talk page, and if it's re-created, I would place a {{deletedpage}} notice on the page. After the incivil comments, I would alert the user to WP:NPA, and warn appropriately. If the user continues to make incivil/personal attack comments, I would alert another admin on IRC to the situation, as I would be a conflict of interest.

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

   A:I would submit a comment to the RFAR, with my expirences in attempting to mediate. If however the RFAR was rejected, I would attempt to establish contact via email (if they are still blocked) for via the appropriate talk pages. Hopefully though, it wouldn't reach the RFAR stage, as it would cause less stress for both editors involved. I would continue to help both editors through the conflict even after the RFAR (or lack there of), to ensure that another edit war doesn't erupt

5. How would you respond to users who argue that your work has been almost exclusively in vandal fighting(even the article which you are most proud of you only have 14 edits, most of which are adding pictures) and that this lack of constructive (rather than anti-destructive) edits gives them reservations about making you an admin?

   A:The argument that I mainly do vandal fighting is totally valid, and by no means am I saying otherwise. When I first considered the nomination for adminship, I knew that this would arise. My reply to those users is that, yes we are building an encyclopedia, but then again, we need to maintain it too. Its things like vandalism that prevents my very own health teacher for regarding Misplaced Pages as a bad website. It's always been my goal to improve the credibility of Misplaced Pages, and if I can offer that through vandalism reverts, I believe that is as much needed as new material. My ability to correct vandalism is far higher than my ability to write comprehensive, in-depth articles.

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

   A: Misplaced Pages has evolved so much as a website since I first began lurking in 2004. There isn't really anything I would change about the website, as it's been proven to be a helpful resource to many school aged kids, including myself. The way in which operations are conducted on Misplaced Pages, are fine in my opinion, and don't require drastic changes.

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

   A: There are only 2 cases where I would indefinitely block a user. The first would be an obvious sockpuppet (or rather, imitator), e.g. Lightdarkness on Wheels, ect. The second would be a FA Penis vandal, or similar vandal, as they are vandalism only accounts, used for the sole purpose of defacing Misplaced Pages.

   To give an example, User:You must accept PISSCHRIST as your savior was just created at 2:18, this is a case where I would indefinitely block.

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

   A It first depends on the type of article that is up for deletion. If the article is something along the lines of an internet forum, or a gaming clan, great care must be taken to weed out the sockpuppet/call to vote votes. If the RCU returns inconclusive, yet I still believe there is trickery afoot, then I would relist for a clearer consensus. If my only possibilities are no consensus and delete, I would have to err on the side of caution, and close as no consensus. Users can always nominate the article again, but I would prefer to re-list if possible.

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

   A: I don't believe there is a set number of people that need express their opinions on an AFD for it to be closed, but in most cases you should have more than 1-3 comments on the nom. If the comments are low, I'd take into consideration the content of the comments, such as how much research the user did on the subject before placing their vote. If it is apparent that the few users who did express their opinions did so while truly knowing what they were talking about, I would have no problem closing the nom. In all other cases, I would relist for a broader consensus. As for RfD and CfD, both of those *FD's get less attention than the others, especially RfD. If there are valid opinions for deletion/keep/ect, then just a few votes would suffice for deletion.

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

    Answer I deal with a lot of difficult situations on other websites, that could be considered stressful situations, but none of which have caused me any burnout. It is very unfortunate for the admins who do face burnout, but in my time here, and on other websites, I haven't experienced it, nor do I foresee myself being affected by it in the future. If however, I am stressed by a particular situation, I would wander over to the Esperanza IRC channel and be pepped up by the amazing people in that organization.

11. Why do you want to be an administrator?

    Answer I would like to become an administrator because I believe I can better support Misplaced Pages with sysop tools. Vandalism is obviously the biggest problem affecting Misplaced Pages, and being able to block vandals, without having to wait 10-15 minutes for a report on AIV to be processed, I can better handle the situation. In addition to vandalism, I also feel the need to help assist entries at WP:RFI, many times reports listed there aren't dealt with in a timely manor. CAT:CSD also gets backlogged from time to time, recently there has been to a request for help on WP:AN to clear the backlog at any given time.

12. In your view, do administrators hold a technical or political position?

    Answer I view adminship more as a technical position, the political aspects are left up to community consensus, the sysop tools provided help aid in cleaning up vandalism, blocking persistent vandals, protecting pages, page moves, ect. It is not the job of a sysop to create policy, but rather the communities.

Question from Blnguyen:

1. I looked through about the last 3000 mainspace edits, and they are all reverts and AWB prompts. Can you please give examples of articles where you have made substantial edits, of a proactive nature, with which you are pleased - aside from the two stubs you have mentioned. (I do not mean to denigrate your massive contributions, just to inquire about your taking the initiative facets of your contribution). Regards,ßlηguγɛη | Have your say!!! 01:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC).

   A There's no denying a lot of my contributions are vandalism reverts, disambiguation repair, stub sorting, ect. I haven’t written a massive article, but what I am pleased with is my addition of infoboxes/movie posters to many Disney Channel Original Movie's articles (I’m a fan of the earlier ones). They took a bit of digging to find fair use images, and the information for the various producers, directors, cast, ect. Beyond several other stubs, I haven’t substantial edits. My strengths here at Misplaced Pages do revolve around vandalism, but I do make many minor edits to various articles to update new information. I hope this satisfies your question.

If you add more questions, please ping my talk page, I will respond as soon as I can, thank you. --lightdarkness 03:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Question from User:Phr (moved from other section):

1. You mentioned that "vandalism is obviously the biggest problem affecting Misplaced Pages". Could you elaborate on why you feel that way? What would you say the second or third biggest problems are, and why are they smaller than the vandalism problem? Phr 09:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

   A: The reason I feel that vandalism is the biggest problem, is because I use Misplaced Pages from school, and the last thing anyone need, is for some vandal to blank a high profile page and replace it with obscene images. It's things like that, which are giving Misplaced Pages bad press. The second biggest problem would be the addition of blatantly false information. This is causing a credibility problem, and is just as dangerous as vandalism. The third is kind of clumped with the other two, and that is the bad press that Misplaced Pages is getting. It's those reports (Which aren't always accurate themselves) that cause teachers (Including my own health teacher, as I mentioned earlier) to have the impression that you cannot use it as a source (But then again, you should always verify with the references).

OPTIONAL Questions from Lar :

1. Do you think there is a reasonable upper bound on how many questions an Admin candidate can be expected to reasonably answer in a week's time, and has this list exceeded it yet? And did you know that answering questions is theoretically optional for the candidate? You may be on your way to a new record number of questions, how does that make you feel? (are your fingers sore yet?) ++Lar: t/c 15:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

   A: Actually, my arm is kinda sore, but that is from sleeping wrong, not from typing :P. I think the canidate is expected to answer the standard 3, and a few optional questions should be no problem for the canidate. I feel that it is optional for the canidate to answer an additional 14 questions (Thanks Tawker :P), but I believe it would only help the canidate. And as for your last statment, I believe Tawker holds the record :P

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

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

Kaisershatner

Final (46/13/3) ended 15:02, 17 April, 2006 (UTC)

Kaisershatner (talk · contribs) – Hello, I've decided to stand for administrator, after hanging around for almost two years. I appreciate your consideration. Kaisershatner 15:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Accept! (self-nom)

Support

1. Support. In my experience with Kaisershatner, I've found this user to be able to work on contentious articles civilly, and to play a positive role in informally mediating questions of Misplaced Pages etiquette, demonstrating familiarity with Misplaced Pages policy.—thames 15:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
2. Support - looks good and, in my opinion, is unlikely to abuse AdminPowers™. --Celestianpower 15:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
3. Support significant experience. Clearly has been around for a while, and knows what he's doing. KI 15:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
4. Support But I would have liked more of a description than "I've been hanging around". Hopefully that won't effect this RFA. Moe ε 15:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
5. Support. Pithy. Haukur 15:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
6. Edit conflicted Support However, I agree with Moe and the editor appears not to be an RC or NP patroller (but that's not a problem) and also, there's a lack of edits to Misplaced Pages talk, but once again, that doesn't matter. Computerjoe's talk 15:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
7. Support Fine record, longtime editor, stupendous-beyond-belief username! :) Xoloz 16:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
8. Support--Jusjih 16:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
9. Support, looks good. JIP | Talk 17:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
10. Support, i was looking for flaws, but i didnt find any. Vulcanstar6 18:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
11. More like this candidate, please™ Support!. A few more edits in wikipedia talk might be nice though, good admins help shape policy as well as enforce it. But that's picayune in relevance. ++Lar: t/c 18:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
12. Support, good user. --Tone 21:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
13. I've disagreed with Kaisershatner on almost everything. But, from what I've seen, I believe he can be trusted with this responsibility. Derex 21:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
14. Support Saw someone else support you, checked your contribs then would up here. Full Support. Highway 23:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
15. Support --Jay(Reply) 23:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
16. Support - Two thumbs up. (^'-')^ Covington 00:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
17. Support - I am tendentious to support based on his frequent improvements to wikipedia. - Richardcavell 00:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
18. Support good editor --Deville (Talk) 02:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
19. Support Joe I 02:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
20. Support A little more varied edits into talk pages and Misplaced Pages space would be nice but I still think this user would make a fine admin. Jedi6-(need help?) 04:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
21. Support Some of his edits, I dislike. But I also don't like peas. Doesn't mean it's not good for you. This promotion is good for the wiki, peas or no peas. Merecat 06:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
22. Support --Terence Ong 07:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
23. Support. Good editor. DarthVader 07:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
24. Support. --Exir Kamalabadi 09:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
25. Support --Rob from NY 12:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
26. Support no reason to suspect he'd misuse admin tools or otherwise cause problems. --W.marsh 14:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
27. Support No problems here. --Siva1979 15:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
28. Support very experienced.  Grue  18:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
29. Support. — FireFox • T
30. Support good editor--rogerd 04:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
31. Support A fine wikipedian that there's no reason to restrict from having admin tools. Shanes 09:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
32. Support. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 17:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
33. Support - Aksi_great (talk) 18:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
34. Support Worked with this editor in the past and see no reason to oppose based on edits then or since.--MONGO 06:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
35. Support. No explanation required, he's more than ready for the mop, and will do fine. Plus his name is awesome. Wait, that sort of was an explanation. Damn it! Proto||type 10:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
36. Support; He's done good work on difficult pages without antagonizing people. Tom Harrison 16:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
37. Support, good candidate. --StabiloBoss 19:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
38. Support – very good. ×Meegs 14:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
39. Support MatriX 15:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
40. Wait, seriously, I haven't supported yet? Apparently not. Great ediotr, strong contributor to articles, and it's doubtful that he'll abuse the tools. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 22:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
41. Support Seems thoughtful and careful. A little more use of the show preview button may be indicated, but that is pretty minor. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
42. Support I was a bit concerned that this editor has over 200 edits to Ayn Rand, but I reviewed those edits and found no reason for concern, and I see no evidence of article ownership. Nor do I share in my fellow editor's concerns regarding "lack of deletion votes"; it might be nice for once to have an admin who hasn't been ruined by the toxic environment of AfD. I am tempted to oppose so that he will spend more time on the cleanup backlog (which largely does not require administrative rights) than fighting vandalism, as the former is far more important to the quality of the encyclopedia in the long term, but I can hope that he will not discard his intent to do cleanup merely because he gets the keys to the mop cabinet. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
43. "File:Hand with thumbs up.jpg" per above. —Khoikhoi 19:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
44. Support a good editor. Kusma (討論) 23:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
45. Support No good reason I can see not to give him the mop. Vsmith 01:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
46. Support --Alf 15:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I really hate to be the first oppose vote on the list. But that will not influence my vote here. JaredW! ] 18:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

   I understand how hard it can be to oppose sometimes. May I ask your reason for opposing, please? Xoloz 19:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

2. Weak Oppose due to very low Misplaced Pages and User talk edits. I would like to see a little bit more experience in the actual policies of Misplaced Pages even if you want to be an admin primarily to deal with vandalism. —Cuiviénen, Monday, 10 April 2006 @ 22:52 (UTC)
3. Weak Oppose, few edits outside of the article space.--Adam 01:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
4. Weak Oppose per Cuivienen. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 02:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
5. Weak Oppose per above. --Masssiveego 04:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
6. Weak Oppose per others. SushiGeek 03:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose per Cuivienen. Royboycrashfan 04:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose I would like to see more wikipedia namespace experince with self-noms, sry, maybe in another month --Jaranda 20:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
9. Weakest of Opposes Some more namespace experience, some more interaction with other editors, and I'll gladly vote support. _-M P-_ 23:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
10. Oppose I am not completely convinced that Kaisershatner has made a compelling case for needing the tools. Vandalism fighting is mentioned but the user has only made two edits to WP:AIAV (see here) and has relatively few User Talk edits (for a vandal fighter). I'm not opposed to admins who are primarily vandal fighters, but if that is what Kaisershatner intends his main focus to be - I'd like to see a bit more experience. TigerShark 04:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
11. Candidate has low involvement in the project namespace. Exactly two edits any deletion-related discussions. Also has 203 edits to Ayn Rand, which I find discomforting in itself. His five favorite article comprise more than 10% of his edits! I can't knowingly support a possible article WP:OWNer for adminship, I'm sorry. Between that issue and the lack of evidence that he's familiar with administrative tasks and processes, I must sternly oppose. — Apr. 16, '06 <freakofnur_xture|talk>
12. Oppose. Not enough evidence of familiarity with policies, nor for a need for admin tools. —Doug Bell 07:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
13. Oppose as per freakofnurture. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 05:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral. An excellent editor but seems inexperienced when it comes to the messy policy and discussion part of Misplaced Pages.
2. Neutral, good editor, though I would like to see some more project and talk edits --TBC 10:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
3. Neutral -- I would really like to support but this editor does not have enough experience on talk. I worry that we may ruin a good editor by making him an admin out of his depth. John Reid 17:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• See Kaisershatner's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool and the edit summary usage with Mathbot's tool.
• Assuming there is a United Federation of Planets in the first place, I don't think it is possible to be German without being a citizen of the United Federation of Planets. JIP | Talk 17:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Good observation, although editor says he isn't German either. The point is that it is questionable how one could be Terran and not a UFP citizen. :) Xoloz 17:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• In your nomination statement, you said that I generally troll WP:PR and WP:FAC... you're quite aware of the term internet troll, right? Alphax  05:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure I am. I think the internet usage of troll is derived from the same usage I'm employing here - dragging a line behind your boat to catch things. Kaisershatner 17:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

A: One of the "admin tasks" that I have generally enjoyed is working on the cleanup backlog, although I have not really applied myself there recently, and I don't really see it as an "admin task," it's more of a community job. One of the primary reasons I have opted to seek Adminship is to be more effective in countering vandalism. Too often I've followed an anon ip after six or eight obscene edits and planting the various "test" templates on their talk page, only to be left toothless when the Admins who are around haven't had a moment to put a short block up. This just creates more work for everyone.

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

A: For certain Gettysburg Address, which I collaborated on with User:BartBenjamin, is one of my favorites. My user page lists a few others. I recently did a major overhaul of United States Bill of Rights.

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

A: Fortunately, not for a long time. Possibly the biggest conflict I had was a while back, with User:Zen-master. Ironically, although it might have been my own worst experience with inter-user conflict, I see that there have been others who have had a rougher time of it. In the end, he and I worked out our editing conflicts pretty reasonably, I think. (For the curious, see: Killian documents) - it's a contentious subject but by adhering to WP:NPA, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV I think we ultimately achieved a reasonable result.

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

Current nominations for bureaucratship

Bureaucrats are administrators with the additional ability to make other users admins or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here. They can also change the user name of any other user.

The process for bureaucrats is similar to that for adminship above, but is generally by self-nomination only. The expectation for promotion to bureaucratship is significantly higher than for admin, in terms of numbers of votes, ability to engage voters and candidates, and significant disqualifications. Candidates might consider initiating a discussion here of the prevailing consensus about the need for additional bureaucrats before nominating themselves.

Bureaucrats are expected to determine consensus in difficult cases and be ready to explain their decisions. Vote sections and boilerplate questions for candidates can be inserted using {{subst:Misplaced Pages:Requests for bureaucratship/Candidate questions}}. New bureaucrats are recorded at Misplaced Pages:Recently created bureaucrats. Failed nominations are at Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrat nominees not promoted.

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

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

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

Celestianpower

Final (68/23/7) ended 13:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Self-nominated. No acceptance required. 13:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Celestianpower (talk · contribs · count) — Right, I guess the first issue that needs to be addressed is the issue of whether we need new bureaucrats (b-crats from now on). My answer is (yes, you guessed it) "yes". Since the recent resignations of Francs2000 (talk · contribs) and Cecropia (talk · contribs), we have a current gaping hole with regards to active b-crats. Now, Essjay (talk · contribs) has gone quite a way to filling this (as well as slightly increased activity by some of the others like Danny (talk · contribs) and Ilyanep (talk · contribs)) but I feel that we cannot (and should not) pile the majority of this responsibility onto him (of the last 20 promotions, 65% have been him). Also, recently, there was an up to 24 hour delay in promotion and while this isn't the end of the world, it certainly isn't desirable. If appointed, I hope to take some of the load from Essjay on this front and would certainly help out with changing usernames.

I suppose I should talk about me then. After a shaky start, I finally got on track and was pretty much hooked from the word go. I tried my hand at stub sorting and voted pretty uninformedly on a few VfDs until I found my feet editing Pokémon-related articles: I discovered the Pokémon Adoption Center (a list of my Pokémon contributions while there can be found on that page). Then came my first RfA which failed with a 66% support margin. In hindsight, I wasn't ready for Adminship at that stage, though I was pretty annoyed when it failed. Then, at 6 months on the project, I was re-nominated by my good friend Redwolf24 and passed with 100% support (60 votes). Since then, I have tried my hand at all of the tools and loved (nearly) every minute. Later (at the turn of 2006), I was elected as the Administrator General of Esperanza, an organisation of Wikipedians dedicated to reducing stress and increasing Misplaced Pages's sense of community. It currently has 300+ members and we are currently creating a code of conduct to make sure Esperanzians follow Esperanza's goal by example. In terms of Pokémon (my other great Misplaced Pages passion), I have become co-ordinator of the Pokémon Collaborative Project and got Bulbasaur to featured status (against all odds).

I feel there have a been 4 defining moments of my Misplaced Pages experience so far, three of which are mentioned above: my second RfA (which saw me promoted to Adminship), my appointment as Admin Gen of Esperanza, my experience with User:Amibidhrohi and the Bulbasaur FAC. One of my darkest moments on Misplaced Pages was that Bulbasaur FAC. It was (one of the) longest, drawn-out FACs ever, with about 300KB of discussion to 20.5KB of article. The archives can be found here, here and here. During that whole very stressful episode (towards the end), I started to get very uncivil and pretty nasty towards some of the users there. I know this is no excuse but after hearing the same false reasons over and over and then people saying that my Admin Gen-ship of Esperanza had something to do with all of the supports, I got very mad and was on the very brink of leaving altogether. However, this has taught me a few important things:

1. When stressed, don't post responses.
2. When stressed about a certain page or discussion, make an edit and then wait half an hour before saving. If you still feel the same way in half an hour, it's unlikely to be as uncivil and nasty as if you save outright.
3. Criticism of articles != criticism of editors (it took me a while to figure this on out)

As to Amibidhrohi, it can all be found here. From this episode, I learnt that "not feeding the trolls" is very important and if in doubt at all, discuss with other users you trust (an important thing for Bureaucrats as well as Admins to do).

Well, that's my editing history. Now, what am I today? Well, my outlook is much more positive towards the future of Misplaced Pages. So long as editors can work together well and are always civil, things get done (see the the Torchic FAC for this in action). I feel I'm neutral and fair and if I'm not totally sure of something, I will always ask someone else. For these reasons, I feel I'd make a good b-crat. What do you think? --Celestianpower 13:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

PS, Oh, sorry. I forgot the numbers :P. I've been on Misplaced Pages since 2005-04-17 (364 days ago) and an Admin since 6 months ago. I have 7,500 edits, 3,600 to talk and Misplaced Pages- related namespaces. --Celestianpower 13:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Strong Support an awesome user. — Deckiller 13:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
2. Strong Support What Deckiller said. Celestianpower is a truly great wikipedian, and we need more b'crats too. Banez 13:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
3. Support. -JCarriker 13:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
4. Support, jacoplane 13:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
5. Support. Tangotango 14:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
6. Support — Ilyanep (Talk) 14:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
7. Support, definitely. --Terence Ong 14:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
8. Suport we need at least 1 more b-crat and he's good enough for the job --Jaranda 15:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
9. Support We need more and I'm sure he would do a good job. Pegasus1138 ---- 15:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
10. Support.  Grue  15:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
11. Support A great user. --Siva1979 15:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
12. Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
13. Support Moe ε 16:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
14. Support, brilliant user, need more crats, etc Sceptre 17:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
15. support He deserves it ILovEPlankton 17:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
16. Support. We need more BCs, and if he wont make a good one, there are few who will. The Minister of War 17:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
17. Support One of the most productive, kind and helpful editors I've ever come across. He deserves this. Highway 18:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
18. Support One of the few administrators I currently feel comfertable with becoming bureaucrats. Saying we don't need more Bcrats is crazy, we can't leave all RFA's up to 2-3 active RFA BCrats. --lightdarkness 19:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
19. Support great work so far. --Tone 21:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
20. Support I have full faith in him as per previous interaction. --M@thwiz2020 21:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
21. Unequivocal support. There aren't many users I'd trust more with bureaucrat powers. Celestianpower's record is amazing, outstanding, and relatively clean of trouble. He's so ridiculously unlikely to abuse the powers and so impossibly likely to use them well to the betterment of the encyclopedia that I can't think of any decent reason to hold back supporting. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 22:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
22. Support. Will make a great BC. DarthVader 23:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
23. Support great user; would make a great 'cratWhere 23:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
24. Support. —Nightstallion (?) 00:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
25. Support, because it's not about the number of b-crats, it's about the quality of b-crats. --Zsinj 00:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
26. Support, my goodness, absolutely! He will make a truly fantastic bureaucrat, and we need more of those. -- Natalya 01:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
27. Strong support. Has my full confidence. NSLE _(T+C) at 01:12 UTC (2006-04-16)
28. Support. Has my confidence as well. enochlau (talk) 01:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
29. Support of course Jedi6-(need help?) 03:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
30. Support. Wholeheartedly. (^'-')^ Covington 04:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
31. Support. Cabal here.-- 陈鼎翔 贡献 Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 04:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
32. Support trust to do the job Pete.Hurd 06:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
33. Support, he will use his CelestianPower® to become a good bureaucrat. JIP | Talk 06:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
34. Support. He is a very good admin, I have no doubts that he will be a very good bureaucrat too. Rje 07:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
35. Support of course. Computerjoe's talk 10:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
36. Support --Jay(Reply) 17:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
37. Support Admrb♉ltz ( T | I | E ) 19:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
38. Support Just have a discussion with CP and you'll understand why. Karmafist 21:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
39. Strong Support Celestianpower would make a great bureaucrat. --Adam1213 Talk + 02:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
40. Strong Support - well respected user, natural 'crat. BD2412 T 03:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
41. Support, as I too believe this person would make a great bureaucrat. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
42. Mindless-esperanzian-zombie-Support-on-his-First-Edit-Day Seriously, he's a great editor, admin, head of Esperanza and just a great guy. Very cool, level-headed and thorough (read the IRC logs from the Esperanza AC meetings if you doubt). Regarding the FAC incident, well, everyone can be brought up to the boiling point. For those who still see a problem here, check out his answers to Pagrashtak's questions. Regarding the "we don't need more bureaucrats" argument, I remember not long ago (definitely after Essjay's promotion) a b'crat closing an RfA or something with an extra summary: "we need more bureaucrats". I'd love to find it but there's a lot of logs to dig through (simply because there's a lot of work for a b-crat to do). Misza13 10:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
43. Support, should make an excellent b-cat Scot 12:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
44. Support, we need more wiki-deities... --Cool Cat 13:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
45. Support - hardly anyone better qualified. --Dangherous 16:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
46. Support - would make a great b'crat - Aksi_great (talk) 17:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
47. Support. --Rory096_(block) 17:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
48. Strong supportVery experienced, likeable user. _-M P-_ 18:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
49. Strong support. Based on my experience of this user, his statement, comments above and below, and a time on IRC when I asked him about how he could close a variety of RfA scenarios- I fully trust Celestianpower to make the right decisions (including abstaining from making a promotion, or obtaining clearer consensus before making it). As I think at least one or two more BC's would be of help rather than of harm to Misplaced Pages, I place my full support behind this candidate. Petros471 19:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
50. Support per above. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
51. Support. If all previous interactions with him are indicative of something, is that he can make a fair decision. While I was a bit surprised by the Bulbasaur incident, I cannot ask anyone to be absolutely perfect, nor to be completely devoid of emotion. I saw at least a couple of apologies after that particular episode, so I'm confident that it should be in the past now (although the advice to not take things personally is always good). Titoxd 04:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
52. Strong support. A calm, reasonable and dedicated Wikipedian who cares about the project and his fellow editors. Has an excellent grasp of the issues facing Misplaced Pages and the day-to-day administration thereof. Has made minor mistakes and learned from them, something a great many more people who edit here, myself included, should do more often. All in all, will be a 'crat to be proud of. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 13:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
53. Support. Have read the Bulbazor archives and others, think this is someone who can admit to their mistakes and learn from them, a skill more people should have. Mrjeff 23:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
54. Support, good admin, will close RfA. Good enough for me. SorryGuy 00:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
55. Support - good admin, I don't get why people will vote oppose on "no more 'crats are needed" -- Tawker 00:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
56. Support Joe I 02:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
57. Support. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 04:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
58. Support We need more experienced crats. Adminship is no big deal, and if the user can be trusted enough to admin, they should be able to be trusted to make admins. Mike _{(T C)} 05:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
59. Support. Brilliant potential admin. HolyRomanEmperor 18:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

    You do realise this user is not running for admin, but for bureucrat? jacoplane 18:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

60. Support. I had some doubts about Celestianpower back when he was running for administrator general of Esperanza. In fact, I didn't even give him my vote of confidence. However, since he won the election, I've seen him make some terrific decisions and come up with some brilliant ideas for improving the quality of the Misplaced Pages community. Most importantly, I can trust his judgment in determining the consensus (or lack thereof) in RfA discussions. I can also trust him to make the right decisions in unusual or difficult cases, which will arise occasionally. --TantalumTelluride 20:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
61. Support Celestianpower comes out on top of the administrator pile in my book, and that's where 'crats should be picked from -Obli (Talk) 20:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
62. Support So long as he dosen't turn out like Pres. Bush, he seems like a great candidate. The ed17 17:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC) (talk)
63. Sooper-dooper Support! - Pureblade | 18:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
64. Support. He's been a great admin and will surely be a good b-crat. Bucketsofg 20:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
65. Support. — FireFox • T
66. Support. Would make a great crat.--Adam 12:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
67. User's history convinces me that he can be trusted to act always in accordance with community consensus, which is what we expect of a Bureaucrat. Redux 17:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
68. Support. We have enough bureaucrats. We'll have enough after he's promoted. That seems right to me. Mackensen (talk) 23:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose --W.marsh 14:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

   Not that I think you're vote is in bad-faith, but could you provide a reason? Moe ε 16:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

   I am not opposed in principal to more b'crats right now, but I don't see a pressing need for them (I prefer good decisions to fast ones), and perhaps more importantly, as the number of b'crats increases, so does the potential for problems. Given how I view the situation, I have a high standard... the burden should be on the candidate, if they're coming to RfB right now.

   I know it might seem rude to oppose someone's RfB because they aren't the absolute most extraordinary Wikipedian ever to edit an article, but the fact is that asking to be promoted right now is an extraordinary thing to ask for, and requires an extraordinary candidate in my opinion. Like John below, I just don't see that here, despite the fact the candidate is obviously a great admin and an asset to WP. Yes, it's a very high standard that I don't meet myself, but unless you see RfB as a popularity contest, it isn't something you should go into right now expecting everyone to vote for you just because they like you. I hope there are no hard feelings here. --W.marsh 18:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

   None taken. --Celestianpower 23:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

2. I really hate to do this, but I have rather high standards for bureaucrats. While I certainly don't believe that there can or should be "enough" bureaucrats, I do believe that the bureaucrats we have should be held to the highest possible standard, which means a lot of experience spread out across a number of areas. Don't get me wrong -- you're a great admin and a great guy, and you'd probably do a good job as a bureaucrat, but IMO, "probably" isn't enough for 'crats. I don't demand perfection, but I do like to be able to say with certainty that "Out of 500 promotions, this guy would probably only make one or two mistakes, and he'd fix them up right away." I also like to see candidates with confidence (and if possible) familiarity from the community, because the community must have utmost confidence in those who promote admins. I don't think six months as an admin is enough to say any of these with full confidence, although things might be different for an uber-active admin. I know this is really vague, but this is just how I feel, and I'm going with my gut on this one. Johnleemk | Talk 15:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose I like editor, but we do not need more b'crats. Additionally, I have an uneasy about editor's small comments to Cecropia directly before the latter's resignation; I think it would be very unfair to call the exchange "uncivil" or anything -- but the editor and I clearly have different views on b'cratship, as I felt much more sympathy for Cecropia than he. Xoloz 18:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose on the grounds of wanting a little more experience (like the above votes). A few more well-qualified crats wouldn't hurt (especially now that people are doing things about inactive crats now...like User:Optim) so I just want to make it clear that I am not opposing on the grounds of "no need for crats" now.Voice-of-All 18:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

   Are you sure you don't mean "wouldn't hurt"? :p Johnleemk | Talk 18:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

5. Oppose at this time. Is a little low on experience in my view for a bureaucrat, and I'm a little concerned about how this user performs under pressure. While I believe that Celestianpower has learned from the Bulbasaur episode, I'd like to wait a bit and verify that that is the case. —Spangineer (háblame) 19:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose - I want to wait longer before we introduce any more changes to the current bureaucracy. Changes need time to get settled in. --HappyCamper 02:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose, with regret. I have nothing against Celestianpower, as I think he is a fine user, but I prefer RfB nominees to have been administrators for at least a year. The Bulbasaur FAC also concerned me quite a bit, and while CP has probably learned from that event, I'd like to wait a bit longer to see how things go. Even if I put that aside, there are still things like this that trouble me as well and, as Spangineer stated, cause me to wonder about how he will act under pressure (even though CP does realize his mistakes and corrects them, they're still enough to give me pause). I will probably support at a later time (preferably after a year of adminship), but not right now. Robert 03:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose Some concerns about the level of experience, but I'm opposing primarily on the basis of the Bulbasaur incident. Comment such as the one starting "How preposterous!" here, and this edit summary - make me very concerned about how Celestianpower responds under pressure and how uncivil he can become in such situations. As we have seen in the last few weeks, Bureaucrats really can come in for a lot of pressure and a lot of questioning of their motives and integrity - I am not convinced that this user would respond well. The incident only happened about 6 weeks ago, so now is too soon. TigerShark 04:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose, per issues with the Bulbasaur FAC and high standards for bureaucrats. —Doug Bell 07:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
10. Oppose. Bulbasaur FAC should be very clear about this user's particular brand of civility under legitimate criticism.Temporary account 08:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

    Legitimate? Meh. Highway 12:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

11. Strong Oppose per my oft repeated standards: No More Bureaucrats are needed. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
12. Oppose The bulbsaur fac has repeatedly shown this guy obviously cannot take any kind of criticism and isn't logical enough to counter with reasoning other than finally resorting to personal attacks. For example, this sort of message was left on Tsavage's talk page: "If I wasn't Admin Gen of Esperanza I'd both block you and call you all of the swear words under the Sun." Provided that celestianpower already enjoys the unwavering support of his esperanza group, many of whom supported the bulba article FAC without clear reasoning other than a "yipee!", I find the idea of even granting him the position of a "bureaucrat" rather ridiculous. BlueShirts 18:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

    Cel did very well under the pressure, sure he got mad, but he stuck it out and apologised. He can take criticism very well, open to suggestions and is very good at converting this into articles. I would like to see how many other editors could go through 3 FACs for a single article and take that kind of criticism! He's helped people to stay calm during FAC, so it's hardly like he hasn't taken anything from the experience. And frankly if I were in his shoes if someone had rejected an FAC because it "should be deleted", I would be in a similar state of anger. And I don't care if this gets posted in my future RfA, because no one likes me anyway. Highway 19:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

    I'm sorry, but responding to constructive criticism about the FAC article by personalizing it and attacking the person criticizing the article is not what I would call "doing well under pressure." How will he respond when the criticism is directed at his actions rather than during a critical review of an article? I think the concerns regarding his behaviour during the Bulbasaur FAC are legitimate. —Doug Bell 06:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

    With all due respect, Esperanza isn't "his". It has existed before he became Admin Gen and it will survive long after. The organzation doesn't "belong" to any one person. — nathanrdotcom 03:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

13. Weak Oppose A fine user but I don't think he's ready for bureacratship yet, per many of the above comments. --kingboyk 23:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
14. Oppose Obvious lack of experiance for b-crat status... a year at admin is a good point, 6 months is way to low. Also there is a lack of maturity exhibited during the bulbasaur FAC which is entirely too recent for my tastes. -M 23:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
15. Oppose: my standards for B'crat include one year as admin. Jonathunder 13:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
16. Oppose per Jaxl. --SR Bryant 21:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
17. Oppose. Don't like him. Grace Note 03:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

    RFA and RFB isn't a popularity contest. It's not a matter about whether you like someone or not. I urge the closing crat to consider the merits of this vote. NSLE _(T+C) at 10:50 UTC (2006-04-18)

    I can vote to oppose for any reason I choose or no reason at all. Go and bully someone else. If I don't like someone, I do not consider them someone I can trust, so I oppose them. I don't like you either. Count on my opposition if you ever ask for more powers. Grace Note 05:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

    Would it be at all possible to expand on this a bit? Why don't you like me? --Celestianpower 09:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

    I'm sorry. I just don't. I don't want to be unpleasant about it. We all have people we don't like. It's just the outcome of our interaction and of your general approach to Misplaced Pages. I would not have opposed you for an RfA.Grace Note 05:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

    Liking someone (or not liking as the case may be) is not a reason to vote oppose. Give a concise reason why the user does not meet your expectations. — nathanrdotcom 03:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)!

    Liking someone or not is as good a reason as any. Go and harass the many support voters who do not give reasons.Grace Note 05:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

    No offense, but I am keeping this vote as one of the strangest (to say the least) votes I have ever seen on a Rf* — Ilyanep (Talk) 03:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

    Why would you not keep it? I presume you'll "keep" the many votes that do not even bother to give a reason.Grace Note 05:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

18. Oppose regretfully. By all accounts a good editor and admin, but I am not yet confident that he has the necessary experience. --cj | talk 09:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

    Oppose As self-nomination rather than recommended initially by peers. Excellent contributions however, definite future candidate. Netkinetic 12:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

    All bureaucrat noms are self-nominations. This is stated as such on WP:RFA. I also personally find it a bit inappropriate to object to any nomination just because it's a self-nom, whether it's an RfA or RfB. Johnleemk | Talk 13:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

    I stand corrected. Changing to neutral. Netkinetic 18:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

19. Only the longest-tenured, wisest Wikipedians should be bureaucrats. TacoDeposit 14:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
20. Firm Oppose. Celestianpower has done some great work, particularly with Esperanza, but I do not believe that he is ready to be a bureaucrat. My interactions with him have been few, but I have not been left with a favorable impression. It seems to me that his civility is prone to breaking down under stress, and that he is a little immature. Additionally, he does not have the experience required to be a bureaucrat. Canderson7 23:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
21. Oppose Misplaced Pages needs moderates in positions of authority. But his talk page says "I am strongly against Mr. Foliage , his reign of terror and in particular The war in Iraq. I believe that he is the biggest threat to World peace in our society today. Other things I hate include The Conservative Party". He comes to Misplaced Pages with a strong set of biases and preconceived notions. We need more thoughtful, reasoned Bureaucrats here who can deal with people of all stripes without "hating" them and writing them off. Extremists, whether left-wing or right-wing, should not be put in positions of power. Lou franklin 02:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

    Don't leave out that he also HATES sports (emphasis Celestianpower). :-) —Doug Bell 07:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

    Heh - and proud of it :). Do tell me if I put those views into articles though (except for the one I cited above - for those who've forgotten)... --Celestianpower 16:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

22. Oppose, sorry, no. Nice enough guy, but not enough experience, and not able to always keep his temper. Proto||type 12:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

    The closing Bureaucrat will please notice that the last vote, immediately underneath this comment, was cast after the RfB's deadline. Redux 17:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

    Oh, right, UTC, not my time, Eastern. Still, the comment is there and the issue is I think important enough, so whomever arbitrates should be bold and consider this additional view. After all, this isn't a vote... Thanks. --Tsavage 17:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

23. Oppose If I hadn't been told about this nomination, I wouldn't have known about it, and that on its own is disturbing, that quite fundamental decisions in WP can be made with potentially interested participants left unaware. My experience with Celestianpower came through the many weeks of the Bulbasaur nominations at Featured Article Candidate. His overall approach did not fill me with confidence in his open-mindedness and ability to see opposing, or even simply different, points of view. He is generally polite, and sounds quite reasonable, until his views are challenged. He now presents a balanced self-evaluation of his Bulbasaur conduct, but this seems based on advice from others, which indicates to me that he understands what to say to mitigate a situation, but not to act in a balanced manner in the first place. His statement: "You have gone to 2 FACs currently and just totally ruined them. If I wasn't Admin Gen of Esperanza I'd both block you and call you all of the swear words under the Sun" displays a personal anger against individuals, and willingness to threaten use extraordinary powers. Combined with additonal comments like: "I cannot see anything stopping this promotion other than your vendetta and Raul is clever enough to see through that. ... It will be promoted" add up to me to a person who builds up support to the point where he believes he is "right", and then is prepared to do anything necessary to see his end "win". This as not a desirable profile for someone seeking to be a neutral arbiter. In case anyone underestimates the insight into Celestianpower's reasoning that Bulbasaur provides, please remember that the FAC was a self-nomination (like this request for bureaucratship), he voluntarily submitted to an editorial review process, and then lost all perspective when things didn't go his way. Finally, I can't help but feel there is a quest for power going on here. He is an Administrator. He is also the elected Administrator General of Esperanza, a group with membership and a code of conduct, and Esperanza came up as a factor in the Bulbasaur voting (voter turnout was at least double the FAC average, and half were Esperanza members by one reviewer's count). Now he volunteers for another position, that carries more extraordinary powers Considering that we are in an environment where "consensus" is often determined by the supermajority of as few as 10 or 20 people, with the decision made by an admin or bureaucrat, supporting concentrations of power is not a good way to ensure that the opinions of individual editors count. (Should I be looking around for a supportive/protective affiliation myself?) Overall, IMO and experience, Celestianpower has not behaved in an entirely unusual manner, but he has demonstrated serious flaws in his perspective and judgement that aren't likely to have "been resolved" in a month. He is therefore not someone I trust in a position of extraordinary responsibility. --Tsavage 15:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

    "Oppose If I hadn't been told about this nomination, I wouldn't have known about it, and that on its own is disturbing, that quite fundamental decisions in WP can be made with potentially interested participants left unaware." Um, since when was it anyone's duty to personally notify you about Rfas and Rfbs? The process followed here is no different than any other Rfb, and your insinuation that it was somehow hidden from most users is utter nonsense. If you are such a vital part of the community, then you know where to look for all the candidates, as does everyone else. It is your job to keep tabs on this page, and nothing improper occured here. It sure sounds like you are not assuming good faith in the Rfb process to me. pschemp | talk 15:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

    I'm not insinuating anything, simply pointing out a fact. I was informed about this on my talk page, else I wouldn't have known about it. And I didn't know that being a "vital part of the community" required knowing the ins and outs of dozens and dozens of administrative procedures and posting locations, or by extension tracking the behavior of any number of users and admins. I thought it primarily had to do with working on the editorial of an encyclopedia, through editing, reviewing and helping to improve editorial guidelines... --Tsavage 16:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral I think one year on Misplaced Pages and half a year as admin is not enough to be a bureaucrat. I have had great personal interactions with Celestianpower, but, perhaps wrongly, and with no acual examples, I feel that he is not yet up to the task. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
2. Something up there is keeping me neutral here. I find the user to be amiable, but at the same time, I don't think so (with respect to bureaucratship). I'll perch on the fence. Rob Church (talk) 01:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

   Surely not up there? :P. --Celestianpower 19:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

3. I have to agree. C.P is definitely one of the best editors here on Wp. He is kind, friendly and knowledgable... However, I think that he might need more work and experience as an admin (maybe a year?). I would definitely support if you waited a while. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 03:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

   Esperanzial Oppose cos no one does Ok, change to support. Just a joke!-- 陈鼎翔 贡献 Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 04:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

4. Perhaps later. Needs more experience IMO. - Mailer Diablo 07:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
5. Neutral Needs some more experience. Shyam 11:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
6. Neutral While I think Celestianpower has improved since the Bulbasaur FAC, it's too recent for me to vote support, I think. I have somewhat of a problem with the answer to question 9 also. Pagrashtak 04:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
7. Neutral I greatly admire Celestianpower for his expertise, but because I do not know him that well, I will remain neutral for the time being. Bibliomaniac15 02:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

   Neutral until question number 6 is answered (the hard one). --American Saga 01:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC) Banned User:Zephram Stark. SlimVirgin 08:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• Since Celestianpower mentioned her his editcount, and because I'm dying to try out the tool, here's the statistics:

Statistics for: Celestianpower
- Total: 7636 -
Main: 2737
Talk: 250
User: 771
User talk: 1380
Misplaced Pages: 1735
Misplaced Pages talk: 324
Image: 63
MediaWiki: 12
MediaWiki talk: 8
Template: 193
Template talk: 44
Category: 21
Portal: 97
Portal talk: 1

Total edits: 7636
Minor edits: 2230
Edits with edit summary: 7223
Edits with manual edit summary: 7091
Percent minor edits: 29.2% *
Percent edit summary use: 94.59% *
Percent manual edit summary use: 92.86% *

• - percentages are rounded down to the nearest hundredth.
  

<BEGIN DISCLAIMER> Note that by giving these statistics, I am in no way, shape, or form implying either support or opposition for the candidate. As usual, the warnings about editcountitis must be repeated: these numbers are only that: numbers, and cannot reflect the candidate's ability. I offer them only to present the data for those who wish it to carefully evaluate the candidate. </END DISCLAIMER> Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• There's this "gaping hole" thing again. I don't see it. -Splash 22:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

  Perhaps that language was a bit strong. How about, "Celestianpower-sized pothole"? --Celestianpower 16:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?

A. The criteria is: less than 74% support is fail; more than 81% support is pass. In between is the bureaucrat's discretion based on comments made and the general will of the community. I feel that I have a reasonable knack of, when entering a discussion, finding where the current consensus is. Obviously, there is the occassional exception but on the whole, these are the communities standards and I respect them. Oh, and, obviously, sock votes would have to be discounted before any number counting takes place.

2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?

A. Always, always, always discuss it with other b-crats via the B-crats noticeboard. If a discussion needs to be private (not that I can think of a case when this would be, but, just in case), email would be the most appropriate medium.

3. Wikipedians expect Bureaucrats to adhere to high standards of fairness, knowledge of policy and the ability to engage others in the community. Why do you feel you meet those standards?

A. having been an Admin for 6 months, I feel that I have proved that I have these qualities and know when to act and when to discuss. As the Admin gen of Esperanza, I feel that I have demonstrated the ability to communicate well. Everyone is different and should be treated as such.

4. If you become a bureaucrat, will you pledge not to discuss promotion or non-promotion of potential Admins on any other forum during the course of nominations and especially when making a decision? And to discuss issues of promotion or non-promotion only with other bureaucrats, in their talk, where such discussion would be transparent?

A. Yes, I do. I will never use IRC to discuss such matters and to use the b-crats noticeboard whenever applicable. I don't know where else to put this but I also pledge never to close an RfA in which I have voted. I reserve the right to vote should I be promoted but will never, ever close one of these RfAs.

5. Do you have the time and do you have the desire to visit WP:RFA on a regular basis to see to the promotion or delisting of candidates in a timely manner?

A. Yes. I spend a lot of time on Misplaced Pages and a lot of this is reading time (articles and discussions). I have plenty of time to look at and evaluate RfAs (and of course Username change requests). If promoted, this will be my duty and when I commit to something, I always carry it through.

6. How would you resolve the following conflict: A new user edits an article which leads to a revert war with a member of the arbitration committee. You think that the new user's edit improves the article dramatically, is NPOV and entirely verifiable. The member of the arbitration committee says that he’s sure the user is a sockpuppet based on contributions, and indefinitely blocks the new user and his IP. Do you change the article to what you think is the better version, or do you let it stay as punishment for the sockpuppet?

A:

Additional questions from Pagrashtak 15:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

7. You said "When stressed, don't post responses." Could you elaborate on this?

A. Yes. This is a very important rule I have enforced upon myself to stop unfortunate instances like the Bulbasaur FAC happen again. I was gettinbg very stressed and you could see this in my responses - they were getting nastier. I'm not proud of it. In an attempt to combat this, I have made the commitment to not post when stressed. That will never happen again as a result.

8. Looking back at the Bulbasaur FAC, do you wish you had done anything differently? If so, what and why?

A. Yes. With hindsight, I should have walked away; left it alone for a while. It would have saved a lot of heartache. If the wuill of the community was to promote, it would have been promoted anyway.

9. Why is your appointment to Administrator General of Esperanza one of your four defining moments?

A. It got me to re-evaluate what I'm doing here and how I'm doing it. It also makes me think more about my responses and interactions with others, making sure they're civil and in the spirit of Esperanzian good will.

10. Suppose an RFA in which you voted is in its tenth day with 98% approval. Attempts have been made to notify all bureaucrats for the past few days, but you appear to be the only active bureaucrat at the moment. What would you do?

A. I might remove my support and close it. It can't stay there forever and if all attempts to contact others had been fruitless, it doen't look like I'd have much alternative.

Additional question from Eternalbeans

1. I get the impression (please correct me if I am wrong), that you regret acting so rudely towards those who opposed the Bulbasaur FAC. However, it also appears to me that you have not appologized to those you were rude to. Can you please explain this inconsistancy? Eternalbeans 23:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

A. No, you are right, having looked back through the archives, I didn't apologise. I thought I did but obiously I didn't. For the record, "I apologise totally for all the uncivility and bad faith assumptions on my part regarding the Bulbasaur FAC. I shouldn't have let it get to me: they were commenting on the article, not me. Once again, my sincerest apologies." I will go and post this to their user talk pages now(-ish): thanks for bringing it to my attention.

I should have let it get to me... — Uh, I think you did. :P —Doug Bell 19:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Oops - stupid tyops :P. --Celestianpower 19:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Redux

Final (19/17/2) ended 17:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
WITHDRAWN

Rationale: Obviously, there is no hope of reaching consensus. It will not be even close. In light of this, I see little purpose in keeping this going and using up people's valuable time and effort. Furthermore, it has become clear that there is a strong community feeling that my decision of staying completely neutral is not ideal, since basically all the opposition listed was justified as "lack of activity/experience". While I don't believe that "lack of experience" (emphasis on the word "experience") is an accurate description, I get the message. I will return to a normal involvement with RfA and discussions, and maybe one day I'll resubmit for Bureaucratship again.
I would like to thank everybody who took some time to participate in this, regardless of which way you voted, and especially for the many kind words of support. Redux 17:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Self-nominated. No acceptance required. Redux 06:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Redux (talk · contribs · count) — The first statement to be made is that I've already applied once for Bureaucratship. To prevent this section from being too long, I would request that you visit my previous RfB → HERE. The points I made over there, I believe, are of paramount importance for the continued well-being of this project. I stand by what I said then — which is why I will also repeat my answers to the questions, and also include here the two extra questions that were asked on the occasion. But there are a few addendums necessary: passage of time and change in circumstances.

1) To begin with the obvious, and therefore, faster to say: my experience as an Administrator has increased in three months since then.

2) I'd like to clarify something which, for some lack of clarity, which was my fault, really, led to a couple of oppose votes in my previous RfB: Where have I been in terms of RfA? How well do I know this place? I have been right here. I visit the RfA page daily, or every other day, at the most. So why haven't I been voting? Because, since I was still considering applying for Bureaucratship, I decided to maintain a complete neutrality that would predate the request. During this time, I have voted in only two RfAs: two support votes, because the candidates were users I had the utmost respect for and confidence in. Their promotions were landslides, but my vote was a matter of principle — and since this may invite the question, I'd like to clarify that in the interest of transparency and ensuring neutrality to the community and candidates, if I happened to vote in an RfA, being a Bureaucrat, I would not be the one to close it. My knowledge of this forum is quite extensive, and it is combined by three principles that would guide me if I were to perform this job: integrity, neutrality and transparency. As I have said before on any one of these, there is no compromising any of them. Ever.

3) And now the most important part: Why have I decided to run again now? My decision to resubmit for this position was motivated by the events that took place a little less than two weeks ago: two Bureaucrats resigned. But mainly, the fact that one of those was Cecropia (talk · contribs). By reading my essay in my previous RfB, you will understand how important Cecropia was to Bureaucracy. His departure from it concerned me considerably.
Naturally, I can see the obvious myself: Cecropia has left for two weeks and RfA has not imploded. That's good, but the situation is still precarious. The departure of the one Bureaucrat that was consistently active on this forum leaves us even more vulnerable. My purpose is to help in providing a consistent Bureaucracy, that will not only keep RfA running (which the existing B'crats are already doing), but also ensure a key aspect for the smooth functioning of RfA: that Bureaucratic jobs are perfomed in a timely fashion. If we have too few B'crats around, and having lost the main one just recently, this could become an issue, at any time.
Just to complete the information on the change in status: the other Bureaucrat to have resigned, only a few days before Cecropia, was Francs2000 (talk · contribs), who was the last user to have been promoted. And, if we go back another month, we also have another Bureaucrat who lost this status: Optim, a user who was already inactive, and was demoted from the position.

For further information, and to complement the information, I would request, again, that m previous RfB be visited.

Support

1. Support. The Bureaucrat situation appears to have changed somewhat since Redux's last RfB; a close look at his user/admin records lead me to believe he's a good candidate to wield +sysop authority. -- MarcoTolo 07:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
2. Support. We need more b'cats! --Exir Kamalabadi 08:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
3. Support I feel that we need more bureaucrats in Misplaced Pages. The current number is almost embarrassing compared to the number of users and admins we have here! --Siva1979 13:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
4. Support. We need more BCs and he'd make an excellent one! Also, not posting on RFAs is, to my mind, not necessarily indicative of experience. I lurk here on a daily basis, but am reluctant to vote without actually perusing through somebodys actual edits (which takes a lot of time!). Luckily in this case I have already perused through his edits before (voyeuristic isnt it Redux? ;-) ), and I am convinced he'll be a good addition. The Minister of War 14:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
5. Support. You were slightly unlucky in your previous RfB not to get a big enough percentage for consensus; hopefully you will get it this time. We clearly need more BCs and you would make a great one. DarthVader 14:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
6. Very Strong Support. We need more 'crats, and Redux has the right experience for the job. Oppositions based on lack of RfA participation create a Scylla and Charybdis situation - one could as easily be opposed for participating in RfAs because that might be claimed as showing bias. BD2412 T 18:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
7. Support, he has addressed every doubt in his answering of questions, and has shown that he would make a very good bureaucrat, especially at the time when we need any. Also, I respect the decision to stay out of RFAs as explained, and hope that other voters will read it. -- Natalya 18:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
8. Support. Having gone through the comments below I believe that Redux has put a great deal of thought into his candidacy and has presented a very compelling case, particularly at a time when we require an extra bureaucrat or two. I feel that his attempt to appear above reproach in matters of bias is laudable, especially given the inevitable oppose votes it has engendered. Rje 19:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
9. Support. Though I have a feeling consensus won't be reached. Computerjoe's talk 19:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
10. Support. He is a very good administrator and we need more bureaucrats. Carioca 20:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
11. Support, this user is proven, and i think he wil make a great bureaucrat. RFA votes are a minimal topic, and he reasonably stated why he didnt vote.(plus i think most opposers only opposed becuase NLSE did) Vulcanstar6 21:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

    If you're trying to suggest I gathered users to oppose this candidacy, or that because I opposed, others did (they are free to oppose of their own free will, not just because I did), this is not the case and is accusing me of something very serious. Please withdraw your comment above. NSLE _(T+C) at 02:40 UTC (2006-04-15)

    As has been discussed on the talk page, I don't think that this was aimed at you NSLE - rather at the users that voted after you. Such a blanket dismissal of others contributions and a questioning of their motives is not helpful, especially as almost all of the other opposing votes including further reasoning, and risks pushing the debate from reason to emotion - but I wouldn't take it as a slight on you. TigerShark 04:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

12. Support, it looks like he has the ability, and he is very communicative to other users. It is a bureaucrat's job to promote, not necissarily vote.--The ikiroid (talk parler hablar paroli 说 話し parlar) 22:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
13. Support, more bureaucrats are needed, and he's not exactly going to abuse the powers. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 00:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
14. Support. Great answers. (^'-')^ Covington 05:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
15. Support, Redux has a level head, thick skin, and the right attitude that we need in any bureaucrat. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
16. Support --Jay(Reply) 17:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
17. Support. I'll give it a shot. JIP | Talk 15:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
18. Support, per my statements on his previous RfB; also, I think that the answer to the activity question is sensible and acceptable, in spite of it being contrary to my belief. Titoxd 04:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
19. Support. Besides being a great admin, he's got what it takes as we can see by his answers. —Lesfer 13:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Nothing personal, but I do believe you should participate in more RFAs. NSLE _(T+C) at 06:48 UTC (2006-04-14)
2. Oppose per NSLE. Also, while three months is a respectable waiting time, I would have personally waited even longer. Xoloz 08:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose per NSLE (taking into account candidate's reasons for a lack RfA involvement). I would have also liked to have seen more recent involvement in Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship, even if there was no voting activity. TigerShark 08:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
4. I agree with Xoloz, you should have waited just a tad longer, like three to six more months. Oppose. Mike H. That's hot 09:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose. Participation in RfA is a necessary pre-requisite for bureaucratship, as is some demonstration of consensus-reading abilities. There are few or no closures of xFDs recently, and little to no participation in the core process of RfA. I'm wondering why an editor who doesn't participate here wants to dive in at a high level. The stuff about completion in a timely manner is immaterial imo, since things are getting done in time as it is, the unwarranted compaints on the talk page about a few hours of delay notwithstanding. Generally, I'd want to see rather more demonstration of bureaucratic skills and uo-to-dateness with RfA before supporting an RfB. At least the answer to Q1 is right for a change. -Splash 14:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose per NSLE, sorry Admrb♉ltz ( T | I | E ) 17:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose, sorry, but haven't seen him active on RfA before. Thumbelina 18:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

   Humm, perhaps you guys have missed my comment, a little further down? Redux 18:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

8. Sorry, I have to oppose. Redux has only 36 edits to Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship , the last one being on February 5th (more than two months ago). With all the disclaimers that editcountitis is a disease and that does not reflect very accurately one's experience, that's too little. Also, in January, Redux was suggesting introducing a quota for the number of admins to be promoted with a "monthly waiting list". I don't think Redux has the necessary experience to be a bureaucrat. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

   One of your reasons for opposing is a suggestion made during a brainstorm to come up with possible ways to improve Misplaced Pages?? I presented it as a possibility, in the spirit of a brainstorm. It was turned down and I didn't insist on it; as a matter of fact, someone pointed a "fatal flaw" with the idea that prompted me to recognize immediately that the idea was not good. It was a brainstorm, after all. Furthermore, you should notice that my activity at the time was shifted from the talk page of the RfA to Linuxbeak's subpage, which was setup especially for discussions on improving RfA. Redux 19:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

   Good answers. I still feel however that more experience/contributions to the RfA-related pages would be necessary. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

9. Oppose. I feel that you can still contribute to RfA discussion and choose to remain Neutral on voting, but I also don't feel it's really needed to remain Neutral on voting prior to becoming a Bureaucrat. While I do feel a Bureaucrat should never close an RfA they have voted on, I feel that a record of active voting on RfA's would not be a hindrance to a potential Bureaucrat. Ëvilphoenix 17:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

   Such a record exists. It's just not recent. For the reasons I've already stated. Redux 19:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

10. Oppose. Not nearly enough experience for b'cratship. pschemp | talk 20:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
11. In addition to what has been said above, Strong Oppose per my oft repeated standards: No More Bureaucrats are needed. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
12. Oppose. Not enough experience imho. --kingboyk 23:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
13. Oppose, sorry. Insufficient experience. - Mailer Diablo 07:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
14. Oppose, lacks experience. --Terence Ong 15:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

    Terence, what made you change your mind since my last RfB? I was just curious, since I had your support then.. Redux 16:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

15. Oppose per experience, though I'd be willing to reconsider if he decided to renom in the future. Pegasus1138 ---- 07:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
16. Oppose per Splash.--cj | talk 09:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
17. Oppose: Per award and continued support given to editor with continued problematic edits. Netkinetic 12:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• So you will oppose Redux due to your ridiculous and childish personal grudge against me? Really, kiddo *urgent* get laid and get a life. I do work on sports related articles and my "continued problematic edits" consist on disagree with some of your edits. Now I have problematic edits because some of them oppose yours. Can't you really see how pathetic you're acting? You're really not ashamed of yourself? Please, grow up, get a job, and quit trolling around. This is not healthy. Cheers —Lesfer 15:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for validating the "problematic edits" statement with that severe and unrestrained personal attack. Please review WP:NPA and WP:CIV at your earliest convenience. Regards. Netkinetic 18:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral Not really pushed to oppose because of the oppostion given, but I think he would make an excellant 'Crat, but to much controversy right now to support. Moe ε 16:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
2. Neutral Really teetering on the edge; just a smidgeon more experience and I'll vote support. _-M P-_ 18:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• Carriage_Willy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) whose trolling has been removed from this page has made altogether four edits, on wheels, I presume, one of them vandalism of today's Featured article. I have blocked it indefinitely as an obvious troll/vandal/Willy on Wheels account. Bishonen | talk 10:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC).
• I have to think about this one more before I decide, but I did want to comment that the informal guideline for renominations is, as I understand it, 1 month. This candidate waited almost three. NLSE et al may want to see 3, or 6, and that's their perogative, no argument there, but I don't think it's the standard (and they didn't say it was, I just wanted to put that out there. ++Lar: t/c 13:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• I'll make two comments here, addressing some of the concerns: 1) I have participated consistently in RfAs. Then, for some time, time constraints kept me away from voting (I still visited, but didn't vote, for lack of time to analize all that needs analizing). Then, I could have returned (to voting), but I made a decision not to, for the time being, so that I could achieve a neutrality that I believe to be essential not only for the job, but even for applying to it. I don't believe that it would be becoming for me to start voting heavily and then apply for Bureaucratship. That are all kinds of wrong messages that, I believe, could be conveyed by this (trying to make friends, trying to impress people so that they'll vote to support me, etc.). I suppose some, maybe many, might disagree with this position (as it would appear from the present oppositions), but I would like to be very clear that this was a deliberate effort in favor of neutrality and integrity. Why would I request Bureaucratship if I didn't care about RfA? It's not exactly exciting work. I'm volunteering to do it because I want to help the project further. 2) As for the period of time I waited to resubmit: in fact, I had no intention of resubmiting for this at all. The only reason why I did was because I was concerned about Cecropia's stepping down, in addition to seeing that the last Bureaucrat to have been promoted had also resigned. If that were to have happened only two years from now, then I might have resubmited only two years from now. This was a decision based on context changes. Redux 14:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

  To exemplify, using Abramson's remarks above: if I had been voting on every single RfA (or just heavily) prior to this RfB and had: A) been supporting a large(r) percentage, I'm sure some opposition could arise claiming that I could be too quick on the trigger to promote, or that I was just looking to make friends that would support me later; B) been opposing a large(r) percentage, then it could be said that I could be exceedingly tough to delist "borderline" RfAs. It is impossible to satisfy all the possibilities. I opted, specifically, for complete neutrality prior to this RfB. No biases, either way, which is how I would like to conduct myself if promoted. Redux 18:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

  You claim to be able to predict how people would have swung in the case you had taken one of two extreme routes. So you took another: to do nothing. Doing nothing is rarely a good way to achieve something. BD2412's comment is more than a little unfair on the opposers: had you had a track record of being regularly and carefully involved both in RfA and in the operational discussions around it, people wouldn't be able to oppose for that. Had you been doing something extremist, then, well, I imagine people would oppose and probably rightly so. But a considered, in-touch, reasoned approach, no matter which way you were notvoting, would seem unlikely to provoke much opposition. I do not see any particular evidence that Cecropia's stepping down has provoked any particular problems at present, significant a loss as it is. -Splash 19:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

  I believe you are being a little unfair, Splash. "Doing nothing" is hardly the description for a deliberate effort towards neutrality. I can see you would not have proceeded as I did. I suppose others wouldn't either. But that is no demerit of mine. I did what I believe honestly to be the best for maintaing a high standard to be able to apply for this job. It is not that I claim to be able to predict how others would have responded to a different course of action. What I'm saying is that, no matter how one proceeds, it is always possible to find a way to criticize it. To be perfectly accurate, however, I participate in discussions concerning RfA that I believe are important. If you would like a for instance, I was very much active during the discussions started by Linuxbeak to find solutions for improving RfA. I'm always looking to participate in discussions, whenever I notice that the discussion has a real shot at concrete results. Redux 20:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• Redux, you do know that there's such a thing as a "nuetral" vote, right? AFAIK, that's the best way to maintain nuetrality in RFA's without affecting the results, while making it clear that you're not trying to vote uninformed. It also really, really can help the candidate to answered unanswered questions, as well as bring up additional evidence in support of himself (or for opponents to bring up evidence)--trust me, they're a big help. Right? (Am I missing something? I hang around RFA's a good deal, and I don't really recognize you, so I'm assuming you haven't been voting, period.) So, I think the question stands as a valid criticism of your bureaucratship. (Now, I'm going to vote for you anyways, because we desperately need more b-crats, and it's not like you're a bad guy or anything, but I'm trying to elicit a better response.) Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 00:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your vote of confidence. Let's see, about the neutral vote I tend not to use it, since when voting, I tend to request any clarifications on the "Comments" section, and, although I haven't done it so far, if I were to add extra questions to a RfA, I would tend to add it at the bottom, following the standard questions. I do understand that many users prefer to cast a neutral vote, explicitly asking for further explanations, or awaiting the conclusion of any discussion, before they can decide either way, as well as voting neutral because they don't feel comfortable supporting but don't want to oppose either (when in this last situation, I would tend to abstain). For the second part: yes, I haven't been voting for a while. I have, however, participated in discussions whenever I spotted one that seemed promising. As I said, I had stopped voting (but never stopped visiting RfA) at first due to time constraints (at the office, I had this jurassic computer that had troubles with cookies, so I would not log in, but I always kept myself up to date with whatever was happening with RfA); when about to resume voting, I started considering applying for Bureaucratship (as per my explanations about the present situation in our Bureaucracy), and made a decision in favor of total neutrality and transparency. A Bureaucrat is not supposed to vote (or if voting, not close the given RfA), and (s)he is also not supposed to make any kind of judgement on either the candidate or any of the (valid) trends of thought that might be at work during an RfA. A Bureaucrat's job is to act on community consensus. Of course, I am not a Bureaucrat, but I believe that it is becoming of a candidate for this position to present beforehand the same kind of neutrality that would be expected of the position for which (s)he is applying — noting that a Bureaucrat is someone who remains neutral, but has a perfect understanding of RfA and how it works (or should work). It has been suggested to me (as in Splash's remark, above), that I should have maintained a level of voting activity, which is a valid point, of course. But I still believe that assuming this behavior beforehand is important for a serious candidate. Redux 02:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• Since Interiot's Tool is lagging, and because I'm dying to try out the tool :-), here's the statistics:

Statistics for: Redux - Total: 5146 -
Main: 2477
Talk: 544
User: 206
User talk: 602
Misplaced Pages: 511
Misplaced Pages talk: 137
Image: 322
Image talk: 2
Template: 247
Template talk: 34
Category: 34
Category talk: 2
Portal: 10
Portal talk: 18

Total edits: 5146
Minor edits: 1972
Edits with edit summary: 4218
Edits with manual edit summary: 3756
Percent minor edits: 38.32% *
Percent edit summary use: 81.96% *
Percent manual edit summary use: 72.98% *

• - percentages are rounded down to the nearest hundredth.
  

<BEGIN DISCLAIMER> Note that by giving these statistics, I am in no way, shape, or form implying either support or opposition for the candidate. As usual, the warnings about editcountitis must be repeated: these numbers are only that: numbers, and cannot reflect the candidate's ability. I offer them only to present the data for those who wish it to carefully evaluate the candidate. </END DISCLAIMER> Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?

A. I have. I would not dare requesting Bureaucratship without having full knowledge of the criteria. A consensus of at least 80% is required for promotion. A consensus between 75% and 80% may result in promotion, depending on the circumstances of the RfA, such as bad faith, or malicious votes, as well as the influence that certain votes, cast by users who enjoy a certain prestige in the community, can have on the general outcome of the RfA. Consulting with other Bureaucrats, especially while I am still new to the job, is of utmost importance, in my view. Promoting a user to Adminship is a big deal, not just for the user concerned, but for the community in general. As answered in my previous RfB Redux 06:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?

A. A combination of factors: my best judgment and conferring with other Bureaucrats. If the decision falls to me, I will make it. I will take full responsibility for my decision and its consequences. I have never hidden anything on Misplaced Pages, and I shall not start with the things that matter the most. As answered in my previous RfB Redux 06:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

3. Wikipedians expect Bureaucrats to adhere to high standards of fairness, knowledge of policy and the ability to engage others in the community. Why do you feel you meet those standards?

A. Because I expect and accept nothing less of myself. People who have been in contact with me in the project know this. The very few users that I have wronged in the project, for any reason, have received a full-hearted apology. And again, nothing of a sort has happened since I became an Admininstrator. As answered in my previous RfB Redux 06:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

4. If you become a bureaucrat, will you pledge not to discuss promotion or non-promotion of potential admins on IRC or any other forum during the course of nominations and especially when making a decision? And to discuss issues of promotion or non-promotion only with other bureaucrats, in their talk, where such discussion would be transparent?

A. Absolutely. I don't use IRC or any other means of communication outside of Misplaced Pages to discuss Misplaced Pages-related issues. Transparency is not negotiable. It is a requirement. As a corollary to this, I can say this: even though I am able to communicate in several languages, I do not post in any language other than English on the English-language Misplaced Pages. On occasions, I have been contacted in French, Spanish, Portuguese and Italian on this Misplaced Pages, and I have responded to those all in English. I have refused to discuss how to best handle a troublemaker via e-mail, preferring to address the issue on Misplaced Pages talk pages. There is no compromising transparency. There will never be. As answered in my previous RfB Redux 06:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

5. Do you have the time and do you have the desire to visit WP:RFA on a regular basis to see to the promotion or delisting of candidates in a timely manner?

A. Yes. The very purpose of my requesting B'ship is to help make sure that RfA runs smoothly and in a timely fashion.

The following are the two extra questions asked during my previous RfB. I thought that it would be important to repost them as well. Redux 06:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

6. I'm just curious, but according to Interiot's Tool, it took you over six months since you began regularly editing to edit a project (Misplaced Pages:) namespace, and in the past four months your project namespace has also been relatively low. Could you explain this? (I know that most users don't edit Misplaced Pages: much, but I just wish to hear your response to this.) Thanks a lot! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I apologize for the delay in answering your question. Well, there's a combination of factors involved in this. First, it must be noted that my "pace of contributing", if we can call it that, was never particularly high (there have been only a few periods when I was able to pick up the pace for a while). When I first started contributing to Misplaced Pages, I was doing it more like a hobby. But then I realized that this project was something really especial, and a priceless asset in a world where we can't even find out what the wheather is going to be like without providing a credit card number first. So I started contributing as a matter of principle. This transition did not happen as fast for me as it does for some other dedicated users that we have here, mainly due to time constraints. But once it happened, I understood that I wanted, and I should, do more for the project than just contribute to the article namespace. That didn't take that long to happen though, but I was never one to rush into something I don't understand fully first. As best I can remember, I was always bold in editing articles, but I took my time before getting involved with the other aspects of the project. Still, we are not talking about as long a time as six months, no where near that in fact. That it had taken that long for me to actually edit a project namespace, I did not even know. I do remember that by the time I had been here for six months I was already a big enthusiast of the project, so it might have been more of a coincidence that it didn't take five, or four months instead of six. And it could have just as easily been even less. Besides, content contribution has always been high on my list of priorities (and that, in my view, includes discussions on talk pages and user talk pages, which, as I said, I view as an essential part of the process of building this encyclopedia), so this is probably related to the reason why it might have taken me a little longer to get around to contributing in the project namespace.
And this is also the reason why my level of contribution on that front has dropped in the last few months: as I said in my statement, time constraints forced me to cut back on some of my activities, and I privileged content contributions (and discussions associated). Now I'm hoping to pick up on all of those again. I am, however, proud that whatever "real life issues" I have had over these almost two years that I have been with the project, I have never taken extended leaves of absence, never leaving it — I took my first wikibreak only in mid 2005, and even that was only because I went to Yosemite, and shockingly, they didn't have internet access in the park. Have I addressed everything? Regards, Redux 00:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. By the way, I left out a word in my question above (I know that most new users...), but I think you got the gist of the question. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

7. What is your take on Misplaced Pages:Requests for rollback privileges? If adopted policy, is this something you would participate in? Do you think it necessary for BCrats to be involved at all? Are BCrats too busy as it is to take this on as well?

Philosophically, I have no reasons to oppose the bestowing of rollback privileges onto users who have already demonstrated their commitment to the community. In the talk page, it was suggested that maybe a procedure would not be necessary, and rollback could be an automatic privilege of all registered users after a certain number of edits. With that I cannot agree. Although rollback action can be easily reverted, unchecked access to this tool would make a vandal's life a lot easier, and that's never good. A willing vandal would not have too much difficulty working around the minimum number of edits. The points raised by Talrias over there are also of great pertinence, especially the part about the risk of compromising edit summaries. If a procedure similar to the RfA is implemented, however, there's the practical problem of making it almost as tough for a user to get as Adminship — although the general requirements would not be as demanding, and a lower percentage for required consensus could be set.
As for the Bureaucrats' part in this, yes they should be involved. Rights setting is the task reserved to Bureaucrats, so I cannot see how it would not be them the ones responsible for carrying out promotions. It's an increase in the work load, but there's no reason to believe that the Bureaucrat community would not be able to adjust. The only technical catch in the proposal is that, currently, Bureaucrats can only increase a user's access level. Demotions are a privilege reserved to Developers. This means that the proposal also involves an increase in the privileges reserved to Bureaucrats (even if related only to rollback rights), which is all the more reason for them to be involved.
Finally, for my part in this. As a user, I would be willing to participate there and vote. If I were to be promoted and become a Bureaucrat, then my pledge to be of service at the RfA forum would be extended to the new forum with the same diligence, provided that this proposal had become policy, of course. Redux 03:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

More new questions

8. A nomination discussion ends with marginal support. You consider issues of possible socks, meats, vote packing, whatever you feel may have unfairly contributed to the balance of the discussion, which way the wind is blowing, etc. You conclude that the issue is exactly on the edge. You contact other bureaucrats; they agree that there is no clear indication one way or the other. You expect roughly the same number of objections to be lodged against your action no matter what you do. Do you: (a) promote; (b) close as failed; (c) flip a coin; (d) pray for guidance; or (e) do nothing and let another bureaucrat make the decision? Or do you have an alternate strategy? John Reid 23:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

A.

9. Do you have the time and the desire to visit WP:CHU on a regular basis to process username changes in a timely manner? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

A.

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

Related requests

• Requests for permissions on other Wikimedia projects
• Requests for adminship or bureaucratship on meta
• Requests for self-de-adminship on any project can be made at m:Requests for permissions.
• Requests to mark a user as a bot can be made at m:Requests for permissions following consensus at wikipedia talk:bots that the bot should be allowed to run.
• Requests for comment on possible misuse of sysop privileges
• A summary of rejected proposals for de-adminship processes, as well as a list of past cases of de-adminship, may be found at Misplaced Pages:Requests for de-adminship

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

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

• Successful requests for adminship
• Unsuccessful requests for adminship
• Unsuccessful requests for bureaucratship
• Misplaced Pages administration
• Misplaced Pages administrators