Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:48, 2 June 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 community consensus and Arbitration Commitee decisions 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.

Kukini

Final (84/1/4) ended 03:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Kukini (talk · contribs) – Kukini has been with us since December 2005 and has over 12,000 edits. He is familiar with the deletion process, countering vandalism, has participated in Rfa and he has welcomed many new users. He is involved the WikiProject Arizona, WikiProject Education, WikiProject Oklahoma and, he has written over twenty articles and is currently working on more. He has a good record of edit summaries. Kukini is one of the friendliest most civil Wikipedians that I know and it is my pleasure to nominate him.--Dakota ~ 02:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: It is an honor to accept this nomination. Thank you, Dakota! Kukini 03:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. Absolutely.--Dakota ~ 02:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
2. Strong support Without a doubt. Master of Puppets 03:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
3. You Mean You Weren't One Already? per nominator. joturner 03:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
4. Strong Support I thought you were one! Yanksox 03:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
5. Strong Support No question. --Srikeit 03:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
6. Support Rama's Arrow 03:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
7. Strong Support - a great ambassador for wikipedia - a powerhouse of the barnstar brigade. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
8. Support, very nice guy and knows a lot of the ins and outs of Misplaced Pages. --Deathphoenix ʕ 04:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
9. Support. DarthVader 04:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
10. Support per DakotaKahn. G.He 04:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
11. Support™ --Rory096 05:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
12. Support --Terence Ong 05:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
13. Support--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
14. Support No problems here. --Siva1979 05:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
15. Support - per above -- Tawker 05:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
16. Support--Bharatveer 06:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
17. Support – Gurch 06:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
18. Support - very good editor, should make a fine sysop abakharev 06:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
19. Support --Haham hanuka 07:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
20. Really obvious support Great interpersonal skill. And back oh-so-long ago he was the one who first welcomed me to Misplaced Pages =D. AmiDaniel (talk) 07:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
21. Support - clearly is now responsible editor, would make a reasonable admin. Captainj 10:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
22. Support. A solid contributor. Zaxem 10:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
23. Yeah. --Nearly Headless Nick 11:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
24. Support!, is a very kind and courteous contributor, always very helpful and nice to work with. The answers to the questions below were obviously well thought out. -- Natalya 11:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
25. Support. For the same reasons as everybody else, he has more than proved his readiness. Rje 12:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
26. Strong Support Kukini is a friendly member, who helps new members contribute to wikipedia better. We need admins who bring the wikipedia community together. Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 12:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
27. Support Good attitude and caring approach to new contributors gives confidence for successful adminship. Tyrenius 13:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
28. Strong Support ForestH2
29. Support, no worries. Deizio talk 14:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
30. Don't even have to edit analysis Support.Voice-of-All 14:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
31. Support Naconkantari 15:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
32. Pile-on Support digital_me 15:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
33. Support anyone with this many edits should be an admin, though the 8000+ editd to User talk space is rather strange. The Gerg 15:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
34. Support. Absolutely! --TantalumTelluride 16:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
35. Support - wow, looks like a great, positive user. Tony Fox 17:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
36. Support - outstanding welcomer (he was the user who welcomed me 4 months after I joined after he noticed that I had not been welcomed). I also like his name as I'm Hawaiian =) Kalani 18:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
37. Support - Lost 18:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
38. Support, sure. --Tone 18:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
39. Support--blue520 19:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
40. Support and surprised he wasn't an admin already. --Elkman 20:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
41. Support His effort in Misplaced Pages:Esperanza/BB is an example for us all. Highway 20:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
42. Support per answers to my questions below. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 22:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
43. Support Fantastico! Staxringold _talk 22:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
44. Support per above! —Khoikhoi 23:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
45. Merovingian {T C @} 23:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
46. Support, of course. Sango123 23:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
47. Support level headed and diligent. -- Samir धर्म 02:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
48. Support. Does a lot of talking, but looks like a good choice nevertheless. Nephron  T|C 03:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
49. Support. Seen this guy around and seems worthy of the mop. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/!? 04:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
50. 50th Support Werdna_T@CL 08:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
51. Support--Jusjih 09:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
52. There are 52.14 weeks in a year and this is the 52nd support --james_{(lets talk)} 11:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
53. SupportE Asterion 12:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC) as per nominator
54. Support --Jay(Reply) 15:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
55. Support Great number of edits and a lot of experience. Just bring the edit summary usage for minor edits up! — Brendenhull (T + C) at 17:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
56. Support per nom. Royboycrashfan 17:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
57. Seriously, you're kidding me, he wasn't one already? --Golbez 18:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
58. Support per everyone else who beat me to the cliché ;) RadioKirk talk to me 21:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
59. Support per everything above. DakPowers (Talk) 21:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
60. Support yes savidan 22:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
61. Support -- Saluyot 01:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
62. Support Should have happened a long time ago jbolden1517 03:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
63. Support--Per everythings on above. '''*Daniel*''' 03:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
64. Support Joe I 06:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
65. Support per nom. Molerat 11:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
66. Strong Support Great user! The Halo (talk) 16:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
67. Support Meets my standards; excellent user. LINUXERIST@ 01:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
68. Support, looks good. Kirill Lokshin 04:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
69. Support I've been voting "support" a lot lately, but I've seen quite a few members who truly deserve it. Kukini, you're no exception. Steveo2 11:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
70. Support Good, strong, all-round user. --Wisden17 15:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
71. Support for the creator of useful tools like User:Kukini/Welcome.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 15:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
72. Support with whole faith this person will do well. Yamaguchi先生 15:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
73. Support. --Bhadani 16:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
74. Support. I think I had one of the earliest interactions with Kukini on Misplaced Pages (Dec28), and am pleased to see that they have developed a very positive wikipersona. Syrthiss 19:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
75. Support - good user; will meet everyone's standards I am sure. -- Deville (Talk) 02:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
76. Λυδαcιτγ Just met him, seems like a helpful person. 04:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
77. Support with pleasure - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 12:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
78. Jaranda 19:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

    Support. I like to see more main space edits-- but aside from that alright. Nephron  T|C 23:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Note Duplicate vote. --Srikeit 12:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

79. Support. Will make a great one. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 05:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
80. More support for you.--Kungfu Adam 20:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
81. Support - good answers to questions and plenty of edits, seems up to the job.--Andeh 01:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
82. Support -- from The King of Kings 18:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
83. Support I'm so glad I didnt miss this! Strong, very strong, support. What a great editor, plenty of goodwill, friendly and helpful, we need more like this. -- Banes 20:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
84. Support - yes! --HappyCamper 22:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose- User does not meet 1FA, and has over two thirds of his posts in talk pages. I do not beleive it is fair to elect someone on the basis of their his or her ability to campaign. We must base the decision on the quality of his or her work. -Tombrend (not logged in)

Please log in and then vote.  G.He 20:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Very Strong Oppose. It is completely unacceptable that an admin doesn't meet User:Mailer diablo/One Featured Article. Ricardo Lagos 00:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, he should be banned! Someone file an RfAr! --Rory096 03:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm striking this "vote," as the "voter" is a vandal who is currently blocked. --Rory096 03:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

1. Oppose, Willy on Wheels should not be welcomed. Other unusual selections: , . — Jun. 7, '06 <freak|talk>

I was quickly corrected by Dakota for the WoW welcome. (and it was reverted) I did not know that was it was a known negative quantity. I saw that as a learning experience. At the time, I didn't realize that some see "welcomes" as a reward instead of as a polite "all edits are public, thus please take care in your work." Since then, I have curbed my use of welcoming and I try to avoid welcoming the more obnoxious new user names. Kukini 13:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Does not appear to meet User:Mailer diablo/One Featured Article, but has made exceptional service to the community. - Mailer Diablo 08:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
2. Seems like an incredibly friendly person, but the imbalance of namespace edits worries me a bit. We always appreciate those who welcome and help acclimate new users, but I'm not sure what the tools would be for. Shell 12:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
3. Doesn't meet my nine months. Raichu 21:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
4. Neutral. The ratio of 2:1 for talkspace to normal edits is a bit much in my opinion. While welcomeing new users is definatley an important part of wikipedia, adminship does not give any extra user welcomeing tools.--SomeStranger (T | C) 00:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• See Kukini's edit summary usage with Mathbot's tool.
• See Kukini's _{(Talk ▪ Contributions ▪ Logs ▪ Block Logs)} contributions as of 03:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC) using Interiot's tool:

Username Kukini
Total edits 12134
Distinct pages edited 10253
Average edits/page 1.183
First edit 10:44, December 28, 2005
(main) 1803
Talk 894
User 283
User talk 8648
Image 1
Image talk 2
Template 4
Template talk 6
Category 3
Category talk 5
Misplaced Pages 432
Misplaced Pages talk 50
Portal 3

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: If I were an administrator, I would be active in a number of places, many in which I have already frequented. A few that get more of my interest include WP:RfD, WP:AIV (where there has been discussion about backlog , WP:RfA, WP:AN/3RR. I am also interested in learning more about WP:CfD, WP:SFD, WP:GRFA and WP:TfD, but will likely move cautiously into them as I have spent less time there. I have also spent a good deal of time RC patrolling, and will likely dedicate continued effort there as well. In my RC patrolling work, I prefer to take a positive approach with users, I like to help novice users learn about the norms and expectations of Misplaced Pages by leaving a detailed welcome message with all those who have joined. I also have taken care to learn the process of Test1, Test2, etc. prior to reporting to WP:AIV. I really respect and admire the philosophy behind this process. I also have enjoyed being a part of the process of policy development, as such activity is open to us all. If I am granted adminship, I will seek out mentoring from more experienced SysOps as I move forward in developing skills in mopping. I hope to bring a level-headed approach to my work and am always open to feedback, suggestions, and advice. Kukini 03:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

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

A: I have spent time over the past months working throughout the Misplaced Pages environment, I have found particular satisfaction in working on WikiProjects. I am a particular fan of such projects because I feel they help focus energy and build a collaborative community. After spending time working in various WikiProjects, including Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Oklahoma, Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Chicago , Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Universities, Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Schools, and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Education. I was particularly inspired by the work of User:Ashlux in his work in WikiProject Oklahoma, and recently decided to try to found Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Arizona. It is with this work that I am most pleased to date. I also love the spirit that Esperanza brings to our project and enjoy association with this group. The articles/stubs I have initiated are listed on my user page as well. Kukini 03:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

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

A:When I first began work in Misplaced Pages, I really didn’t understand the culture and mission of the project, and found that I should avoid any areas where my POV might get in the way of constructive work. In my first few days editing, User:Zoe, a SysOp whom I have come to respect, blocked me for a brief period due to a misunderstanding relating to a 3RR for a brief period. Although I had no intent to be harmful, I discovered that pushing for events that I viewed as important to be included in 2006 from Current Events was not a good way for me to expend energy. Nowadays, I generally only read these two pages to see what my fellow wikipedians think. As I really did not understand how things worked when this happened, this experience inspired me to become active in welcoming new members and in helping them have a good deal of information to help them learn how we do things. I believe that a welcoming and informative approach elicits the development of more agreeable and knowledgeable editors if they a) know there are many watching out for wikipedia, b) have quick and good resources offered to allow them to know how things work, and c) feel welcomed into the process and community. I believe that I am generally level-headed, calm, patient, and collaborative in my work here in Misplaced Pages. Editing here has actually developed into a favorite pastime of mine, as I can learn while being constructive. I generally do not get upset when other users have lapses in their civility. I find that clear responses as well as use of wikipedia protocol help me move smoothly through moments when I seem to be the target of another’s ire. Kukini 03:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

4. Out of your 12,000+ edits, how do you make only 88 minor edits to the article namespace? Also, please explain your 3RR block of 2006 on 6 January. Naconkantari 04:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

A: Thank you for the questions. Answer A: As minor edits are generally a matter of personal judgment and serve to allow those doing RC patrolling to choose to not review another's work, I normally do not mark my work as "minor." Up to this point at least, I have not seen reason to mark edits as such. Perhaps I should do this more in the future? I am open to learn more on this issue, but honestly, this is the first time anyone has mentioned it around me. Answer B: As for the 3RR block on 2006, I tried to explain this issue above. Basically, I was brand new and believed at the time that something that was broadly considered a "current event" also belonged listed in the events of 2006. I actually did not see the 3RR warning prior to making the third revert that brought the block. I look back at the experience as a good learning opportunity wherein I felt guided towards more productive work. Let me know if this answer still does not clarify the issue. Best, Kukini 04:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

(Not a response from Kukini, but something I found when I was checking this out: User talk:Kukini/Archive1#POV_Edits_in_Current_Events contains a record of the block and some outside comments from joturner (talk · contribs · count).) --Elkman 04:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Additional questions from Ambuj Saxena, considering that an overwhelming majority of contributions (nearly 6000, I believe) is welcoming new users.

5. What is your policy of welcoming new users? Do you look at their contributions before welcoming them? What about anonymous IPs?

A:Thank you for the questions. Answer A. My general perspective regarding welcoming newcomers is similar to that of AmiDaniel who wrote that welcomes serve as “…one of the main deciding factors between the next great admin and the next Willy on Wheels.” I believe that as a community, we should do our very best to encourage productive activity and not only discourage negative activity. Al though I really do not do nearly as much welcoming as I used to, I still find it an important part of Misplaced Pages citizenship. Also, detailed and informative “welcomes” serve to help new editors have a better understanding of how things work in Misplaced Pages and how they can bring their own knowledge, experience and talent to help build a better online encyclopedia. Answer B. I look at user contributions when RC Patrolling. It is my current perception that many new users do not realize that all of their edits can be readily tracked and even readily reverted. Many come across as quite surprised by the first message they get from another user. I currently do not see “welcomes” as a sort of reward for good editing but more as positive greetings that clarify to new users that all their editing on Misplaced Pages does not and will not occur in a vacuum, but instead will consistently undergo public scrutiny. I actually occasionally pair a welcome message with a “test 1” message, if the user has not been welcomed yet. Answer C. With anonymous IPs, I consider the welcome ip message to be information as well as an invitation for anon users to become users with user names. I honestly do not know if that actually works with many IP users, as none have ever let me know that they decided to sign in formally. Kukini 20:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

6. You see that the user you welcomed has blatantly vandalized a page and got a warning. Do you follow up to make them improve?

A: Actually, I am not sure I am philosophically comfortable with the concept of making someone improve post vandalism. I do not think we can nor should “make” anyone do anything nor that it fits in the mission or culture of Misplaced Pages. I do agree wholeheartedly with the philosophy behind the system in place to first encourage errant users to change their ways (such as the 3RR and Test 1, Test 2, Test 3, Test 4). I also appreciate that blocks come in varying lengths and are generally not applied permanently or for long periods of time at first, without being warranted by egregious behavior. I also feel that we can all serve to encourage better editing and writing through prompts such as {{references }} and {{wikify}}. That was a long answer to say that a welcome I leave (or that anyone else leaves) in no way impacts my decisions to give feedback within established protocol. I just feel that the carrot and stick approach is better than the stick with no carrot approach. Kukini 20:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

7. You have mentioned a lot of interests (as the answer to Q1 above) you will persue after you become an admin. Do you foresee a namespace shift after becoming an admin or will your primary namespace remain "User talk"?

A:I believe I may have already undergone the phenomenon of namespace shift in the time I have been here. It is my understanding that this is not incredibly uncommon. Although I will always see value in “user talk” space for shaping the community, I have also moved in my interests into other arenas, a number of which I have listed in my answers to questions 1 and 2. I do know that my current shift has been more to Main, Talk, and Misplaced Pages than it was on the front end of my time here. I also tend to agree with the following Wikimedia statement: “Percentages for users vary wildly, typically ranging from 20% to 60% of all edits being made in the main namespace. Note, however, that spending too much time calculating — and/or worrying — about namespace percentages is a form of edit counting, which is generally to be avoided” . Kukini 20:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

8. (An entirely optional question) What percent of users welcomed by you actually follow up to learn something?

A: I have had a number (but no idea how many) of those I have contacted follow up later. I always try to respond to their inquiries in a timely fashion and offering encouragement. I imagine you have not heard back from any due to the fact that such a repsonse is relatively rare. I imagine most people who get welcomes think that it is some sort of automated response from the system and not an actual person taking time to welcome them in and invite them to become or remain productive members of the community. Kukini 21:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

DriniQuestion

Do you think admins performing actions (deletions, block) for reasons not covered on policy should be sanctioned/punished? If so, how? -- Drini 17:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

A: I feel it is important that we continue to develop and maintain a sense of "rule of law" for all users at all levels within Misplaced Pages. Of course, I would add to this the caveat that to those who much is given, much is expected. In other words, as Administrators have abilities that other users do not, they should be held to standards of behavior. Abuse of power should, at the very least, result in temporary curtailing of some of that power. I am pleased to see that we have a mediation process that functions well as well as bureaucrats to oversee resolution of issues that might arise such as the one you mention in your question. I think the specifics of the issue of “how” sanctions or responses to abuse of power might be carried out, I believe this should be decided ultimately by us all as it affects us all. Kukini 21:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I?m a bit curious. How do bureaucrats oversee reslution of those issues? I don't see they having power to do such things. -- Drini 00:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps they don't. Honestly this is not something I know a lot about. When I read the following, it appeared to me that they might have some say on disputes..."Bureaucrats are expected to determine consensus in difficult cases and be ready to explain their decisions" (see the bottom of this page). Perhaps the cases to which you refer are a different sort of case. I imagine I am not alone in lack of clarity on the role of Bureauucrats in Wikipidia. It does appear that those who are mediators, including you, I believe, might be the bottom line on these issues. Now I am curious, is there a poll on what to do in the cases to which you refer? I do not recall seeing one as of yet. What do you think of the rest of my response above regarding rule of law? Kukini 03:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Ynhockey

Final (11/31/4) ended 08:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Ynhockey (talk · contribs) – Ynhockey is a dedicated user, fights vandalism, and has contributed greatly to articles, making and contributing a great majority, especially to the Bleach articles. I would like to nominate him for an adminship position in light of his excellent work on wiki Hobbeslover | (talk) (contribs) 05:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, thank you. – Ynhockey 11:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Support As nominator Hobbeslover 03:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
2. Support, I've thought Ynhockey should be an admin for ages. He is a skilled writer and an excellent editor, and willing to take leadership in a controversial situation but doesn't attempt to overly control things. --tjstrf 14:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. Vitriouxc 19:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

   User's 5th edit, userpage says he "signed up for the polls." --Rory096 21:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

4. Support per tjstrf. Sunglasses 19:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

   Support. Containment Unit 19:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

   Added by User:207.200.116.195 Naconkantari 21:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

   Yes. NSLE _(T+C) at 20:00 UTC (2006-06-01)

   Added by User:207.200.116.195 Naconkantari 21:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

   Support nice amount of edits, although more portal edits would be good. Thetruthbelow 20:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC) Changed to Oppose Thetruthbelow 05:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

   Support per Tjstrf -- Tawker 20:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

5. Support A great user. --Siva1979 20:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
6. Support per nom --digital_me 20:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
7. Support – Gurch 21:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
8. Support ForestH2
9. Support. Good user. DarthVader 04:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
10. Support. per above. --Haham hanuka 07:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
11. Support. I see no major problems.--Jusjih 09:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I don't see anything special about this guy. Nothing he's done has impressed me enough to give him a supporting vote. --U-Two 20:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose, Malformed RFA. Naconkantari 21:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Constructive criticism. Edit count and time with Misplaced Pages are good. I see real potential for adminship in the future. I see some revert vandal edits. However, user needs to warn vandals as well. This educates the educable that they are not making constructive edits. It also helps other RCPatrollers gauge the extent of vandalism from a given user. I also would like to see reports to AIV. It is really pointless to revert vandalism without reporting to AIV as some vandals need to be stopped to protect Misplaced Pages and to save time spent repairing damage. BTW, you can have rollback without admin power by use of VandalProof.  :) Dlohcierekim 21:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

   Struck one of my comments because of lack of understanding of copyright. :) Dlohcierekim 14:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

   UMMMM?, Why does the "Oppose per image " comment now appear below my comments? They were about someone else's vote, that seems to have disappeared. I would never criticise based on an image in a sig. Just curious. Cheers :) Dlohcierekim 12:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

4. Oppose per Naconkantari, and image in signature. Ral315 (talk) 21:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

   Comment Oppose per image in signature? Isn't that rather, well, racist of you? --tjstrf 21:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

   Actually, no. Images should not be included in signatures because it places undue stress on the servers and increases page load time. Please review the guidelines at WP:SIG Naconkantari 21:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

   (edit conflict) He means the fact that he HAS an image in his sig, not that it's the Israeli flag. See WP:SIG. --Rory096 21:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

   Comment I have seen mixed reactions about small images in signatures and came to the conclusion that it wouldn't do much harm to have one. Considering it seems to be an important factor for you though, I have removed the image and will not add it back. -- Ynhockey 21:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

   (edit conflict) Ah, understood. I was thinking I might be seeing some of the worst bias on wikipedia yet for a minute there. --tjstrf 21:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

   Note that this was removed here. --Rory096 18:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

   By 205.188.116.134 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) ~Kylu (u|t) 00:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

5. Oppose, mainly because of this page (mainly the copyvio and the unregistered users stuff) and the "Copyright paranoia" userbox. --JoanneB 22:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose per JoanneB. "if information is posted online by anyone, in a public website, it becomes public domain" is NOT true, and admins should have at least some knowledge of copyright law, especially if they show an interest in involving themselves with copyright-related pages. --Rory096 22:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

   Comment although you're entitled to your opinion and I respect your vote, there have been RFA contributors who stated that what's written on the user page (i.e. the user's personal POV) should not have an effect on RFA as long as the user follows Misplaced Pages policy in his actual edits. A good example can be seen Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Ramallite, where the user had strong POV comments on his user page which was noted but most voters surmised that his edits did not exemplify this POV and therefore he was entitled to his opinion. -- Ynhockey 22:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

   There have been RFA contributors who have expressed otherwise. Non sequitur. -- Drini 17:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

   That is not your opinion, it's simply a factually incorrect belief on your part, and if you believe that, then why wouldn't you use it when dealing with copyright violations? --Rory096 22:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

   Maybe it's a mistake to say the words 'public domain' (I guess it implies some sort of legal term, and as they say, IANAL), but I clarify on the page that I mean that unprotected information posted online can be used with citations. That has nothing to do with my editing habits on copyright violations however, and I'm fairly sure I understand exactly what Misplaced Pages does and does not allow in terms of copyright (recent related discussion). -- Ynhockey 23:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

   To the contary, using anything that is copyrighted with just a citation is a copyright violation. Also, that discussion shows more about your lack of knowledge about copyright issues. Fair use can be applied to any image, it just depends on the circumstances in which it is used, and we do allow screenshots of television and films on Misplaced Pages. --Rory096 23:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

   Reply (edit conflict) There is such a thing as holding an incorrect view or one that is contrary to wikipolicy, but at the same time understanding that you must support the policy even if you don't agree with it. (I was going to cite the Gin image discussion Yn just mentioned, but he already did) Could Yn provide additional evidence of cases where he has upheld policies that he states he personally disagrees with? An individual's disagreement is not in itself a problem, so long as they can keep their personal views out of their edits and administration. --tjstrf 23:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

   He's not just saying that he disagrees with policy, though. He's saying that any text or image on a website that is displayed publically is free to use as long as you cite it. He's saying that as a fact, not as an opinion. --Rory096 23:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

   Changing to strong oppose. Just saw the section in his "Wikimedia Gripes" page where he doesn't think anons should edit. --Rory096 03:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

7. Oppose Per Dlohcierekim's comments above. --Wisden17 23:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
8. Quoting from User:Ynhockey/Wikimedia_gripes: "However, if information is posted online by anyone, in a public website, it becomes public domain.". No.--Sean Black 23:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
9. Weak oppose per JoanneB. Ardric47 23:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
10. Oppose, IP forgery doesn't help, although granted it may not be your fault. NSLE _(T+C) at 00:52 UTC (2006-06-02)
11. I'm sorry, but I've got to Oppose this one for now. The IP forgery NSLE mentions isn't a great start (don't worry, this isn't a vote, the 'crats can check to see whose fault that is) but while admins don't have to be lawyers, they should know enough to at least make an attempt at determining if an article is copyvio or not. Public domain does not imply a legal term, it is a legal term in the same manner as Copyright. :( ~Kylu (u|t) 02:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

    Note that even if he didn't know it was a legal term, he explained what he meant (just free use with attribution), and it's still completely wrong. --Rory096 03:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

12. Oppose per Sean Black and Kylu. Jkelly 02:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
13. Oppose Basic misunderstanding of copyright issues as here and in above discussions indicates other issues could be equally misunderstood. Tyrenius 03:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

    And the image in the signature still hasn't gone: Images of any kind should not be used in signatures. Tyrenius 10:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

14. Oppose as the candidate doesn't seem to understand the copyright policy or at least the reasons for abiding by it. joturner 03:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
15. Oppose, lacks of understanding of copyright issues. --Terence Ong 05:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
16. Changed to Oppose because of copyright issues. Thetruthbelow 05:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
17. Oppose - per copyright issues -- Tawker 05:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
18. Oppose, does not appear to meet 1FA. - Mailer Diablo 08:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
19. Oppose per concerned points. Computerjoe's talk 08:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
20. Oppose per Kylu.--Joe Jklin (T C) 09:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

    Oppose primarily due to image in signature, images in signatures can cause problems for many other users if the server the image hosted on is "having problems". Willing to unnecessary impact on other users just for the sake of vanity or self preference is not a trait I support in Admins. Secondly due to the Copyright understandings outlined above by other users. blue520 10:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

    Moving to Neutral, image in signature has been removed. blue520 10:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

    Note the orange colour comes from the formatting of Jklin signature.--blue520 10:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

21. Oppose. The initial copyright issue in itself wasn't too bad, but then to argue with a voter over it when you were wrong worries me. If you make a mistake you need to be reasonable about accepting that, and not dig your heels in. Captainj 10:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
22. Oppose. I think an admin should at least understand the basics of our copyvio rules, it's the sort of thing we have to deal with regularly. The more serious error, however, was arguing about it afterwards when he was clearly in the wrong; we have enough trouble as it is with admins who are unable to recognise their own flaws without adding another one. All this being said, I may well support in the future if Ynhockey demonstrates a better understanding of policy. Rje 12:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
23. Non-compliance with WP:SIG. I don't like when people say, "Oh, it's just a guideline, I don't have to follow it." To which my response at Rfa is ... "Yeah, and I don't have to support you, either." --Cyde↔Weys 13:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
24. Oppose per JoanneB and Rory; the level of policy understanding just isn't there and arguing in an RfA is incredibly bad form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shell Kinney (talk • contribs)
25. Oppose per JoanneB. - FrancisTyers 16:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
26. Oppose Copyright paranoia is a derogative term used by those who don't understand copyright (usually, misunserstanding the so-called "fair use"). Should such person become admin, he would likely interfere with keeping wikipedia safe in regards copyright issues. -- Drini 17:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
27. Automatic Oppose. Ouw! That's never happened before. Ynhockey rejects some of the foundation issues at User:Ynhockey/Wikimedia_gripes. This is fine, you're free to do so. But of course you can't become an admin or even trusted user in a project you do not support. So I'm going to have to reject out of hand. Kim Bruning 00:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
28. Oppose. Looks like the user has contributed a lot to Misplaced Pages. However, I'm concerned about the comments on copyright violation. Admins are a type of ambassador for the project and comments as such I think could create a perception among the public that some amount of copyright violation is tolerated. Nephron  T|C 03:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
29. Oppose per all above. Royboycrashfan 17:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
30. Oppose. Needs to learn a lot about copywriting. DakPowers (Talk) 21:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
31. Oppose sorry to be opposing someone who clearly is committed to the projeect, but its the little things like not warning users in addition to reverting vandalism and not having experience with some of the more basic policies. All of these things indicate a need for more experience in my mind; I look forward to supporting in the future. savidan 22:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral was oppose --blue520 10:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
2. Neutral as I was involved in an argument with the User about copyright issues . feydey 14:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
3. Neutral I can't decide. — Brendenhull (T + C) at 21:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
4. Neutral. Policy issues obviously need attention, but I can't quite oppose, based on the candidate's other contributions. RadioKirk talk to me 21:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• See Ynhockey's _{(Talk ▪ Contributions ▪ Logs ▪ Block Logs)} contributions as of 00:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC) using Interiot's tool:

Username Ynhockey
Total edits 6135
Distinct pages edited 1705
Average edits/page 3.598
First edit 17:26, November 8, 2004
(main) 4667
Talk 502
User 320
User talk 136
Image 57
Image talk 1
Template 142
Template talk 16
Category 56
Category talk 2
Misplaced Pages 158
Misplaced Pages talk 73
Portal 1
Portal talk 4

User's last 5000 edits.Voice-of-All 21:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

--Viewing contribution data for user Ynhockey (over the 5000 edit(s) shown on this page)-- (FAQ)
Time range: 181 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 21hr (UTC) -- 01, Jun, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 4hr (UTC) -- 3, November, 2005
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 65.31% Minor edits: 95.39%
Average edits per day: 20.13 (for last 500 edit(s))
Analysis of edits (out of all 5000 edits):
Article edit summary use (last 739 edits) : Major article edits: 99.06% Minor article edits: 97.34%
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/sourcing): 3.56% (178)
Minor article edits (small content/info/reference additions): 16.98% (849)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 49.02% (2451)
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 1440 | Average edits per page: 3.47 | Edits on top: 10.58%
Significant edits (non-minor/reverts): 6.98% (349 edit(s))
Minor edits (non-reverts): 75.1% (3755 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 3.94% (197 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 13.98% (699 edit(s))
Edits by Misplaced Pages namespace:
Article: 74.52% (3726) | Article talk: 8.56% (428)
User: 5.28% (264) | User talk: 2.56% (128)
Misplaced Pages: 2.58% (129) | Misplaced Pages talk: 1.2% (60)
Image: 1% (50)
Template: 2.74% (137)
Category: 1.08% (54)
Portal: 0.02% (1)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.46% (23)

• See Ynhockey's 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: Right now I sometimes patrol new articles and frequently remove vandalism from watched pages. If I become an admin, I hope to do this more and also patrol recent changes (rollback option will help more than current revert). Other than that, I plan to spend more time at the WP:HD helping new users, although that's not really a sysop chore.

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

A: Israeli Military Police, although it's unsourced, I took most of the info from the internal MP website which is on the army LAN. Also Arad, Israel (mainly the images in the article), Shinigami (Bleach) and a few others are my better contributions, so to say. They are contributions where I got out of the wikignome attitude and sat down to make something bigger for Misplaced Pages. Of course, I'm not displeased with minor edits either. Also check this page for a more detailed log of my contributions.

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

A: I have been in some conflicts over editing, in Machsom Watch, Arab citizens of Israel (formerly Israeli Arabs), and a few less notable cases. I feel that most users in these discussions (both my 'opponents' and 'supporters') acted in a civil way and although the consensus reached was always somewhat ambiguous, there were always a few principles about said articles we agreed on. Can't say it really caused me any stress. In the future I plan to do more thorough research in such debates, which is IMO lacking (from all sides). Granted, each of us generally comes up with some sources to back up our claims.

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 (66/32/9) ended 14:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Siva1979 (talk · contribs) – An excellent contributor who has now been here for the magic six months that many people require, with approaching 10 000 edits. Siva is tenacious and has casued an explosion in the number of articles on soccer clubs; Siva has also developed the English football league system with impressive depth and dedication. I think this editor would make a great admin; the many barnstars on Siva's user page help show this more than anything else! As an English football fan I thought I'd step in front of the others who wanted to nominate and get in there first!

Siva has one previous RfA, from April 2006. This was nomianted by User:Tdxiang largely thanks to Siva's work on the SGpedian's noticed board. The nomination failed mainly due to Siva's inexperience. Robdurbar 10:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I co-nominate. Raichu 21:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I, as his former nominator, co-nominate too.-- 陈鼎翔 贡献 Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! (Tdixang is down with the flu and will be inactive) 09:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept this nomination. --Siva1979 13:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Hand the mop over already I supported first --Mahogany 15:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
2. Support He's gained much experience since the last RfA. I think he can be more than trusted with the buttons -- Samir धर्म 14:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
3. Support - a lot more experience and could use the tools (having just come from a 150 page CSD backlog... we need people ... badly...) -- Tawker 14:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
4. support looks like a comptetent and trustworthy editor - will be the same as an admin. --Bachrach44 15:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
5. Support ForestH2
6. Support. I have seen Siva do a lot of good work of football-related topics, I have absolutely no reason to believe the tools will be misused. Rje 15:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
7. Support Looks like a great and constructive editor. --digital_me 15:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
8. Strong Support Amazing editor & great guy. --Srikeit 15:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
9. Support - wonderful editor. Timing's a bit of a non-issue for me: he's (in my opinion) certainly worthy of the mop. --Celestianpower 16:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
10. I voted support last time, so I'll vote support this time too. Also, has plenty of portal talk edits. Elkman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

    Support. --Sam Blanning 16:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

    Moving to oppose. --Sam Blanning 19:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

11. Support good editor, will not abuse his power, and a kind person. The Gerg 16:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
12. A RadioKirk cliché support. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/!? 17:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
13. Support ON WHEELS!! Helpful editor, constructive criticism. --Sunholm(talk) 17:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
14. Can't think of a reason why not. Clearly a good user who will use the tools for the good of the project. Redux 17:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
15. Support --W.marsh 17:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

    Support. No reason to think powers will be poorly used.Voice-of-All 17:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

    Changed to oppose.Voice-of-All 08:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

16. Strong Support will use the tools well. Rama's Arrow 18:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
17. Jaranda 18:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
18. Strong support despite the negative response to question 6, this user can easily be trusted. People shouldn't be expected to know absolutely everything there is to know as a new administrator, and new administrators have learning to do as well. This user can definitely be trusted and has made significant contributions to the encyclopedia. It is also my opinion that lately administrator standards have become much too high, but that's another issue. I say hand him the mop. Cowman109 19:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
19. Strong support - A superb user. Kilo-Lima| 20:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
20. Support Siva1979 has been pitching in for a while now. After gaining more experience since his first RfA, I believe that Siva is now better prepared and suited for a mop. --Jay(Reply) 20:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
21. Strong Support. Great user and would centainly make good use of the new tools. G.He 21:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
22. Support. DVD+ R/W 21:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
23. Support CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 21:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
24. Support good reliable editor with significant contributions to Misplaced Pages in his fields of interest. -- Ynhockey 21:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
25. Strongest Possible Super Ultra Mega Support He is the friendliest user I have ever seen, although he doesn't meet my usual nine months. Raichu 21:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
26. Support Highway 21:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
27. Support "useless" edits like the one found by Kusma shouldn't be a reason to oppose. At least the other user now knows that there are people in the Misplaced Pages community who are willing to help him out! --M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

    ...one year later, when the issue had been fixed ages ago. Kusma (討論) 00:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

28. Support "a good user". ;) —Khoikhoi 00:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
29. Support Yeh, this user should be admin :) --Osbus 00:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
30. Support - very good editor abakharev 03:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
31. Strong Support. Definitely. DarthVader 04:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
32. Support, friendly and great user. --Terence Ong 04:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
33. Support - A very good editor Bharatveer 06:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
34. Support - Good Editor. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
35. Support. Not really convinced by any of the oppose reasons. --Lord Deskana 09:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
36. Support. A dedicated, committed user across many areas of the project. Zaxem 10:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
37. Support as nominator --Robdurbar 12:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
38. Support per all above and nom. Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 12:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
39. Absolutely Support. How's that for a vote of confidence? :) RandyWang (/_rants) 13:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
40. Really Weak SupportI'll vote support, but the canidate better be good or I go to oppose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gangsta-Easter-Bunny (talk • contribs)
41. Support per nom. Good user, nice work. --Tone 18:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
42. Support seems like a great candidate hoopydink 23:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
43. Support Everything indicates he would be a great admin.--Aldux 00:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
44. Support. Pepsidrinka 01:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
45. Support this time. I have some reservations about beliefs regarding Adminship but that's not enough for me to oppose. I've seen a lot of Siva and all communication seems positive and enthusiastic. That's more than the min requirement of civil and gets a support from me now. MLA 08:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
46. Support. I am a little concerned that Siva may not be fully up to speed in some important areas; but that is far outweighed by his willingness to listen and to be reasonable. I'd much rather have admins who made a few mistakes and learnt from them, than admins who only make one mistake but refuse to admit they are wrong. Good luck Siva. Captainj 10:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
47. Support Good user. -- Shizane _contribs 21:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
48. Support. No significant problems with this candidate—sure, there's more to learn, but we all should be able to say that. RadioKirk talk to me 21:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
49. Support because this user supported me in a previous nomination. Axiomm 01:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
50. Support Would help WP with the tools. Gizza 02:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
51. Support Mostly Rainy 02:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
52. Support Despite some slightly controversial answers to the below questions, this user is excellent and will make a fine administrator. --Firsfron of Ronchester 09:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
53. Support as per nominator. E Asterion 16:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
54. Strong Support Good Editor, will become excellent admin. - Holy Ganga 19:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
55. Support. I have interacted with this user on FAC before, and have had nothing but a positive experience. RyanGerbil10 05:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
56. Support - great editor, will be an asset with the mop. --james_{(lets talk)} 10:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
57. Support. Many excellent contributions. ImpuMozhi 15:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
58. Support. Adminship is not a big deal. I find some administrators whose contributions to articles have dropped significantly, I do believe that Shiva shall maintain a balance. I also believe that he shall not misuse the tools like some of the existing administrators have been doing to silence the voice and kill the new wikipedians before their take-off. --Bhadani 16:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
59. Support, excellent candidate. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
60. Support. All experiences have been positive. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 05:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
61. Forceful support as co-nominator.-- 陈鼎翔 贡献 Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! (Tdixang is down with the flu and will be inactive) 09:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
62. Support.--Kungfu Adam 20:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
63. Support, active and helpful. PJM 20:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
64. Support Geo.plrd 22:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
65. Support.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
66. Support. -Hanuman Das 02:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weak oppose - Too soon since last RFA. Otherwise, should be okay, and would support a future, well-timed RFA. NSLE _(T+C) at 15:17 UTC (2006-06-01)

   Wait, so you mean if this was threee months later, you'll support? --Osbus 20:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

2. Weak oppose, I am also a bit turned off by completely useless edits such as this one. Kusma (討論) 15:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

   What's wrong with that edit? --Lord Deskana 08:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

   Probably nothing, except that it shows he didn't check the post dates. There is a 2 month interlude between those posts. --tjstrf 09:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

   Actually, it is a 1 year and 2 month difference. AndyZ _t 21:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

3. Oppose- Overall a wonderful editor and good potential admin, but as one who would block vandals, would be hampered by scarcity (total lack?) of vandal revisions and reports to AIV. Otherwise someone I would gladly support. :) Dlohcierekim 16:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose due to Siva's answer to question 6. I can't see any justification for dodging process in this way. It is perfectly possible that on day 4 or 5 of an AfD nomination that has received nothing but 'delete' votes (at which point Siva says he would close the nomination and delete the article), someone may turn up new evidence or rewrite the article in a way that turns the nomination around. For example, Alice Barnham (AfD) was nominated on April 27 when it was a tiny stub. 3 editors opined for delete, 2 for merge and none for keeping. Another editor found evidence of notability on May 2nd (day 7), then massively expanded the article on May 3rd (day 8), and the article was kept. This is why we hold our fire on non-CSD articles for at least five days, even when consensus looks overwhelming. The sky is not going to fall tomorrow. --Sam Blanning 19:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

   Comment I wish to thank you for pointing this out to me. I acknowledge that your opposing comments on this matter is totally justified. I will definitely take your comments under strong consideration if I am involved in an AfD process under the capacity of an admin. You are also right that it is possible that someone may turn up new evidence in the last minute to justify the existence of the article on Misplaced Pages. I have to admit that up till now, I did not consider this possibility. Thank You once again for pointing this out to me. It would only make me a better editor (or an admin if my nomination is a success) in the future. --Siva1979 19:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

5. Oppose responses to questions 4,5 & 6 don't convince me that policies and guidelines will take precedence over the editor's gut impressions. Also past RFA voting pattern concerns me. Pete.Hurd 19:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose. The answer to Cyde's question about AfD appears to me to be wrong on approximately 4 seperate counts. -Splash 20:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose. He seems to be a good, maybe even great contributor, and we should all appreciate his presence here, but I wouldn't trust him as an admin. He seems a bit too hasty on his decision making. Also, he seems to think anyone nominated should become an admin unless they are an incorrigable vandal. --tjstrf 20:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose per Pete.Hurd and Cyde's questions. Ral315 (talk) 21:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose per Ral315 - although I do acknowledge he definitely is a friendly editor! That's not enough for me though, sorry. --JoanneB 22:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
10. Oppose A good user, but perhaps not quite ready to be an admin, per Ral315's reasoning above. --Wisden17 23:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
11. Oppose per above. A good and dedicated editor, but I think he needs a bit more time to understand some of the principles of Misplaced Pages. FreplySpang 02:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
12. Oppose Too soon after last RfA which was not a close call. Lack of discrimination (or excess desire to please) shown by numerous supports in other RfAs. Nice guy, but needs to develop strength of individual judgement. Tyrenius 03:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
13. I was disappointed by his responses to my question, particularly how he emphasized policy, process, and guidelines as more important than goals, when, of course, the goals are the most important things and the other three just help us get closer to those goals. Policy, process, and guidelines are meaningless if we aren't making progress towards our goal of building an encyclopedia. Also, he seems to think that Afd is a vote and that Afds can be closed at around three or four days time. I don't think this is a good idea ... either the Afd is closed within the first day because it meets or nearly meets a speedy deletion criteria or it should run for the full five days. And finally, this user's blanket supports of so many other requests for adminship leave me to question his motives; does he honestly believe that >90% of the candidates at Rfa would make good admins? All of these faults can be fixed in time as Siva gains a greater understanding of the nuances of Misplaced Pages's inner workings and starts to more critically evaluate Rfa candidates, but for now, I must oppose. --Cyde↔Weys 03:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

    Comment First of all, I wish to thank you deeply for the reasons you gave on why you are disappointed to the answers I gave. Your comments would be taken into serious consideration. However, I wish to point out that I never view AfD as vote counting. If 10 incompetent users vote for an excellent article to be deleted and 2 excellent editors (based on the history and number of edits) vote to keep the article, I would most probably not delete it. The nature and type of users would be taken into consideration. Of course, if 10 excellent editors were to voice out their support for an article to be deleted, I would delete it as their voice carries much weight compared to newer editors in the project. --Siva1979 06:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

    Reply. If 10 excellent editors vote to delete an article, and then one new editor comes and claims that he can verify the article's notability, and then makes edits to reflect this, which do you trust? Even if the other editors have much better edit histories, that doesn't mean they would necessarily know about every subject, and many new editors make geniune efforts to salvage articles, but due to their lack of "insider" knowledge (e.g. proper policies to appeal to) may be unsuccesful at convincing other voters to support them. Your personal judgment can still be a major factor, and there may be cases where even a supermajority of well intentioned editors turns out wrong. To compound the problem, the chance of a new editor knowing of the existance of the Deletion Review process is lower, and he may be marked as a vandal for recreating the page afterwards when he was editing in good faith. --tjstrf 08:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

14. Oppose. Per all of above. Answers below and past RfA voting patterns reveal herd mentality. Two RfAs in five months since first edit is a sign of desperation. Fails Diablo Test. Anwar 07:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

    Herd mentality? On the contrary, Siva1979 often votes support when no one else (or only a small number) of people do. DarthVader 07:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

    His voting yes in the face of everyone else is itself a concern. Plus, the herd mentality referenced may be refering to the "yes" votes he has recieved, many of which seem to be some sort of fanclub he has. "He's a nice guy" is not really a valid criteria for adminship. --tjstrf 07:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

    Well, genuinely nice guys are highly unlikely to abuse tools, for one thing. It's a better indicater that edit counts, really, given how edit counts can be gamed easilly but many people simply can't pull off being friendly and helpful over a long period of time. But it takes meeting more than just one criteria, at least for my vote. --W.marsh 14:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

    I suppose a nice person would be more likely to err on the side of caution in disputes, but nice is only a secondary characteristic that you should have. People who are nice and helpful already get rewarded by being more respected by other editors anyway, what we want for admins are people who can take responsibility and make accurate decisions. --tjstrf 08:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

15. Oppose, don't feel comfortable giving adminship to someone who trots around Misplaced Pages talk:Did you know making out-of-date comments. Gives the appearance that he's trying to inflate his Misplaced Pages namespace editcount. That, plus the answer to Cyde's question 1. Kimchi.sg 09:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
16. Oppose per above; policy understanding should be well underway when applying for adminship. Shell 13:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
17. Oppose per AfD answer. 5 rather than 3-4, unless it is a speedy; never delete if there is no consensus.Voice-of-All 16:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
18. Oppose, I don't care about featured articles (User:Stifle/No featured articles), but the lack of Misplaced Pages namespace edits indicates to me a probable shortage of policy knowledge. Stifle (talk) 20:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
19. Oppose. I agree with the supporters: he seems like a nice guy, and extraordinarily unlikely to abuse the tools. However, there are several indications of a lack of policy knowledge and lack of preparation for the difficult choices and strong stances sometimes required of admins. Answers to 4, 5, and 6 all concern me. Although I am impressed by his response to Sam Blanning's oppose above, I worry that there may be other critical issues that he hasn't thought of yet; thus it's best to take more time and learn more, I think. -- SCZenz 20:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
20. Oppose. Discussion about closing AfD above (per Sam Blanning) concern me. Nephron  T|C 04:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
21. Oppose for discussion about closing AfD above (per Sam Blanning). If an article is nominated for non-speedy deletion, why be so eager to delete any earlier? Without this impatience, I would have considered supporting.--Jusjih 09:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
22. Oppose per Cyde and Siva's answer to Q4. He's a very good editor, I would probably support him later, but not now. --Zoz (t) 18:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
23. Oppose: answer to question 4 and practice of supporting nearly every RfA show an attitude toward adminship I cannot share or support, sorry. Jonathunder 02:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
24. Oppose, great contributor but recent love-fest for all RfA nominees either shows excessive politicing or poor judgement + big enough mop and trigger finger concerns. Deizio talk 14:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
25. Oppose per above. Mackensen (talk) 14:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
26. Oppose per answers to Cyde questions. — GT 17:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
27. Oppose. He needs more edits to actual articles. I went back more than a month before I could find an actual edit that wasn't to user space, Misplaced Pages space or a formatting edit in main space. Rebecca 07:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
28. Oppose per above. -lethe 14:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
29. Oppose, shaky grasp of policy. Proto||type 13:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
30. Oppose. The answers to the questions show an arbitrary approach, rather than a thoughtful approach that understands consensus and policy. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 21:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
31. Oppose, just like last time, it seems like just yesterday in fact. — Jun. 7, '06 <freak|talk>
32. Oppose. Per Pete.Hurd. —Ruud 09:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral, pending answer to question below. Dragons flight 15:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
2. Neutral has too low standards for sysopship. Computerjoe's talk 17:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

   What? This isn't an RfB, how are RfA "voting" patterns relevant to whether or not he will abuse or not use the mop? --Rory096 20:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

   It speaks to judgement. Behaviour in such contexts may be more relevant than mainspace edits quality, use of edit summaries, edit counts etc in judging whether to endorse. Do I trust this editor with admin powers? Or has their behaviour lead me to think that their future decisions are something I ought to keep an eye on? Pete.Hurd 00:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

   Reply More specifically, you could say it shows lack of respect for the office. If he thinks that everyone who is ever nominated should become an admin, then he probably won't take the position very seriously. Adminship may not exactly be a "sacred duty," but it is a power and authority grant that should be given to the exeptional. --tjstrf 01:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

   My belief is that adminship is a technical position. I fully agree with the way that Siva1979 supports most candidates (as I do myself). At the end of the day, if a user won't abuse their greater technical abilities then they should be accepted by the community to become an admin. Adminship is no big deal. DarthVader 04:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

   It's more than that. Endorsing a candidate for admin is also endorsing that candidate as an accurate judge in cases of conflict and requires that they have a valid understanding of the rules and standards.--tjstrf 09:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

3. Agreed. I have no real reason for voting oppose yet, but something doesn't quite feel right. I'll go with neutral. DS 18:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

   ...and, of course, now I just noticed that Siva has me listed on his userpage as someone he has "high regard for". Now I feel all awkward. I'll probably vote support in his next RfA. DS 18:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

   Neutral I am concerned also about this editor's apparently reflexive support voting style on RFA. I get the impression that there isn't really much thought invested when it ought to be. Pete.Hurd 18:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)changed to oppose.

4. Neutral – good editor, but I agree with some of the concerns raised above, including answers to the questions below – Gurch 21:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
5. Neutral - can't cite specific reasons for an oppose, but a lot of the answers leave me uneasy. Not enough thought about process, about who makes a good admin, and other things.. perhaps in a while. ++Lar: t/c 02:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
6. Neutral - Per Tyrenius, I am worried Siva won't be able to make difficult decisions, per his RfA voting pattern. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with supporting candidates, but I'm afraid Siva is shying away from controversy. However, as I don't want to predict Siva's motives incorrectly, I won't oppose on those grounds. joturner 03:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
7. Neutral. This is one of liking someone and thinking he does a good job on many cases, and being uneasy enough about some aspects as policy and the AfD question , that I can not decide. -- Kim van der Linde 16:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
8. Neutral. Answers convince me to support, but this is too soon since the last RfA. Royboycrashfan 17:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
9. Neutral contribution history looks great but answers to questions below are a little off-putting. I would be happy if enough users disagreed with me and this nomination succeeded, but I can't support at this time. savidan 22:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments User's last 5000 edits.Voice-of-All 17:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

--Viewing contribution data for user Siva1979 (over the 5000 edit(s) shown on this page)-- (FAQ)
Time range: 109 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 17hr (UTC) -- 01, Jun, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 19hr (UTC) -- 14, February, 2006
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 99.83% Minor edits: 100%
Average edits per day: 37.54 (for last 500 edit(s))
Analysis of edits (out of all 5000 edits):
Article edit summary use (last 201 edits) : Major article edits: 100% Minor article edits: 100%
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/sourcing): 3.62% (181)
Minor article edits (small content/info/reference additions): 1.02% (51)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 11.64% (582)
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 3790 | Average edits per page: 1.32 | Edits on top: 37.76%
Significant edits (non-minor/reverts): 74.48% (3724 edit(s))
Minor edits (non-reverts): 25.16% (1258 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 0.28% (14 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 0.08% (4 edit(s))
Edits by Misplaced Pages namespace:
Article: 16.34% (817) | Article talk: 7.3% (365)
User: 3% (150) | User talk: 37.66% (1883)
Misplaced Pages: 24.34% (1217) | Misplaced Pages talk: 6.18% (309)
Image: 1.16% (58)
Template: 0.84% (42)
Category: 0.36% (18)
Portal: 0.22% (11)
Help: 0.42% (21)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 2.18% (109)

• See Siva1979's edit summary usage with Mathbot's tool.
• User:Interiot/Tool2/code.js:

Username Siva1979
Total edits 7944
Distinct pages edited 5808
Average edits/page 1.368
First edit 23:14, January 6, 2006
(main) 2767
Talk 382
User 211
User talk 2323
Image 59
Image talk 22
MediaWiki talk 22
Template 56
Template talk 25
Help 22
Help talk 23
Category 19
Category talk 13
Misplaced Pages 1653
Misplaced Pages talk 321
Portal 13
Portal talk 13

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 would like to have the additional tools of an admin to speedy delete test and attack pages. I would also like to 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 would also help me to delete redirects with history that block a move, or to merge histories of pages moved by cut and paste. These powers would also help me to fight vandalism with a server-based rollbock, blocking persistent vandals and protecting pages that have undergone frequent vandalism.

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 have also created links for all the English soccer leagues from step 1 to 7. Although most of the articles I have created are just stubs, I have recently began to add images to these articles. I have also incresed the content for some of these articles. 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 also welcome new IP addresses and users and added signatures for comments that lack proper signatures.

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 oppostition in the manner in which I contributed to the 1911 Britannica topics. I learned and acknowledged my mistakes and improved my contributions in this are of Misplaced Pages. In the beginning, I felt a bit of stress because I thought that I was not doing a good job and I was only trying to help out. But I used the feedback to improve on 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.

4. (from Dragons flight) Since you've joined Misplaced Pages, you have voted in at least dozens and quite possibly hundreds of RFAs. Based on your voting record you would seem to have an extremely low standard for adminship. In going over your contributions to Misplaced Pages space, I noticed only 3 RFAs that you opposed and all of which had the distinction of not having a single support vote. By contrast, there are examples where yours is one of only a handful of support votes on RFAs that are overwhelmingly opposed. Please explain your rationale for deciding how to vote in RFAs with specific attention to what would make a candidate unqualified for adminship in your opinion.

A A candidate, in my opinion, would be unqualified for adminship if he/she has been blocked for quite a number of times. Moreover, if the candidate has repeatedly vandalized articles, I would not vote for them. Additionally, if a candidate shows signs of being not committed to Misplaced Pages by performing constant, vandal edits, my vote would be oppose. But generally speaking, most candidates who have taken part in RfAs does not belong to this category. However, if the edit counts of candidates are low (for example about 800-1200 edits) but the candidate has shown signs of being committed to the project, I would vote support for their nomination. They may show signs of impatience, but their willingness to nominate themselves for adminship early must be commended. I do not like to discourage potentially good candidates for adminship just because they have low edit counts or have been involved in the project for about 2 to 3 months.

5. How do you feel about the relative (a) importance, (b) purpose, and (c) punishments for violations of, (1) policy, (2) process, (3) guidelines, and (4) goals? Cyde↔Weys 17:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

A As far as policies and guidelines are concerned, they are very important to keep note of when one is involved in a project such as Misplaced Pages. For first time violations of guidelines and policies, we must take care not to punish the respective user excessively. A warning should do just fine. But for repeated violations, the particular user would have to be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. If the conduct is serious in nature, a lenghty ban should be sufficient in dealing with these anti-social acts. The purpose of these policies and guidelines is to ensure that this project is not too anarchic in nature. Without some basic rules and regulations, there would be many instances of abuse in the project. The goals are less important compared to the other 3 aspects of Misplaced Pages because the setting of goals would change more often in the future than policies or guidelines. It is also important to follow a systematic process when dealing with abuse or edit wars. But if one violates this process, it is not as serious as violating policies or guidelines. The latter constitutes vandalism while the former is just an acknowledgement on the user's part that he/she is not familiar with the proper process of Misplaced Pages.

6. What is your take on the Afd process, particularly the administrator goals and responsibilities of closing Afds, which you will be doing if this Rfa succeeds? --Cyde↔Weys 17:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

A My take on the AfD process is that I would have the responsibility of deleting articles from Misplaced Pages which have an overwelming delete votes. If the consensus is overwhelmingly clear to delete the particular article, I feel that it is not imperative to wait for at least one week to clear the article from Misplaced Pages. 3 to 4 days is sufficient to take the necessary action. If consensus is unclear, I would most probably not delete the affected article.

7 What do you think of most sysops on Misplaced Pages today?(e.g:they are courrupt, they are good, etc.)The Gerg

A On a personal note, I have not come across any courrupted admins so far (Thankfully!). My personal experience with them have generally been positive and helpful in nature. Most of them are doing a good job in Misplaced Pages. Courrupted admins are relatively rare but I have seen some of them being involved with edit wars with other users.

8 Do you look at your old RfA as a failure , or a way to improve?The Gerg

A Frankly speaking, I view my old RfA as a success as I view all opposing votes in a positive manner. These votes tell me on what aspect of editing on Misplaced Pages to improve on and what must I avoid doing. However, I would be lying if I said that I was delighted with the result. It was a disappointment for me to fail on my past RfA but I channelled this disappointment in a positive manner. I endeavoured to improve on my edits and my interaction with other users increased. Generally all users should view their failed nomination as a way to improve and not get discouraged by the negative votes.

Two questions from Captainj (Qs 9 ans 10). Completely optional, but I'm still undecided. Thanks.

9 (Ref Q8) Please can you give examples of what improvements you have made to your edits since your last RfA, (preferrably with diffs)?

A According to my last RfA, some users had expressed reservation on the low number of edits on article talk pages. I have since added some controversial discussions on some of the topics. For example, view this page (as at 17:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)) and this page. Previously, I tend to avoid controversial discussions. This has since changed and I am now more active in communicating with other users. Moreover, it had also been noted in my last RfA that I tend not to revisit the new articles which I created. This has also changed recently when I began adding images to some of the football articles which I had started. For example, please view the history pages of this article. Many more such examples of this can be viewed at my user contribution page. Moreover, I do not intend to stop there and I am planning to make one of these articles reach at least Good Article status in the future.

10 According to Q3, you haven't been in edit conflicts recently. Can you give me an example of how you avoided getting into an edit conflict, what you did to head it off? (I need someway of assessing how you deal with people that might disagree with you, hold other POVs, etc).

A The golden rule of avoiding edit conflicts is to try one's best to understand the other party's point of view. If you are able to understand the reasons why some people might disagree with you, your perception on the subject would be more broader. Of course, this does not work all the time when the other party is an unreasonable user. In this case, I would always try my very best to maintain my cool and pacify the user.

When people disagree with me, most of the time, these very users have more experience in editing Misplaced Pages than I have. They always provide me with sound reasons on why they disagree with some of the edits which I have made. In almost all cases, I am able to see their POV and most of the time, their reasoning is much more concise than mine. In that case, I would admit my shortfall and endeavour to improve and avoid similiar mistakes. If one is able to take constructive criticism in a positive manner, in no time, that particular user would become a fine contributor, editor and person.

However, if I am dealing with a considerably less experienced user, I would gently guide the user to the policies and acceptable guidelines of Misplaced Pages. If he/she continues to be involved in an edit conflict with me, I would gently remind that user that this is unacceptabel behaviour in Misplaced Pages. If the user still persists, I would report the matter to an admin.

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

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

Ben W Bell

Final (51/1/2) ended 16:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Ben W Bell (talk · contribs) – Ben has been editing Misplaced Pages since 4 June 2004. Since that time he's contributed on many subjects, most notably his native Northern Ireland (a subject which can arouse considerable emotion and unpleasantness among editors), and has also spent a great deal of time on anti-vandalism patrols and other vital tasks, such as adding missing country names to articles. He has attempted to put across an NPOV, no matter what his personal opinions may be, has always been happy to talk and accept compromise, and has never resorted to the sort of edit warring and name calling that can occur on some of the more sensitive articles. He is a tireless reverter and pursuer of vandals. I believe he would use administrator's rights efficiently and fairly and would be an asset to the pool of administrators on Misplaced Pages. -- Necrothesp 13:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I access this nomination for adminship. Many thanks. Ben W Bell talk 14:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Of course! -- Necrothesp 15:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
2. Well, despite the fact that the candidate decided to "access" the nomination, support anyway. (grin) RadioKirk talk to me 16:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
3. Seems to be extremely friendly, and dedicated to reverting vandalism. I think he will also open up to other admin duties. Yanksox 16:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
4. I'm confident he'll serve Misplaced Pages well as an admin. To be more succinct, per above :-) SoLando (Talk) 16:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
5. Support It is time to give him the mop. --Siva1979 16:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
6. Support No reason not to --Mahogany 17:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
7. I'll access support - looks good to me and can really use the tools -- Tawker 17:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
8. Support I see no reason to oppose this RFA. Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 17:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
9. Support Looks good; per Tawker.Voice-of-All 17:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
10. Support Looks good, meets my standards, per Tawker. --digital_me 18:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
11. Support. I cannot add much that has not already been said, he will use the tools well. Rje 18:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
12. Support per Tawker. The Gerg 23:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
13. Strong Support ForestH2
14. Support Well-rounded edits, acceptable total edits, all around good evidence for fruitful adminship NorseOdin 03:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
15. Support. User talk page shows a gift for being able to deal with upset users and bring them to a calm, rational discussion. That's a good quality for adminship. --Elkman 04:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
16. Support Rama's Arrow 04:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
17. Support The E-mail is enabled, the rest seems good abakharev 07:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
18. Support changed from neutral with activation of email. --Chaser (T) 07:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
19. Support. Low count in wikipedia namespace, however appears to be a knowledgable editor. DarthVader 08:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
20. Support – now he enabled his email – Gurch 08:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
21. Looks good. --Andy123 10:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
22. Support Changed to support after activated Misplaced Pages email. FloNight 11:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

    Sorry, cannot support at this time. Misplaced Pages email not activated. Will consider changing if activates email and checksout otherwise. FloNight 20:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

23. Support Good committed user, impressed over his work on Northern Ireland page. --Wisden17 12:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
24. Support--Jusjih 13:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
25. Switch to support based on answers to my questions. Cautious user who will make sound decisions. :) Dlohcierekim 13:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
26. Good responses to questions below. --Cyde↔Weys 13:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
27. Support, per above. --tomf688 (talk - email) 14:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
28. Support' per above. —Khoikhoi 14:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

    Support No problems here. A good user. --Siva1979 14:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC) duplicate vote - Tangotango 15:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

29. Support --Jay(Reply) 20:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
30. Support Answers to questions show his knowledge of the project and that he knows what it takes to be an admin. SCHZMO ✍ 21:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
31. Strong Suppess Learn to type ;) Werdna_T@CL 01:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
32. Support Level-headed, good communicator - essential qualities. Tyrenius 03:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
33. Support --Terence Ong 05:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
34. Support--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
35. Support - Seems reasonable. Captainj 10:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
36. Support no problems here. --Tone 18:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
37. Merovingian {T C @} 23:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
38. Support Per all above. Looks good to me! -- Samir धर्म 08:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
39. Support. Like the answers to the questions below. Good editing record, would like to see some more Misplaced Pages namespace edits, but everything else is covered, so its not a dealbreaker. Rockpocket 22:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
40. Support I'm impressed. savidan 22:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
41. Support Joe I 06:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
42. Support Passed my test. — Brendenhull (T + C) at 20:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
43. Support - From what I have seen, he has always been an articulate editor and positive contributor to the project. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 03:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
44. Support. Low edit count to Misplaced Pages namespace != lack of policy knowledge. Hasn't anyone ever heard of reading? SushiGeek 06:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
45. Support despite the fact that Mr. Bell apparently does not use the minor edit marker - Mathbot only finds 71 minor edits to the main namespace over his entire Misplaced Pages career. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 06:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
46. Support. --Bhadani 16:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
47. Jaranda 19:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
48. Support. Very helpful at a dispute on University of Kent, and having had a look through his contribs I'd say he'd make a great admin. Nuge talk 21:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
49. Support not that he needs it. Congrats on your adminship!Minfo 23:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
50. Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
51. Support Nobleeagle (Talk) 06:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

OpposeLow edit count compared with time here and vague answer to only question posted.01:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC) :) Dlohcierekim 01:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)Switch to support based on answers to my questions. Cautious user who will make sound decisions. :) Dlohcierekim 13:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to let you know, the questions were reverted and I placed them back the best I could. Yanksox 01:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Dlohcierekim 02:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

1. Oppose, extremely low edit count to Misplaced Pages namespace indicates a probable lack of policy knowledge. Stifle (talk) 20:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

   Oppose. Comes from Northern Ireland. Ricardo Lagos 00:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

   Obvious vandalism oppose vote, I crossed it out, I hope that's ok Someonebay 02:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral - I will support the user if he would enable his e-mail abakharev 01:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Neutral - per abakharev. Impressed with staying civil in hot situations, like on Northern Ireland's talk. --Chaser (T) 02:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

1. Neutral, does not appear to meet 1FA, but has shown active RC patrolling. - Mailer Diablo 14:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
2. Neutral. Stifle and nominator Necrothesp both have convincing arguments. Royboycrashfan 17:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments

1. What about questions 2 and 3? :) Dlohcierekim 01:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

   Thanks! :) Dlohcierekim 02:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• See Ben W Bell's _{(Talk ▪ Contributions ▪ Logs ▪ Block Logs)} contributions as of 21:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC) using Interiot's tool:

Username	Ben W Bell
Total edits	2827
Distinct pages edited	1863
Average edits/page	1.517
First edit	04:01, June 4, 2004
(main)	2095
Talk	194
User	47
User talk	301
Image	33
Image talk	1
Template	6
Template talk	21
Misplaced Pages	115
Misplaced Pages talk	13
Portal	1

All user's edits.Voice-of-All 15:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

--Viewing contribution data for user Ben W Bell (over the 2827 edit(s) shown on this page)--  (FAQ)
Time range: 697 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 21hr (UTC) -- 31, May, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 8hr (UTC) -- 4, June, 2004
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 92.66% Minor edits: 100%
Average edits per day: 14.82 (for last 500 edit(s))
Analysis of edits (out of all 2827 edits):
Article edit summary use (last 770 edits) : Major article edits: 100% Minor article edits: 100%
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/sourcing): 4.7% (133)
Minor article edits (small content/info/reference additions): 8.6% (243)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 24.12% (682)
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 1816 | Average edits per page: 1.56 | Edits on top: 10.75%
Significant edits (non-minor/reverts): 12.63% (357 edit(s))
Minor edits (non-reverts): 33.53% (948 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 36.75% (1039 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 17.09% (483 edit(s))
Edits by Misplaced Pages namespace:
Article: 74.11% (2095) | Article talk: 6.86% (194)
User: 1.66% (47) | User talk: 10.65% (301)
Misplaced Pages: 4.07% (115) | Misplaced Pages talk: 0.46% (13)
Image: 1.17% (33)
Template: 0.21% (6)
Category: 0% (0)
Portal: 0.04% (1)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.78% (22)

• See Ben W Bell's 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 am quite happy doing tidying of articles when I come across those that need doing on my random travels (I often just hit the random button and see what needs doing on the pages I reach), the same goes for Wikifying those same articles. I tend to try and represent a NPOV and will try and neutralise pages without removing particular viewpoints if it is at all possible. I do already spend a lot of my time contending with the constant issues of vandalism on Misplaced Pages which I attempt to do in a fair way while upholding the Misplaced Pages policies. Ben W Bell talk 14:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

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

A: Of the articles I've created I'm happy with the HeliJet and Thomas Andrews (shipbuilder) articles, though I need to go through my old school notes and add more to the Thomas Andrews one. The HeliJet one goes hand in hand with the other Canadian airline ones I've started (West Coast Air and Harbour Air) due to them being simple pages that get the information across (though of course other editors have been over them in the past). I'm also quite happy with the photographs I've added to these and some other articles as a keen amateur photographer (I also have more still to add). Ben W Bell talk 14:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

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

A: One in particular springs to mind regarding the Template:Airlines of Canada template. It centred around the actual creator of the template objecting to my adding of the aforementioned HeliJet to the template on the grounds that he didn't consider them an airline. I dealt with it by presenting my evidence that the international and Misplaced Pages community did indeed consider it an airline and I don't believe looking through the chat logs that I lost my temper. If I do get wound up over something (and lets face it everyone does at some point or another) I deliberately take a step back and ignore the topic for a day or to until I can approach it with a clearer head. Ben W Bell talk 14:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC) Question from Yanksox (optional)

4. Why do you want to be an admin? Yanksox 15:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like to be an admin to help in the fight against vandalism mainly, and also to assist in building Misplaced Pages. I've found that with the amount of vandalism that goes on it is a slow job to go through and check the items, undo them and then warn users if they are obvious vandalism. I often spend time chasing vandals around pages, following their trails of breadcrumbs and warning them but lack the ability to do anything more about it. Yes I can postto bring them to immediate Admin attention but I do find that system can be slow and others often beat me to it so I still end up spending time chasing them around undoing the damage they have caused. Mainly. Ben W Bell talk 16:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Specifically, what would you do to fight vandalism? Yanksox 16:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Well I spend much of my time on Misplaced Pages already going through the recent changes list, and hitting random pages to see what needs doing. I monitor the recent changes for vandalism patterns and any suspect alterations. When I find obvious vandalism I revert it and give the user a warning if appropriate. If the user continues to vandalise then I continue to warn them appropriately. If the user is a serial vandal or a continuous vandal then quite frankly the ability to block the account so they do not waste everyone elses time continuously is an obvious option, though I think this should only be used for people who continually vandalise and not those who do it once or twice. Ben W Bell talk 16:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC) Question from Cyde↔Weys

5. How do you feel about the relative (a) importance, (b) purpose, and (c) punishments for violations of Misplaced Pages's: (1) policies, (2) process, (3) guidelines, and (4) goals?

A: Quite a complex question there. Policies are important, true anarchist states don't seem to work that well and everyone needs guidelines at least. Misplaced Pages's policies are there for a reason and are important to allow everyone to try and work from the same page as it were. Policies also help to define structures, regulations are even to an extent purpose. Punishment for violations of policies, well it is important for it to be seen that they are enforced but punishment has to be compared to crime. A simple ignorant violation that wasn't intentional and shows no pattern of being repeated is a "don't do it again" and "are you aware of" offense. Repeated violation of policy despite being warned stands a risk of jepordising the encyclopaedia and should be treated according. But each instance should be considered equally and policies should have a flexibility for events that weren't considered when it was drawn up. However that is the advantage of Misplaced Pages, we can discuss policy and process when these events do crop up and we can change how we respond in future and even alter policies if it seems prudent to do so. As for Misplaced Pages's goals, well they generally gell with some of my own viewpoints (yes I know we are NPOV). I'm pretty much an infosocialist with regards to information (yes I know it was actually a fictional philosophy but it works for me) to an extent. I don't condone breach of copyright however, but if people are willing to freely give their copyrights over to other and make them available then that is good. Information should be free to the masses, we should not have to pay fees to get access to historical or otherwise factual data. The whole world should be educated.

Question from FloNight

6. Your Misplaced Pages email is not activated. Why? Will you activate it now?

A I must confess I had checked it and thought it was but didn't realise it had to specifically be activated. An oversight on my behalf. I have authorised it and allowed other users to email me and shall check out how I go about getting that information available. Ben W Bell talk

8. Additional question from User:dlohcierekim. (As always, all additional questions are completely optional) Thank you for submitting your RfA, I have this question and then a follow-up. You are RCPatrolling. You see an article has been edited by an anon. The page history indicates the previous entry was by TawkerBot reverting a page blank by the same anon. The current version of the article has a note in all caps at the top of the page from the anon saying the article needs to be removed as a “cut and paste job from another site.” What do you do? Thanks,  :) Dlohcierekim 02:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

A: Well for a start I'd check it out. One thing I have learned is to not take everything at face value. I don't know everything, no one does, so I can't tell instantly whether or not the notice is factually correct or not. Due to the wonders of modern search engines you can find out if they have been copied and pasted from elsewhere. I'd do my own research into the matter and make my own conclusions. It may be a copy and paste of a copyrighted article in which case it would depend on what it was. Also not all copy & paste jobs are wrong, some have been freely released by the original writer, and I've seen many cases on here where the original writer was actually the person to do the copy and paste. I'd need to look into it and make a judgement later, there is no one right answer. Ben W Bell talk 07:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

9. So far, so good. Follow up question from User:Dlohcierekim. (As always, all additional questions are completely optional.) As you are pondering the above, you notice the anon has been posted to AIV for page blanking and vandalizing the reporting users page. In running through the contribs you find the anon has again blanked the page. On the talk page you find a note again asserting that the decision to delete was the correct one. Anon goes on to express anger and perplexity over being reverted, “by a ROBOT!” and “BEING TREATED LIKE A VANDAL.” The vandalism consists of similar messages on the user page of the reporting user, rather than on the talk page. How do you respond? Thanks,  :) Dlohcierekim 11:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

A: Well I cannot condone vandalising other people's user pages, that would have to be undone. I'd explain to the user, on his talk page, that his claims are being looked into for veracity. If the page in question needs temporarily protected to prevent blanking and vandalism while it is being looked into then so be it, but I'd explain to the user the reasons behind all the actions where I can. Ben W Bell talk 11:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

DriniQuestion

Do you think admins performing actions (deletions, blocks) for reasons not covered on policy should be sanctioned/punished? If so, how? In other words, if an admin speedy deletes a page for a reason that is not stated on CSD, should he be punished? What if he does it persistently? What about blockings? -- Drini 17:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

A: Sorry I may be being obtuse (it is early in the morning) but could you clarify that question for me? Ben W Bell talk 07:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

A: That is a very general question for a very specific result. Admins are not above the rules and policies, however no rules and policies can possibly cover every eventuality. I'm afraid I cannot give you a specific answer to that question and each case would have to be judged on its individual circumstances. Discussion is always a point and an option here. Ben W Bell talk 17:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Great, let's have a specific example: 03:48, 18 May 2006 Drini deleted "Template:Voting icons" (this template encourages voting instead of disucssing at debates) which was a template listing "quick vote" templates to stick graphical versions of support, delete, etc at discussions. That deletion isn't covered on policy, and I performed it without previous discussion, althought I provided reasons at deleting it. Elaborate. -- Drini 00:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately I cannot see any of the reasons as to why it was done. Without reasons I cannot make a judgement as to whether it was correct or not. Also I've not seen the template in use previously to my knowledge so I am not intuitively aware of its actual purpose. I'm sorry but I cannot give you an answer on that. Ben W Bell talk 07:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

ILovePlankton

Final (43/43/14) ended 03:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

ILovePlankton (talk · contribs) – ILovePlankton has been here since Valentine's Day 3 and a half months ago, and he already racked up 4200 edits. Article wise he is interested in science fiction, and is a member of Wikiproject star wars, star wars collaboration of the week, and has helped with the science collaboration of the week. He's done about 2500 edits maintaining the articles of wikipedia. What's stuck out the most to me though is how friendly ILP is. He is always a friendly face in IRC and a kind person in general. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I very humbly accept. ILovePlankton 02:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC) I am withdrawing from this RFA. Can someone please close it? ILovePlankton 02:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. First support... <_< Redwolf24 (talk) 02:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

   Lies. Master of Puppets 02:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

   Comment Redwolf24, you're a...... you're a....... you're a..... oh ok. I'll say it. You're a cheater! I still beat you! nobody take this as a personal attack, or incivility, because it's not. It is harmless fun. --GeorgeMoney  03:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

2. zOMG first second person to support (sorry ;-) -Red) Support. Seriously, ILP is an excellent editor, excellent interpersonal skills, I'm honoured to support him. — Nathan 01:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

   Damn dirty such-and-such *mutters under his breath* ;) — Nathan 04:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

3. Support Friendly user, balanced edits; I see no problems. However, I am bothered by the candidate's crunchiness when he is consumed as sustenance; makes for some unpleasent stomach pains... Master of Puppets 01:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
4. Support before nom support! --GeorgeMoney  01:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
5. support as per above. Whopper 01:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
6. Strong support Where 01:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
7. Strong Support per above. G.He 02:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
8. Strong Support per GeorgeMoney. FellowWikipedian 02:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
9. Strong Support per everyone! --digital_me 02:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
10. Strong Support I've seen this user around alot, very active, will be a great admin. -- Shizane _contribs 02:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
11. Strong Support Meets my critera, plus, excellent and friendly user. ~Linuxerist A/C/E/L/P/S/T/Z 02:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
12. Weak Support Tempted-to Oppose Though I really think he's a good user and could be an amdin. ForestH2 03:03, May 31 2006 (UTC)

    If I may ask, could you please elaborate, so that I know for myself if I'm making any mistakes that I could correct? ILovePlankton 03:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

13. Support, super-friendly user! -- DakPowers (Talk) 03:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
14. Support per nom. Mostly Rainy 03:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
15. Merovingian {T C @} 03:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
16. Support will be a great asset. -- That Guy, From That Show! 03:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
17. Support, you show great enthusiasm. Royboycrashfan 03:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

    Thank you. ILovePlankton 03:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

18. Support I love ILovePlankton. :) -→Buchanan-Hermit™/!? 06:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
19. Support. Great editor. Will make a good admin. DarthVader 07:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
20. Strong Support Would make a fantastic admin, kind, helpful, good editor, I can't say enough! Sergeant Snopake 11:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
21. Support Is friendly editor, no doubt about it. Will make great admin. - Tangotango 12:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
22. Super Strong Support A very kind user, know his way round wikipedia, would make a good admin. The Halo (talk)
23. Strong Support, friendly, helpful, kind and a great user. My interactions on IRC have been always great, I'm very sure he will make a great admin. --Terence Ong 14:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
24. Moderate Support From my interactions with ILP, I have determined that he will not abuse his tools and therefore there is no reason for him not to have them. However, he hasn't been here very long, so I hope his knowledge of policy is indeed good enough. --Xyrael 14:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
25. Strong Support!!! Give em' the mop already!! --Mahogany 14:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
26. Support. No doubts for me. RadioKirk talk to me 16:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
27. Support No problems here. --Siva1979 16:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
28. Strong Support Best. User. Evah. OK, well maybe not the best, but you get my point! ;-) --D-Day 20:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
29. Moderate support per Xyrael, whose explanation is much clearer and more succinct than mine would have been, and so whom you can thank for my terseness. Joe 20:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
30. Strong Support - has remained civil and kept a cool head despite rather incivil comments from Cyde (see below). We need more admins who are capable of staying calm in such situations. Cynical 20:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
31. Support.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
32. Strong Support - I don't actually know him, but I've seen him around, has a ton of good edits, and deserves it. Oreos 01:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
33. Strong Support for colorful signatures! but seriously ILovePlankton is a very friendly and dedicated user and highly deserving of the mop Charlie 02:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
34. Conditional Support. I know you are dedicated to Misplaced Pages, and you are extremely friendly and civil. But if you are given a mop, you need to promise me that you will frequent the WP:ANI and get more involved with the group of people that manage Misplaced Pages, not just the people that you fall back on for friendship and support.-- The ikiroid  02:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
35. Support A bit new, but looks like a decent person, and having good WP:FAITH that the problems below are not intentional. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 06:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
36. Support Strikes me as a passionate user, but that's a good thing. Aguerriero (talk) 15:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
37. Support. --Fang Aili 15:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
38. Strong Support. I'm glad this didn't happen during may. Karmafist 03:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
39. Support. —Nightstallion (?) 15:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
40. Support! He wasn't an admin already!?!? Freddie 19:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
41. Support. — FireFox _talk 21:22, 03 June '06
42. Support. Nice person. Give him the mop. --Actown 23:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
43. Support - I thought I voted already. Kilo-Lima| 13:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong oppose - User_talk:ILovePlankton#User:ILovePlankton.2FMy_loyalties_to_my_friends; fails my criteria re. project edits. NSLE _(T+C) at 02:21 UTC (2006-05-31)

   I'm just wondering why did you put the link there (You do know that me and tony settled it on his talk, right?)? ILovePlankton 02:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

   Is how a person's edit count is broken down really a good indication of whether a person would be a good admin? Where 02:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

   Yeah. He removed everything that could possibly be seen as breaking policy. --GeorgeMoney  03:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

   The Committee for Replying to Oppose Votes in the Hope that They will Change has done a great job on this one. Kimchi.sg 12:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

   WP:AGF. ILovePlankton 12:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

   All of you, chill the hell out. We all have the right to decide the way we want to "vote". Low project-total ratio = fails my criteria because doesn't show enough knowledge of process. User who at one time not too long ago (less than a month) claimed that he'd go to the extent of getting banned for his friends CANNOT be trusted with admin buttons. NSLE _(T+C) at 13:12 UTC (2006-05-31)

   Thank you for explaining it. ILovePlankton 13:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

2. Mid-WikiBreak strong oppose per NSLE. I'm uncomfortable with giving the mop to a user who has had such sentiments in the very recent past. Kimchi.sg 05:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

   Excessive loyalty can be a bad thing. I am not prepared to support users willing to be banned for whatever reason, and it has only been 2 weeks since he removed the offending phrase . I will support if he does not say anything to that effect again in 2-3 months. Kimchi.sg 11:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

   Ok thank you for explaining your reasoning, I understand what you mean. ILovePlankton 12:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

   Changed to strong oppose per KAS. The abrasive tone of his reply contrasts strikingly with Xyrael's right above his! (Fortunately usage of all caps doesn't count much in my book, or I'd be tacking on another superlative to my vote.) I love plankton, sure, but I don't love comments like that. Kimchi.sg 12:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

3. Oppose - for now It is my opinion and for the record...from recent posts by ILovePlankton on my (talk) page that ILovePlankton appears to me to be impulsive and responds emotionally rather then objectively and in a constructive way. I’ve seen him write in a mimic style to a Misplaced Pages editor (me) in “conceding tone” rather then be helpful and handle a situation matter-of-factly. His interaction with me wasn’t helpful but tended to escalate a situation rather then to deescalate it. I would think this is a grave concern that this type of emotional and impulsive personality profile would have ADMIN powers. He may well be a good ADMIN later, but for now I think he needs to work on his style of communication and constructive skills. Example: Such statements, With people reverting edits that YOU made to YOUR userpage then maybe YOU shouldn't edit it as an IP" and "What the hell are you talking about? I also do not think ILovePlankton has a clear understanding of policies. My page was blanked after I made a very favorable edit on my USER page and forgot to sign in. The edit only showed an IP. Judgment would dictate it was a positive and favorable edit and that perhaps the USER forgot to sign in. But his way to handle the situation was to take sides and state: ‘’“With people reverting edits that YOU made to YOUR userpage then maybe YOU shouldn't edit it as an IP"’’ and this in your face tone won’t be that productive on Misplaced Pages. I think it's not the quantity of the edits he has made but the quality of the edits that are most important, that is "especially" in situations when emotions are escalating. In my view his condescending tone is the worst part of it. I think if he were to work on not being condescending that would a great start. Maybe an ADMIN later, but I think, again, he needs to develop his skills on handling adverse situations and show a more objective view frist. But then again, this is only my opinion, and I am sure the powers that be will look into for themselves and make their own conclusions. KAS 07:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

   Comment Half of the shouting in KAS' post is quoting ILovePlankton. In addition the other half isn't "shouting" at all as KAS explained on his/her talk page. RicDod 10:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

   Comment I concede to this point. — Nathan 13:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

   Comment - I understand that Nathan doesn't like the way that KAS expressed her point, but that's something to take up with the user privately, not a reason to treat the opinion which she's expressed in reasoned detail as a bad-faith vote. Besides, if Nathan really feels so strongly that capitalizing words is highly uncivil, then the quotes in KAS's comments also reflect rather badly on ILovePlankton (by Nathan's criteria) - and surely that's a reasonable thing to note in this RFA. (I'd also argue that Nathan's rather over-large signature might be considered somewhat uncivil by his own criteria.) Zaxem 11:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

   By the way I said "What the hell are you talking about" because I couldn't understand him. ILovePlankton 12:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

4. Oppose. I was considering voting Neutral as ILovePlankton has a good user name done a lot good maintenance work. However, the more I think about it the more concerned I am with the point made by NSLE. Such comments, while reflecting well on ILP as a person, are counterproductive for an admin to have in their user area because it adds fuel to the oft-repeated accusations that we are cliquey and have favourites. I also share KAS's concerns that ILP has the tendency to act emotionally rather than objectively. I could well support in the future if these issues are resolved or left in the past. Rje 13:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose for now Well on the way. Just needs more time. Reverts, warns, and reports vandals. Takes part in AfD discussions. However, edit count is a little low given the power of VandalProof. Answer to question 2 does not show strength as an editor. Willingness to be banned in support of one's friends is not a strength in an admin, even if the statement to that effect has been recently removed. A cabal of friends advocating/arguing against opposers does not help even a little. The "hell" quote indicates incivility and quick temperedness not suitable in an admin. Also, the recent use of a copyrighted image on your userpage may indicate a lack of understanding of policy. Cheers :) Dlohcierekim 13:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

   I'm not questioning your right to oppose, I just wanted to tell you that the image someone else put on my userpage, I never even looked at it. ILovePlankton 14:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

6. Tony Sidaway 13:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC) Doesn't yet seem to understand what Misplaced Pages is about. Needs more time, perhaps.
7. Way too much focus on the "community" aspect and very little focus on the actual encyclopedia. He seems to think guidelines are something that should be flouted, not followed. --Cyde↔Weys 13:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

   When did I flout policy? (I would like to know so I can correct it) ILovePlankton 14:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

   Comment to Cyde The edit summary of "Nathan really made a mess of things ..." could have been a lot better worded and I feel you're only contributing to an already tense situation. I'm sorry, but I did make some comments that could have been interpreted as incivil - I was told about this and I did make every good faith effort to rectify this. As this is an RfA, comments shouldn't be deleted (that's what I've heard but please do outright delete them if I was misinformed), so I struck them out. I do not appreciate that edit summary and urge you to re-evaluate the way some of your typing comes across to others. Cheers. Additional edit: Please at least consider my comment. Thank you. — Nathan 14:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

   I said you flaunted flouted guidelines, not policy. There's a huge difference. As an admin candidate you really should be aware of the this distinction!!! And the word "guidelines" is wikilinked in my comment for a reason. --Cyde↔Weys 14:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

   Either way are you going to answer the question? ILovePlankton 14:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

   I think we've all seen enough. I have no idea why you're being so combative over this, but it does not reflect well at all. When someone says you may be doing something incorrectly the proper response is to examine your actions, and if you believe them to be acceptable, defend yourself. But you shouldn't be brushing it off flippantly or pretending not to even understand the nature of the criticism. I believe your response to this simple criticism about a signature of all things shows why you are not acceptable administrator material. --Cyde↔Weys 14:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

   Why are you getting angry at me for asking a question? I really don't understand what I did to have you dislike me this badly. ILovePlankton 14:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

   Cyde, could you please consider phrasing your words to something that resembles less of an incivil tone? I know how blunt and direct you can be from experience, but this is really not helping matters here. You know as well as I do that Misplaced Pages is not a battleground. Please consider using a little more tact. Thank you very much. — Nathan 15:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

   Perhaps you could point out exactly what the problem is with his sig. -MrFizyx 07:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

   I agree with both these comments. Cyde can you please be less antagonistic, in many of your recent exchanges you seem to be berating people. As far as your comment about " flouted guidelines" this sounds a little hypocritical. I copied the text below from your own talk page.

   Good thing I'm not using templates or transclusion then! And by the way, that page is guideline, not policy. I'm going to stick with my friend Adrian on this one. Show us it's against the rules and we'll stop. By all means, if you think this is an important issue, propose a policy that bans the use of templates, categories, and images in signatures. I'd even go ahead and support it. I just think rules should be rules, period, not selectively enforced suggestions.

   You wrote that as recently as March 6th. Constructive critcism is always better than reading the riot act. No one is perfect. David D. (Talk) 19:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

8. Oppose until a little more mature: fix that signature; lose that daft "loyalty" thing (as an admin, your loyalty should be to the wiki as a whole, otherwise your neutrality is hopelessly compromised); fix your user page (so that it actually fits into one screen width—at the minute it looks like something an HTML tutor might use as an example of "what not to do"—I have to scroll rightwards five times to see the far side) and above all learn to take criticism (as an admin you would expect to receive it by the bucket-load, not drip-wise as you have been doing). HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 14:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

   The userpage is lick that since it is designed for 1024x768 resolution and looks fine at that resolution. But I can see where you are coming from; a stripped down version that people with lower resolutions could use would be ideal. Where 18:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

   Actually, it didn't look any better @ 1024 x 768. Thanks. :) Dlohcierekim 02:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

9. Oppose. Friendship is something dearly, but expressing you would get banned to defend them raised some concerns in me about the WP:NPOV every admin must have. I don't agree with all KAS does, but I agree that the candidate's behaviour left a lot to be desired. The user seems to be good contact with other users through User talk pages, but his 2% of edits in article talks is just too low. Nice to see ILovePlankton started editing summaries, hopefully he will continue doing so. Maybe in a couple of months, controlling his temperament and participating more in article development. By the way, Nathan, you should strike things out, not delete. -- ReyBrujo 16:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

   Comment: ReyBrujo, I would have appreciated it if you had mentioned that on my talk, rather than here, because I rarely watch this page (so I don't comment and possibly get tempted to say something I shouldn't). The reason for removing my comments was clearly shown on my edit summary. If you feel like fishing my comments out and putting them back, you are free to go ahead and do that - I had good faith reasons to delete them (those comments would serve no purpose other than to breed negative feelings) and I wasn't sure of proper guidelines regarding this (again, this was mentioned in my edit summary, why am I repeating it?). Regarding ILP's "expressing he would get banned", etc, I respectfully remind you that this line was removed from the page, meaning, that line is no longer there, further meaning that the editor realised the problem with this line and removed it (why are we condemning him for realising his error? Should we not be applauding him for realising that error?). It seem (to me) that you're really reaching for a reason to oppose this editor. This should not even be an issue, yet it is. Let's take some time to really read into some of these oppose votes. Do you know what they say to me? "Let's condemn this candidate for what he believed weeks ago, and completely discount what he believes right now." In my opinion, that's the wrong way to go and it could also be read into as condemning the candidate for who he chooses to call a friend (though that may be reaching too). Cheers. — Nathan 21:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

   I should have posted that on your user talk page indeed, sorry about that. As for ILP's friendship comment, the fact that he had added it three and deleted it two weeks ago (and not because he realized it could be misunderstood, but because another editor hinted at that) is enough for me to consider him unreliable for administrator tasks for now, especially if such matters include mediating in his friends' conflicts. Hadn't Tony noticed that, the line may have stayed there. Finally, I pointed three negative aspects (NPOV, his behaviour and an extremely low amount of edits in article talk pages) and a positive (he started using summaries). Had he not written that manifesto, I would have opposed anyways. An administrator must be patient, even if you find people who only bashes you. This may have been a slip, true, that is why I am willing to support him in a couple of months after noticing he had demonstrated it was a slip. I see you are a good friend who think he is suitable for the task, but I believe he can defend himself. -- ReyBrujo 02:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

10. Oppose per NSLE and Dlohcierekim. Gwernol 17:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
11. Oppose per the above; not confident of this user's maturity and understanding of the project. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
12. Oppose unimpressed by responses to Cyde above, and as per NSLE. Pete.Hurd 19:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
13. Oppose, I think this user has learned a lot over the last few months, but he still has a lot more to learn, in my opinion he's not ready for adminship yet. --JoanneB 21:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

    I realise that this is not the most constructive of votes, so I'll try to elaborate... I know it's not possible to know everything and not to make any mistakes before your RfA, but just from looking at your last 500 edits there's a couple of things that worry me: poor understanding of the fair use rules , limited use of edit summaries when they're not automatically provided by VandalProof , voting on AfD without any rationale (which to me shows that he regards it as a voting process, other than a discussion). There's more, but this is enough for me not to be comfortable with him becoming an admin. --JoanneB 21:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

14. Oppose, if only because of his responses to several (IMHO reasonable) criticisms on this page, particularly to Cyde. Also per Christopher Parham, Sidaway, Dlohcierekim, and Cyde. Also, number of Talk edits is remarkably low for admin candidate, however, this wouldn't be a dealbreaker if it weren't for the other stuff. -- Deville (Talk) 22:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
15. Not at this point. --Doc 22:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
16. Oppose. ILovePlankton has a prodigious edit count, but is still fairly new to Misplaced Pages. I'm troubled by the slightly over-sensitive reactions to several of the oppose votes above by both ILovePlankton and Nathan (whose over-anxious desire to help fight ILovePlankton's battle is troubling given the concerns raised regarding ILovePlankton's past comments on how he'd do anything - even risk getting banned - for friends). I don't think this candidate is ready for adminship yet. Zaxem 23:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

    CommentIndeed.65.35.168.248 01:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)Resigned now that I'm logged on again. :) Dlohcierekim 04:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

17. Oppose. Very good guy, just needs a bit more work on understanding policy and keeping cool. .:.Jareth.:. 23:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
18. Oppose. Considering that people generally try to show their best side during the week the RFA lasts, I find some of the candidate's responses on this page quite worrying, especially the replies to Cyde. Bishonen | talk 00:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC).
19. Strong Oppose; I don't believe this user understands the "pedia" part of Misplaced Pages. Also, behavior on this page and elsewhere is a bit disturbing. Ral315 (talk) 06:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
20. Oppose per Bishonen. The reaction to some of the questions here is lacking the grace you might expect from someone whose suitability for administratorhip is being discussed. This, along with some misguided comments in the recent past, leads me to oppose at this time. Rockpocket 06:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
21. Oppose, per JoanneB above. Also, I would recommend getting some decent article work under your belt. In my experience, it helps with stress no end, and helps you centre on the goal of the project: that of an encyclopedia. --Celestianpower 09:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
22. Oppose per NSLE and Tony Sidaway. Maybe later. --Zoz (t) 13:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
23. Oppose, fails 1FA. - Mailer Diablo 14:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
24. Oppose per Rockpocket; also I'm not pleased with his attitude towards community guidelines. FreplySpang 15:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
25. Oppose, for now. If you continue maturing at this rate, though, I'd be glad to support you in your second RfA a few months from now. (Also, both you and Cyde said "flaunt" when you meant "flout"; I've fixed that.) DS 17:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
26. Oppose just too soon. Matbe in a few months. The Gerg 17:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
27. Oppose The Esperanza Election fight is still too fresh in my head. That and lack of time. Sorry, Highway 21:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
28. Oppose per NSLE, Kimchi, and Zaxem. Ardric47 23:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
29. Oppose per above. Sorry, now isn't the right time. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
30. Oppose per NSLE, Kimchi.sg, KAS. I was going to support, but this sort of stuff can't be done by an administrator. Werdna_T@CL 01:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
31. Oppose per NSLE. The whole "My loyalties to my friends" thing brings up an uncertainty: What if one of your friends was blocked from editing? Would you still be able to be objective? I realize you didn't state anything like this in your essay, but I still have a few reservations. Elkman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
32. Oppose. User treats an RfC as a threaded internet debate. Indignation over signature indicates that the user probably isn't prepared to handle admin-level criticism. Jkelly 02:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
33. Weak oppose. Nice guy, and very friendly, but not sure if he's experienced enough for admin tools. Cheerfullness is a plus. "Loyalties to friends" is a forgivable minus. Submission to oppose votes based on signature is a minor minus - minor because it's good to try and please people; I just think there are some things where you have to stand up for yourself. All in all, ILP needs to consider his actions more carefully. Λυδαcιτγ 03:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
34. Oppose per lots of oppose comments. This RfA has gone horribly pear-shaped and loyal friend Nathan hasn't helped it much. But take candidate's statement, "By the way I said "What the hell are you talking about" because I couldn't understand him." Will be in a better place for adminship when the reply doesn't need the explanation, i.e. when the reply is, "(I'm sorry) I don't understand you." Tyrenius 04:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

    I deleted all the comments I posted that were even remotely offensive. If you have a point, please get to it. — Nathan 07:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

    I have replied to this on my talk page where it was also posted, before I saw it here.Tyrenius 08:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

35. Oppose. I am concerned as to how Iloveplankton woul react, at the moment, in a difficult situation. Captainj 11:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
36. robchurch | talk 20:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
37. Oppose, arguing with oppose votes isn't the way to go. Additionally, low number of edits in Misplaced Pages namespace suggests poor policy knowledge. Stifle (talk) 20:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
38. Oppose, to controversial at this time. Also the arguing with Oppose votes doesn't help. JohnnyBGood t c 20:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
39. Oppose Too few edits in the template space, and fails nine months. Raichu 22:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
40. Oppose. The things I've read by him in Misplaced Pages space suggest he has little grasp of policy. Also his signature is really annoying, I don't know many admins with confusing sigs like that. Okay, you changed it, thank you. Your most recent edit that gave me misgivings is here- read comments from others on that page for suggestions. Ashibaka tock 22:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
41. Weak oppose putting aside the editcountis (Interiot's tool is down for a reason!), this user appears to have little experience with policy or the non-article spaces. With a little more experience, I'm sure that he wouldn't heckle oppose votes so much as well. Actually, to be fair some of the people above deserved it. savidan 23:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
42. Oppose Friendship is the biggest cause of corruption. I would like Misplaced Pages Admins to be neutral. Stephen B Streater 18:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
43. Oppose, per HighwayCello and that entire incident. Titoxd 22:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral leaning support I've had many positive experiences, though the lack of edits in the Talk: space is slightly concerning. Computerjoe's talk 08:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

   which talk space (I would like to know so I can do better)? ILovePlankton 12:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

   I think he means "article" Talk: (for instance Talk:Democracy talks about the Democracy article.) ~Kylu (u|t) 17:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

2. Neutral Less than 100 article talks is concerning.--Jusjih 13:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Internet Explorer is still an 80+% share of the internet and your user page is utterly unreadable in IE. It is the wrong message to send to visitors. I brought this up at ILP's talk and he said he couldn't fix it, which in practice means he is unwilling to consider the needs of the readership as a whole in (re)designing his page. I believe this issue should be immenently correctable, and I will consider other aspects of the nom if this one is addressed. Dragons flight 14:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

   When I said I couldn't fix it I meant I didn't have the ability to fix it. (I don't know a thing about HTML, but I have started trying to get someone to fix it). ILovePlankton 14:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

   Neutral. One objection down, will look at the others later. Dragons flight 16:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

4. Neutral, very strong at building community, excellent vandal fighter, but not enough building of articles in the mainspace. Contrary to those above, I don't think the "my loyalties to my friends" thing is daft; rather, I think the world would be a far better place if more people were as loyal to their friends. Please edit more substantially in the mainspace (pick a couple of articles, go to the library, and just build them up!) and you will gain the experience to have my support. -- Samir धर्म 17:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

   thank you for the very construstive critisism. ILovePlankton 17:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

5. Neutral - would support, especially given the user's positive community involvement and support in fighting vandalism, as well as the questionable reasoning from a couple of those opposing, but User:ILovePlankton/My loyalties to my friends worries me ... a lot. Of specific concern is this - "I will NEVER attack them or be uncivil towards them". On WP, we should not attack or be uncivil to anyone - friend or otherwise. The mention of this implies, or at least seems to imply, that in the user's view, it is possible that loyalty to friends could be at odds with civility towards others. I would humbly suggest examining what message you are desiring to communicate here. BigDT 18:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
6. Neutral I have mixed feelings. Mr. Turcotte 22:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
7. Neutral, great editor, though I'm concerned about his low amount of article talk pages edits, his responses to Cyde, and his User:ILovePlankton/My loyalties to my friends. I also recommend more work on mainspace articles and a bit more project involvement. --☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 02:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
8. Neutral not sure Jaranda 03:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
9. Neutral Good name, good sense of humor. With a bit more time should be a fine admin. Fix the little problems mentioned in the oppositon votes and I'll support you next time around (remind me--I don't often read RfA). -MrFizyx 07:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
10. Neutral – not enough problems to merit an oppose, but not sure about understanding of policy – Gurch 08:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
11. Neutral, good balance of edits, but why can't every month be like March... also, something about esperanza if i remember correctly. As for the questions at the bottom of the page, you might want to either answer them, or comment them out, or delete them, or use hiddenStructure or something, I dunno. — Jun. 2, '06 <freak|talk>
12. Neutral. I've seen good, level-headed comments on AFD and elsewhere from ILP, but three and a half months is too soon - adminship this early is risking the possibility of both burnout and unfamiliarity with some parts of the community. I'm a little concerned about some of the oppose points, but I think it's nothing that time and more familiarity will fix. A few months from now, a support shouldn't be any problem. Grutness...wha? 11:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
13. Neutral This is tough. Has enough contributions and experience, but focuses too much on science. — Brendenhull (T + C) at 00:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

    What's wrong with focusing on science? We have editors who do nothing but spread sick conspiracy theories about the WTC attacks and suchlike, who are not called on their narrow focus; I think someone attempting to improve our coverage of science (considering how woeful it is in some areas) should be encouraged, not criticised. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 05:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

14. ILP's response to my questions are encouraging, if not quite what I'd hoped to hear (in particular the percentage canard worries me; however, I quite liked what he said about blocking, particularly warnings — not perfect, but getting there). As such, I won't oppose him, and I look forward to supporting in six months or more. However, in the interests of Improvement, here are the reasons I would have opposed:

    • ILP doesn't seem completely acculturated to Misplaced Pages yet. That's not a reflection on his time here; some users pick things up remarkably quickly, while I know at least one user (no, I won't say his name) who's been here for more than a year and still can't find his arse with both hands. ILP sits on neither extreme: he's not there yet, but give him a few months and who knows? This is a Big Deal; the others aren't so bad.
    • Nathan's behaviour on this RfA. Given that ILP makes a big deal of how he'll stand by his friends no matter what, I think his friends have a responsibility to get behind him here and not piss people off unnecessarily. That's just silly.
    • Civility. We have enough admins who need to work on their civility without adding more; when ILP sees something wrong with "what the hell are you talking about?" vs "I'm sorry, I don't understand you.", we'll be getting somewhere.
    • This leads on to a third point: respect for other Wikipedians. Support for one's 'net friends is all well and good, and doesn't imply a lack of support for other people out here. However, things like incivility, and, yes, that signature, paint a picture of a user who doesn't know why he should make life easier for other Wikipedians. And that's Bad.
    • His views on AfD suggest a tendency towards vote-counting that I'd like to see well and truly stamped out before he runs for adminship again. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 05:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• Voice of All, please fix those percentages. Add them up... Redwolf24 (talk) 04:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • There seems to be nothing wrong with them. Note that the sig/minor/supericial article edits are out of all edits, not just articles edits, future stats pages make that more clear. Thanks.Voice-of-All 15:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

All user's edits.Voice-of-All 04:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

CommentI think that ILP has been a good sturdy editor for the while I've met him, and he has never vandalized the "first" time around either. I have alot of respect for someone who can do that. Whopper

User's contributions.Voice-of-All 21:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

--Viewing contribution data for user ILovePlankton (over the 4328 edit(s) shown on this page)--  (FAQ)
Time range: 108 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 21hr (UTC) -- 31, May, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 4hr (UTC) -- 15, February, 2006
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 35.43% Minor edits: 94.34%
Average edits per day: 29.34 (for last 500 edit(s))
Analysis of edits (out of all 4328 edits):
Article edit summary use (last 137 edits) : Major article edits: 88.24% Minor article edits: 100%
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/sourcing): 0.12% (5)
Minor article edits (small content/info/reference additions): 0.02% (1)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 42.95% (1859)
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 3116 | Average edits per page: 1.39 | Edits on top: 17.44%
Significant edits (non-minor/reverts): 8.83% (382 edit(s))
Minor edits (non-reverts): 46.03% (1992 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 8.76% (379 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 36.39% (1575 edit(s))
Edits by Misplaced Pages namespace:
Article: 52.2% (2259) | Article talk: 1.87% (81)
User: 9.54% (413) | User talk: 25.95% (1123)
Misplaced Pages: 7.6% (329) | Misplaced Pages talk: 1.48% (64)
Image: 0.21% (9)
Template: 0.16% (7)
Category: 0.69% (30)
Portal: 0.02% (1)
Help: 0.02% (1)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.25% (11)

• See ILovePlankton's edit summary usage with Mathbot's tool.

• See ILovePlankton's _{(Talk ▪ Contributions ▪ Logs ▪ Block Logs)} contributions as of 02:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC) using Interiot's tool:

Username ILovePlankton
Total edits 4292
Distinct pages edited 3152
Average edits/page 1.362
First edit 00:27, February 15, 2006
(main) 2260
Talk 81
User 408
User talk 1110
Image 9
Image talk 2
Template 7
Help 1
Category 30
Category talk 9
Misplaced Pages 310
Misplaced Pages talk 64
Portal 1

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 would help with Category:Images with the same name on Wikimedia Commons, Misplaced Pages:Administrators_noticeboard and Misplaced Pages:requests for page protection. I would close AFDs, and I would block vandals and impersonators.

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

A: The article that I am most pleased with would have to be The Black Fleet Crisis, the reason I picked that one, is because it is the only time I have ever contributed to apart of an article that didn’t already have something for me to build on.

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 try to avoid conflict as often as possible. I do that by staying away from things that I have a strong position towards, but sometimes conflict doesn’t come from that. I will try my best to be civil at all times, and I will try never to bite the newcomers for their accidents.

I've got a couple of questions. It is, of course, up to you whether you wish to answer them or not.

F0. You mention above that you'd like to begin closing AfDs. Do you have a general philosophy on xfD articles? What would you consider a rough consensus on xfD? What would you do if an xfD appeared to show consensus to delete, but for the evidence presented by an expert (such as this one)? What would you do if an xfD appeared to show consensus to keep, but for the evidence presented by an expert? What is your opinion of this AfD?

A. My only philosophy for AFD articles is, if the consensus is delete than delete if the consensus is keep than keep. I consider 70% in either direction to be a clear consensus on a xfd. I would have done the same the closing admin did. My opinion of this AFD, is It was ended correctly.

F1. You also mention that you would block vandals. What is your general blocking philosophy? At what point is it appropriate to block a vandal, and how do you decide when and for how long? Under what circumstances do you feel it would be appropriate to block someone who is not, strictly speaking, a vandal?

A. My general blocking philosophy is, the vandal has to have at least 3 warnings, and the vandal has to actually vandalised something. I would block a first time vandal anywhere from 12-24 hours depending on how bad the vandalism is. I would rarely block someone who is not strictly speaking a vandal, the only time I would is if the user in question Is seriously disrupting wikipedia, and has been warned for it.

Thank you, fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm split on this one, below are my optional' questions -- Tawker 18:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC) Questions from Tawker stolen borrowed from JoshuaZ and Rob Church and NSLE. They are 100% 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. You can also remove the questions you don't want to touch if you like. :)

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

2. 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

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

   A

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

   A

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

   A

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

   A

7. 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

8. Why do you want to be an administrator?

   A

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

   A

DriniQuestion

Do you think admins performing actions (deletions, blocks) for reasons not covered on policy should be sanctioned/punished? If so, how? -- Drini 17:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Question from Elkman

What was your reason (or reasons) for leaving Esperanza? --Elkman (Elkspeak) 04:39, 1 June 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 successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Philip Baird Shearer

Final (80/4/1) ended 22:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Philip Baird Shearer (talk · contribs) – Philip has been around since October 2003 and he's got more than 15 thousand edits under his belt. Specialising in military history he has contributed to everything from the Battle of Thermopylae to the Bombing of Dresden. After being prodded several times by different people he has finally consented to being nominated to adminship.

I'm most familiar with Philip through debating with him on requested moves. We usually disagree but I've always found him to be polite and willing to work for a compromise. He is closely familiar with the policies and procedures of Misplaced Pages and I think he can be trusted to use the admin tools with wisdom and restraint. Haukur 20:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I am pleased to accept Haukur Þorgeirsson nomination. --Philip Baird Shearer 16:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Nominate and support. Haukur 22:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
2. Nothing wrong with specalist admins support - sure, he'll mostly focus on moves requiring deletions but its a flag, specialist admins are a good thing -- Tawker 22:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
3. Support. Bloody good user. A strong enough contribution record that I'm prepared to support even if he doesn't intend to use the flamethrower very much. The Land 22:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
4. Support Probably won't use the tools very much, but hard to imagine he will abuse them TigerShark 22:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
5. Support. Excellent editor. — TheKMan 22:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
6. Support. Dedicated and reasonable long-term contributor. Dragons flight 22:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
7. Support --digital_me 22:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
8. I've seen this editor's work for a long time and I believe that he will be a good admin. -Will Beback 22:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
9. Support inteligent, diligent, hard working, experienced and friendly. What other qualities could you ask for in an administrator? Thryduulf 23:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
10. Support looks like he's in it for the long-haul. — ßottesiηi 23:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
11. Support per above. Excellent editor. DarthVader 23:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
12. Support. Absolutely nothing wrong with specialist admins, in fact they are, in my opinion, a very good thing in the more specialised area of janitoring. Besides, I very much doubt that Philip will abuse the tools - he's been here longer than most of us admins. Rje 23:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
13. Support Around since 2003. Definitely committed. -- Shizane _contribs 00:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
14. Support: excellent role model of an admin already. Jonathunder 00:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
15. Support per Tawker. ILovePlankton 00:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
16. Support Kwazy good editor. Staxringold _talk 00:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
17. Strong support per all of the above. —Khoikhoi 00:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
18. Support not enough portal talk edits. Kotepho 01:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
19. Steal RadioKirk's cliche support Per above. Master of Puppets 01:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
20. Strong Support Rama's Arrow 01:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
21. Support, most definitely. Antandrus (talk) 01:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
22. Support dammit where were you hiding till now? ;) Srikeit 01:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
23. Yep, good candidate. Highly unlikely to abuse the admin tools. Even in disagreement, civil and level-headed. Brief answers to crappy standardised questions notwithstanding, very good editor. Whatever happens, just don't spam my talk page with a templated thank you message. Support. --You Know Who 02:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
24. How can I not support? I wish there was something brilliant I could say, but I guess the facts speak for themselves. Redux 02:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
25. Support ForestH2
26. Support! Fits my criteria (however much that's worth) -- DakPowers (Talk) 03:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
27. Support A strong editor with high level of talk communication. Kukini 03:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
28. Support I like a guy who writes what he knows and works with people. Give 'em a broom! --CTSWyneken 03:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
29. Merovingian {T C @} 03:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
30. Support, very committed. He's done alot of good, and could do even more for Misplaced Pages as an admin. Royboycrashfan 03:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
31. S - per above --GeorgeMoney  04:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
32. Support, seems like a good candidate. --Rory096 04:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
33. Support who would propose deletion of this guy? (get it? he was prodded by other users, and...oh never mind) --M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
34. A "holy-cow-that's-a-lot-of-edits" support per The Land. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/!? 06:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
35. Support. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
36. A Buchanan-Hermit support. Computerjoe's talk 08:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
37. Support Gsl 09:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
38. Support from history enthusiast. - Darwinek 11:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
39. Support. Has been around for a long time and knows what he's doing. Zaxem 11:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
40. Weak support. Concerns about poor judgement are valid, however. The editor needs to revise some of his practices. --Ghirla 12:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
41. Support--Jusjih 13:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
42. Tony Sidaway 14:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC) Long overdue. I disagree with him on a lot of issues but then I don't think it's healthy if all admins agree with one another on stuff.
43. Support --Terence Ong 14:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
44. Support! OMG Can't believe he hasn't been nominated until now --Mahogany 14:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
45. Support seems overdue for adminship. Tim! 16:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
46. Support A great user. --Siva1979 16:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
47. Support, per Terence Ong. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
48. Thought-I'd-already-voted-already redundant support (oh, must've been the MoP... ) RadioKirk talk to me 19:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
49. Support.  Grue  22:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
50. Support An A+ user. Mr. Turcotte 22:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
51. Support. Accomplished editor, no reason to suspect tools won't be put to good use.--cjllw | TALK 00:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
52. Jaranda 03:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
53. Support Felt like I'd join the party. Excellent edit summary, particularly in talk pages (shows good judgement and ability to collaborate). NorseOdin 03:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
54. Support.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
55. Support – Gurch 08:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
56. Support definitely seems like a good user, would be good with the tools. -- Deville (Talk) 11:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
57. Support; many years of good contributions. --tomf688 (talk - email) 14:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
58. Support, great contributor to Military History and other fields and I'm sure will be an equally good admin. Leithp 17:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
59. Support --Jay(Reply) 20:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
60. Support, a nice bloke. Thumbelina 22:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
61. Support, per many of the above --JoanneB 22:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
62. Support, I see no problems -- Samir धर्म 23:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
63. Unnecessary pile-on support. Werdna_T@CL 01:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
64. Support, of course.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 03:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
65. Support -- very surprised this editor isn't already. - Longhair 06:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
66. Conscious 09:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
67. Support an excellent editor and one who is guaranteed to use adminship sensibly. Stefán Ingi 09:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
68. Support Hard-working, long-term editor. Just what the mop is for. Marskell 10:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
69. Support seems reasonable. Captainj 11:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
70. Support no problems here. --Tone 18:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
71. Support seems like a great candidate hoopydink 23:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
72. Support edits look fine to me.--MONGO 03:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
73. Support, despite all the unkind things he says about peerage wonks ;) Mackensen (talk) 00:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
74. Support. -- Saluyot 01:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
75. Support Joe I 06:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
76. Support Passes my test. — Brendenhull (T + C) at 22:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
77. Big Bandwagon With 4-wheel drive Support. I've seen so many excellent edits from PBS. Good editors dont always make good admins. The two require different skill sets and temperments. But I have full confidence he will.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 02:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
78. Support. Kafziel 14:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
79. support Seem him around. Appears to ber a good wikipedian.Geni 02:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

    support -- have only witnessed good contributions from this editor. No doubt he will use the added tools wisely. - Longhair 06:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Note Duplicate vote. --Srikeit 12:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

80. Support. Philip's a good smart man. Shimgray | talk | 16:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Has shown consistently poor judgement when supporting the idea of "approval voting" and similar notions that in practice boil down to "consensus is a majority vote" over at Misplaced Pages:Requested moves. There's also the problem of supporting bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake. These actions are in my opinion inappropriate for and incompatible with adminship. Peter 10:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose. The diacritics issue worries me. Dr Zak 15:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Significant edits are just 11%. Fails Diablo Test. Anwar 13:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose Does not appear that he needs or wants the tools from his one sentence answer to Q1. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 06:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral. I would like to ask Philip to explain his relation to Bombing of Dresden in World War II. While without a doubt he has done a great job policing and expanding this article, it has been my experience (many months ago) that he treats this article as his personal 'turf', and his opposition to expanding lead (to confirm to WP:LEAD) based on the logic (IIRC) that the current lead is NPOVed and any change will POV it is one of the reasons that would prevent this article from going to FA. I'd like to stress here that this was my only negative encounter with Philip, and as many other supporting him show above it was likely an exception than the rule, nonetheless I feel somewhat uneasy about giving the 'mop and bucket' to Philip until I am sure he would not, for example, protect the article just to keep it in the current NPOV shape.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 15:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

   Short answer is 'No'. A slightly longer: There are specific problems to do with this page and historical revisionism (negationism), the whole large section "Points of view", (large in comparison to other articles on WWII city bombing), is an indication of this. This is not to say that everyone who adds material to the "it was a war crime" section is a revisionist, far from it, but it is difficult to expand the introduction with a short balanced NPOV about the legality and the morality of the attack, without it swamping the introduction. In the past when the introduction became subject to a strong disagreement, a straw poll was held over it old straw poll. It is short, because previously, interested editors, could not agree with how to expand the introduction and agreed to keep it brief. I would encourage anyone who wants to amend the introduction to discuss it first, and if agreement on to how to expand it can not be reached, that another straw poll (the old was was a long time ago and opinions change) was held clarify the choices and to help build a consensus. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• Just a prediction that this user will with certainty abuse adminship to further his bizarrely ignorant crusade to remove diacritics (or "funny foreign squiggles" as he calls them) from Misplaced Pages. He has been edit and move warring over this, moving Úbeda to Ubeda, Würzburg radar to Wuerzburg radar, José Ayala Lasso to Jose Ayala Lasso etc., and on top of that he makes absurd edits like this one. He is under the illusion that just because some people omit all diacritics (because of technical restrictions or just laziness or ignorance), the no-diacritic version of each specific word or name becomes a valid "alternative spelling" that should be separately (and even primarily) noted in each such article. 70.26.72.99 00:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Your edit count scares me :) --Osbus 00:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Philip is undeniably crazy. His behavior at Talk:William of Orange and his editwarring over a redirect (nicely reported at WP:LAME) testify to that. Philip is the guy who is famed for making claims based on original authorship of a redirect. However, his craziness was far surpassed by the WP:POINT roam of his dear opponent, the "psychopath" Francis. All in all, this is a vote over who will be the chief lunatic to mop the lunatic asylum. But that's wikipedia. Sometimes it seems that the major hurdle for constructive work is the fact that this site is full of insanes who need a place to be kings of the hill, to feel "success". Philip is certainly representative of that. If his medication is better these days... When dear Philip will now be assigned to adminship (a thing the majority of lunatics easily do here), I just hope that he can, if needed, be then de-adminned easily.

User's last 5000 edits.Voice-of-All 00:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

--Viewing contribution data for user Philip Baird Shearer (over the 5000 edit(s) shown on this page)-- (FAQ)
Time range: 153 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 0hr (UTC) -- 31, May, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 18hr (UTC) -- 29, November, 2005
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 59.4% Minor edits: 73.19%
Average edits per day: 47.96 (for last 500 edit(s))
Analysis of edits (out of all 5000 edits):
Article edit summary use (last 743 edits) : Major article edits: 68.4% Minor article edits: 80%
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/sourcing): 3.12% (156)
Minor article edits (small content/info/reference additions): 0.22% (11)
Superficial article edits (wikify/grammar/spelling/tagging): 36.24% (1812)
Unmarked article edits: 14.1% (705)
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 1560 | Average edits per page: 3.21 | Edits on top: 11.26%
Significant edits (non-minor/reverts): 11.1% (555 edit(s))
Minor edits (non-reverts): 43.46% (2173 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 10.62% (531 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 34.82% (1741 edit(s))
Edits by Misplaced Pages namespace:
Article: 66.34% (3317) | Article talk: 23.3% (1165)
User: 0.28% (14) | User talk: 2.76% (138)
Misplaced Pages: 3.44% (172) | Misplaced Pages talk: 3% (150)
Image: 0% (0)
Template: 0.54% (27)
Category: 0.1% (5)
Portal: 0% (0)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.24% (12)

• See Philip Baird Shearer's _{(Talk ▪ Contributions ▪ Logs ▪ Block Logs)} contributions as of 23:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC) using Interiot's tool:

Username Philip Baird Shearer
Total edits 16323
Distinct pages edited 5027
Average edits/page 3.247
First edit 03:16, October 20, 2003
(main) 10535
Talk 3504
User 72
User talk 681
Image 24
Template 82
Template talk 51
Category 69
Category talk 6
Misplaced Pages 686
Misplaced Pages talk 612
Portal 1

• See Philip Baird Shearer's 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: Some help with WP:RM, which is a page I watch.

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

A: There are none specifically, but I do like to research an item which does not yet have a page and create one when the links from another article suggest that one would be useful. Some examples are Maritz Rebellion, History of rugby union, and Robert Overton. Recently I have been working on some new articles which tie into immediate post war European treaties and events like the Council of Foreign Ministers. Yesterday I knocked up an article on Chambers Book of Days because it is referenced by several other pages I have contributed to.

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: Numerous conflicts, some of which show up on my user talk page and its archives. The recent move of Cavalier back to Cavaliers (royalists) annoyed me because I thought it was sorted and then we had to go around the loop again, (See Talk:Cavalier). Probably in the same way, although I have learnt over time on this project, that time is my friend, a month or more away from a disagreement usually makes it evaporate, and besides the disputes are never that serious.

DriniQuestion

Do you think sysops performing actions not covered on policy should be sanctioned? If so, how? -- Drini 21:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand what you are asking please elucidate. --Philip Baird Shearer 22:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

There are policies regarding deletions, blocks, etc (you should know about them if you're at RFA). Sometimes admins make deletions or blocks for reasons that are not written down at those policies. Should they be sanctioned (punished)? How should they be sanctioned? -- Drini 22:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no experience of having to consider how or if "they be sanctioned", but like other decision making in Misplaced Pages, I would expect there to be a consensus building exercise on this, and having read what others wrote I would then express an opinion. --Philip Baird Shearer 08:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Staxringold

Final (77/0/1) ended 06:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Staxringold (talk · contribs) – James has been a long-time contributor to Misplaced Pages, first editing in August 2005 with his inaugural new article David Mann Bike, and has since become a much-valued writer on Misplaced Pages. Need proof? See Hopkins School, today's featured article (May 30) and the first ever high school article to be featured on the Main Page, which he built from nothing to an FA. He nominated himself for adminship last December, but with only three months experience and a still-growing knowledge of how the WP-namespace worked, this was unsuccessful. He is now more involved in this regard, and has been a part of policy debates. Adminship should be no big deal, and Stax has been around long enough to know an admin must be rational and logical in their approach. With that said, I happily nominate him (and doesn't it feel good to be nominated; I was too impatient and just tried three self-noms). Please look at his work in editing, his approach to the processes, and his level of experience in passing judgement. Harro5 06:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept! Staxringold _talk 06:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Nominate and support. Harro5 06:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
2. Extreme support. I can't say enough about this candidate. We first met on opposing sides of an AfD and have grown to be great friends! He's a great Wikipedian who both has a firm grasp of editing and procedure and has fun while doing it. Having worked with him at The West Wing and Cheers, Hopkins School and Plano Senior High School, he is a consummate Wikipedian. Give him the mop! — Scm83x 06:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
3. Support. Wow! DarthVader 07:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
4. Support Great user. -- Shizane _contribs 07:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
5. Support - Valued editor with an FA ; more than 5800 edits in less than one year; potential good vandalfighter. JoJan 08:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
6. Support. Seems experienced, rational and easy to get on with. All the things we want in an admin. Kevin 08:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
7. Support np! Computerjoe's talk 09:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
8. Support I beat the nom support! (Not really, but I've always wanted to say that.) Seriously though, good editor, excellent work in several different namespaces. Steveo2 11:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
9. Support per nom. He looks ready to get his own broom. Mostly Rainy 11:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
10. Weak support-- passes 1FA, more than adequate time and edits, but I see no vandal warnings or reports to AIV. :) Dlohcierekim 11:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
11. Support. Matches WP:GRFA#What_RfA_contributors_look_for. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 11:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
12. Support: Time on project and experience on the compositional and peer reviewing side are very strong. Geogre 12:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
13. Support: Hopkins School really says it all. Suntiger 12:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
14. Support per nom and for editing the first high school article to make it to FA. --Elkman 12:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
15. Support - Good editor. Kilo-Lima| 13:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
16. Support. Appears to have improved considerably from the time of his first RfA and now seems a well-rounded editor. -Splash 13:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
17. Edit-conflicted yet-another-thought-he-was-already support. RadioKirk talk to me 13:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
18. Support; experienced Wikipedian who has demonstrated an ability to work with others with civility even in stressful situations. --Spangineer (háblame) 13:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
19. Support, good user. --Terence Ong 13:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
20. Support, dedicated and conscientious editor. Kirill Lokshin 13:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
21. Support A great user. --Siva1979 13:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
22. Support--Jusjih 13:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
23. Support. Just the sort of editor we need as an admin: hard working and civil. Rje 14:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
24. SupportGood track record on Misplaced Pages with all-round contributions. --Wisden17 15:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
25. Support (With the disclaimer that I know him in real life) JoshuaZ 16:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
26. Support, meets 1FA. - Mailer Diablo 16:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
27. Sure. --Cyde↔Weys 16:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
28. Strong Support Rama's Arrow 16:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
29. Support Trustworthy. ~MDD4696 17:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
30. Support, user is familiar with Misplaced Pages processes and has shown a willingness to take on maintenance tasks. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
31. Support Lapinmies 18:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
32. Support --digital_me 18:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
33. Support -- Malber (talk • contribs) 18:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
34. Absolutely Support. I see Jim in the library (I'm also a student at Hopkins) and this will certainly not go to waste. He does stuff on Misplaced Pages I wouldn't even have thought needed to be done (all good stuff, e.g. Hopkins School) Good Luck! --CTwikipedier 18:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
35. Support Kaisershatner 19:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
36. Support I like this user...courteous and hardworking. --Osbus 20:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
37. Support. Very hardworking, no evidence of hostility or potential for abuse. Great job, and keep up the good work! —Cuiviénen on Tuesday, 30 May 2006 at 20:49 UTC
38. Support. Seems to be a knowledgeable, hard working user. --Danaman5 20:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
39. Support Joe I 22:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
40. Support ForestH2
41. Support this courteous and hardworking editor for administrator responsibilities. Yamaguchi先生 23:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
42. Support — ßottesiηi 23:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
43. Jaranda 23:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
44. Support, Yup. Deizio talk 23:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
45. Support per above. —Khoikhoi 00:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
46. Support. All my interactions with him have been positive.--ragesoss 01:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
47. Support Excellent editor. Master of Puppets 01:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
48. Merovingian {T C @} 03:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
49. Support, very involved. Royboycrashfan 03:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
50. Support This is probably a first.. a Hamden Hall student supporting a Hopkins School student in something. Anyway, I have to say the Hopkins page making it to featured article status has inspired me to work as much as possible on our Hamden Hall article, and the courteous way he has dealt with vandalism from a school IP impressed me. Although I haven't had any personal interactions with this user, I strongly support him. --Kazushi 04:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
51. Support #50 and sad it took this long. Edit-conflict: Okay, 51. SorryGuy 04:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
52. Support. We should encourage more editors like this one to wield the mop. Silensor 06:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
53. Support. A solid, positive contributor worthy of adminship. Zaxem 11:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
54. Support! Kukini 15:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
55. Stax of support here. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
56. Support. Titoxd 04:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
57. Support.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
58. Support. Strong candidate, will be a good admin i'm sure. Rockpocket 06:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
59. Support – good editor – Gurch 08:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
60. Support Great guy --Fir0002 www 11:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
61. Support; well-balanced contributions. --tomf688 (talk - email) 14:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
62. Support --Jay(Reply) 20:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
63. Support Seems reasonable. Captainj 11:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
64. Massive Support Staxringold is a great editor and will be a great admin.--Alabamaboy 13:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
65. Support, no reason not to. Stifle (talk) 20:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
66. Support Good work.--MONGO 03:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
67. Support. Will be excellent administrator. DakPowers (Talk) 21:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
68. Support nice guy from what I understand. savidan 23:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
69. Support. Answer to 3rd question made me nervous at first, but Staxringold seems to have changed, and it was an honest answer. Armedblowfish (talk|contribs) 23:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
70. Support. He looks like a good and knowledgeable editor. I liked his honesty in answering the questions below, his obvious familiarity with the article-writing side of things (it's why we're all here), and the fact he already has the support of several editors whose judgment I trust. Pity about the CVU thing, but nobody's perfect. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
71. Support. Passed Diablo Test. Anwar 13:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
72. Support Good user. — Brendenhull (T + C) at 16:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
73. Support. Another shoo-in. Sarge Baldy 22:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
74. Support, obviously. SushiGeek 06:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
75. Support. --Rory096 02:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
76. Support with pleasure - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 06:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
77. Support - A very good contributor, that writes very good articles. Afonso Silva 16:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

1. Evenprime 20:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC) I have only interacted with this user on one article, and am rather indifferent about the experience.

Comments

• See Staxringold's _{(Talk ▪ Contributions ▪ Logs ▪ Block Logs)} contributions as of 20:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC) using Interiot's tool:

Username Staxringold
Total edits 5936
Distinct pages edited 2255
Average edits/page 2.632
First edit 00:26, August 23, 2005
(main) 3680
Talk 246
User 136
User talk 350
Image 423
Image talk 1
Template 153
Template talk 42
Category 13
Misplaced Pages 799
Misplaced Pages talk 79
Portal 9
Portal talk 5

User's last 5000 edits.Voice-of-All 16:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

--Viewing contribution data for user Staxringold (over the 5000 edit(s) shown on this page)--  (FAQ)
Time range: 197 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 16hr (UTC) -- 30, May, 2006
Oldest edit on: 1hr (UTC) -- 16, October, 2005
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 100% Minor edits: 100%
Article edit summary use (last 539 edits) : Major article edits: 100% Minor article edits: 100%
Average edits per day: 19.42 (for last 500 edit(s))
Marked notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/sourcing): 3.6% (180)
Unique pages edited: 1955 | Average edits per page: 2.56 | Edits on top: 7.38%
Breakdown of all edits:
Significant edits (non-minor/reverts): 25.96% (1298 edit(s))
Minor edits (non-reverts): 51.12% (2556 edit(s))
Marked reverts: 8.48% (424 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 14.44% (722 edit(s))
Edits by Misplaced Pages namespace:
Article: 61.16% (3058) | Article talk: 4.3% (215)
User: 2.54% (127) | User talk: 6.3% (315)
Misplaced Pages: 13.54% (677) | Misplaced Pages talk: 1.4% (70)
Image: 6.9% (345)
Template: 2.56% (128)
Category: 0.2% (10)
Portal: 0.14% (7)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.96% (48)

• See Staxringold's edit summary usage with Mathbot's tool.
• I have moved this to ...2 since it is a second nom, and using the original title of a first-nom is both confusing and non-standard and breaks linkage from RfA archives. I've correspondingly moved ...(archive) back to its original title. -Splash 13:03, 30 May 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: As a member of the CVU I would continue working to fight vandalism when I encounter it (while thinking about what to work on I monitor the RC, but an easier process makes for better vandalism hunting). I'm also a large fan of article clean-up such as rewriting articles for spoilers, tense, short paragraphs that can be merged, oddly formed sentences, etc.

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

A: The articles I'm most proud of are probably those recognized by the community as they imply other people are enjoying what I've written. Cheers went through a solid FAC process where I fixed all explained complaints IMO, and is quite a nice article. I'm also quite proud of Hopkins School and the status it has achieved, hopefully helping lay the groundwork for the other great editors from WP:Schools to bring up great school articles.

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

A: I was a bit green around the edges in my early editing days and I did get into some arguements early on with other users, the general complaint being I used slightly harsh language. This was the major reason for my first RfA's failure. I feel as though I have learned and grown as a Wikipedian, and am now worthy of the power and responsibility adminship implies. As an example of this Scm83x, the user who originally pointed out instances of my newbie biting and unkind language in the first RfA, has now become a close Wikibuddy of mine.

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

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

Richardcavell

Final (66/0/1) ended 03:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Richardcavell (talk · contribs) – This user has a long history of constructive edits to wikipedia. He's made a big difference to lots of articles, he has a history of editing civilly, he's taken part in AFDs and RfAs - in short, he fulfils WP:GRFA#What_RfA_contributors_look_for. HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 13:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thanks to Hughcharlesparker for the nomination; I'm very flattered by it. I accept. - Richardcavell 23:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Support - Good user, sensible, polite, good judgement on AfD writes good articles.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
2. Yes. NSLE _(T+C) at 04:01 UTC (2006-05-30)
3. Support, definitely. --Terence Ong 04:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
4. Support excellent editor, level headed. Will be a fine administrator. -- Samir धर्म 04:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
5. Support. I have had positive interaction/discussion with this user and see no good reason not to support. Grandmasterka 04:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
6. Support Yes. Yanksox 04:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
7. He's not?! RadioKirk talk to me 04:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
8. Support Insofar as I can see, there are no issues. joturner 04:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
9. Support. Everything is in order here. --TantalumTelluride 04:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
10. Support :) Dlohcierekim 04:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
11. Support. DarthVader 04:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
12. Support ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
13. Support - enter clich(e with e thing on it) here -- Tawker 05:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
14. Support rounded experience, good manner. Tyrenius 06:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
15. Support per nom and Tawkér (or Tawkèr?). Conscious 06:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
16. Support- no objections. This user deserves the Admin powers. Reyk _YO! 07:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
17. Support - a trusted user with already a barnstar; another potential vadalfighter JoJan 08:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
18. Support - always a hard worker at AfD. Always has a useful opinion. Kevin 08:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
19. Support no problems here. Computerjoe's talk 09:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
20. Support Absolutely TigerShark 09:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
21. Nominator support at number 21. This is what you get for nominating someone in a different timezone. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 10:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
22. Support. Appears to have a good balance of community- and encyclopdia-based work and has been around long enough to know how things work. Recent edits to AfD show a well-balanced and knowledgeable (and non-ideological) participation there. The 'This' mention in Q3 really doesn't read all that badly, I have to say, but the restraint shown by avoiding such an article must surely bode well when it comes to deciding whether or not to press that admin button. -Splash 12:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
23. Support No problems here. --Siva1979 13:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
24. Support--Jusjih 13:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
25. Strong Support Has an excellent grasp of Misplaced Pages policies. We need more people like him at the AFD. --Srikeit 14:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
26. Support. I have been frequently impressed by Richard's good work at AfD, he will use the tools well. Rje 14:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
27. Support Appears to be a strong Misplaced Pages, who has got a good level of activity on the project. --Wisden17 15:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
28. Support Good editor. Enabling him to fight vandalism more easily is clearly beneficial. CWC(talk) 15:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
29. Support Thoughtful editor, obviously trustworthy. Xoloz 17:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
30. Support.Trustworthy editor. -- No Guru 17:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
31. Support Lapinmies 18:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
32. Support--digital_me 18:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
33. support Edit count on the low side, but high enough to conclude that he won't misuse the admin tools. --Bachrach44 18:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
34. Support - when I've run across him in various places, he always seems civil and knowledgeable, and looks to be a solid choice for admin. Tony Fox 20:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
35. Support, per nom and marvelous answers to questions. That's all I need to know you're a great user (actually, I already knew you were ;) ). Royboycrashfan 21:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
36. Support Joe I 22:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
37. Support ForestH2
38. Support great candidate — ßottesiηi 23:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
39. Support with pleasure. Deizio talk 23:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
40. Support per above. —Khoikhoi 00:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
41. Support Mopper like. Master of Puppets 01:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
42. Support I would prefer if he sometimes gave sources in AfDs rather than just assert that they exist (this might have changed the outcome of some AfDs, such as this one) but other than that, everything looks great. JoshuaZ 02:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
43. Support -- valuable editor. - Longhair 02:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
44. Support. DVD+ R/W 03:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
45. Merovingian {T C @} 03:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
46. Support - making a valuable contribution. Capitalistroadster 06:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
47. Support - A very learned person who brings a wealth of knowledge to Misplaced Pages. Worthy of the admin role. Rogerthat 10:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
48. Support. A reliable, solid contributor. Zaxem 11:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

    Support Good positive track record on Misplaced Pages --Wisden17 14:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC) Duplicate vote - Tangotango 14:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

49. sUPPORT! Great guy, knows what he's doing --Mahogany 14:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
50. Support per RadioKirk :-) Gwernol 17:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
51. Support. Seen him around the traps, no issues at all.--cjllw | TALK 00:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
52. The I hate to bust the "You mean he's not" cliché support. Seriously, no question at all. --Deville (Talk) 01:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
53. Jaranda 03:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
54. Support absolutely. One of the best editors we've got. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 05:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
55. Support. Strong contributor in all areas. Everything points to a good administrator. Rockpocket 05:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
56. Support. In general, a thoughtful, moderate voice in AfD and elsewhere. No skirmishes with other editors. Only reservation is that I'd like to see more long-term involvement with some articles (though i think he may have a few of these too). -MrFizyx 06:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
57. Support Edits look good.--MONGO 11:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
58. Support, per above; positive contributions. --tomf688 (talk - email) 14:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
59. Support --Jay(Reply) 19:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
60. Support--A Y Arktos\ 08:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
61. Support Captainj 11:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
62. Weak support. Could use a bit more experience, but it's not worth opposing over. Stifle (talk) 20:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
63. Support. Kirill Lokshin 04:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
64. Support. I've seen this username around a bit, but I can't remember and can't figure out where. I wish I could, it would help me with the vote. Anyway this vote based on answers to questions. -lethe 14:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
65. Support. I seemed to overlook this RfA earlier in the candidacy. Werdna (talk) 05:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
66. Support - I missed this one early as well! BD2412 T 18:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

1. Does not pass 1FA, but has shown to have active participation in process. - Mailer Diablo 16:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

   He doesn't pass under positive exception exception number one? --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 22:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

   • Yes, he did, which is why I did not oppose. - Mailer Diablo 14:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• See Richardcavell's 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 frequently participate in AfD, and if I get administrator status I'll be able to close the discussions. Rove McManus is a frequent target of vandalism and it needs semi-protection from time to time. I'd like to have the ability to temporarily block anon IPs such as 82.198.250.4 and its mates.

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

A: There's a long list at my user page. I've written biographies such as Bernard King (television), John-Michael Howson and Max Green. I've written several medical topics such as conjoint tendon, esophagectomy and peptic. I enjoy creating redirects and disambiguation pages such as Klown and Robert Lowe, since the search engine is not the best and this structure helps people get to what they're looking for. I still maintain that the best contributions that I can make is to upgrade the spelling/grammar of existing articles.

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

A: I created Channel 31 Melbourne, and then banned myself from it after an Australian anonymous IP removed most of my work. This was my response at the time. Although I still think that someone from C31 management was sanitising the unflattering content, I realised that I was too emotionally involved in the station (I've been helping there for 11 years) to be truly impartial. So I remain on a self-imposed ban from that page.

I have a couple of questions. They're optional, so feel free to spurn them with a harsh remark and send me fleeing in tears if that's what floats your boat. Ahem.

F0. You mention you'd like to close AfDs. Do you have a general philosophy on xfDs? What would you do if an AfD appeared to show consensus to delete, but for the evidence presented by an expert? What would you do in general if a poor argument for deletion had numerical support? Would would you do if an AfD debate was not closed within the 5 days (as often happens), and in the time between the 5 days expiring and you getting around to closing it, somebody had produced evidence that the article should be kept? What is your opinion of this AfD close?

A. My general philosophy on XfD is in fact inclusionist, even though if you look at my contributions you'll see tons of deletes in my edit summaries. I'm bothered by the 'evidence presented by an expert' scenario - I have considered trying to save several articles, including Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Overseas doctor and Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Urinal_etiquette (both of which I wanted to keep), by fortressing my AfD vote with references or (even better) fortressing the article, but there's no point going to the trouble if the article will inevitably be deleted. A 'keep' vote will only keep it alive until someone nominates it again - See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Charlie Murphy's True Hollywood Stories: Rick James (2nd nomination) or even mad nigger, both of which I fought to keep and both survived their first nominations.

The policy is 'rough consensus', and I have to go with that no matter how eloquent the arguments that are presented. As to your example of Zvi Mowshowitz - well, I would have voted 'keep' as a voter, but as a closing admin I would have deleted. (And I would never close an AfD that I have voted on).

I actually believe that if an article survives AfD, then there ought to be a lock-out period during which it cannot be renominated. I also think that there should be a policy that if an article undergoes significant changes while on AfD, which address the reason for which it was placed on AfD, then the administrator should have the discretion to set aside the current votes and restart the AfD.

F1. You also mentioned blocking vandals. What is your general philosophy on blocking vandals? At what point is blocking appropriate, and for how long?

Most 'vandalism' is in fact innocent testing and trial rather than true vandalism, born of an intention to be disruptive. I am therefore especially unsympathetic towards those vandals (such as Willy on Wheels) who appear to have sufficient knowledge of wikipedia that they could use their knowledge for constructive purposes.

I would only block a vandal after they've been warned appropriately - I've noticed that {{test4}} does seem to work a considerable percentage of the time. I think that blocking should be used to incapacitate the editor (to protect the encyclopedia) and not for punishment, deterrence, denunciation, etc. So the appropriate period of time is the minimum period of time that will frustrate the vandal.

F2. What about blocking people who aren't bog-standard vandals? How do you feel about that?

I'm not sure what you're asking me. I'd be more reluctant to block a person for edit-warring/3 revert rule, because that sort of person is probably acting in good faith. Discussion is going to provide for more chance of rehabilitation than simply blocking. Have a look at User_talk:Legendary_Steve, who added the category 'Black Criminals' to Martin Luther King. I asked a few people to lay off the vandalism accusations and we got him to see the light.

Thanks, fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Pegasus1138

Final (31/26/9) ended 03:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Pegasus1138 (talk · contribs) – I'm Pegasus1138 and I think I would make a good administrator since I have a good tempermate, am always civil, and I know policy and guidelines well as well as how things work around here. For the sake of transparency I'll note her that this is my third nom (1_st nom, 2_nd nom) both of which failed primarily due to inexperience however I have been around longer now and have much more experience and feel that I would now make a good administrator. Pegasus1138 ---- 03:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I should point out that I was Pegasus1138 was on my shortlist of nominations, I've just been a little swamped and haven't gotten around to the paperwork. My nomination statement would be basically what he wrote so feel free to consider this a nomination -- Tawker 05:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Despite concern addressed in comments below, I think his work on Misplaced Pages is enough for me to support. NSLE _(T+C) at 03:50 UTC (2006-05-30)
2. Support despite short time since last nomination (time between nominations doesn't relate to admin abilities) and not-so-long tenure. joturner 03:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
3. Support i've seen this person around in a few places, and certainly deem them worthy of adminship. good luck.--Alhutch 03:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
4. Support - April Fools is well, April Fools, and not the other 365 days of a year. Will make good use of the tools (and alreayd has the rate NSLE support which is good enough for me) -- Tawker 03:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
5. Support Will be great. Yanksox
6. Support despite inability to spell "temperament". ;) RadioKirk talk to me 04:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
7. Edit Conflict Support, meets my standards. --Terence Ong 04:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
8. Strong Support. Great user. Seen this user around and seems very dedicated. :) G.He 04:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
9. Support. Meets my standards by a mile. DarthVader 04:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
10. Support. Just because he was here a month ago doesn't mean he won't be a good admin. --Rory096 04:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
11. Support - good vandal fighter, would benefit from the tools abakharev 05:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
12. Support. Haves seen this user around many times and appears to be ready for adminship. -- Tangotango 06:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
13. Support per Tango. -?Buchanan-Hermit™/!? 07:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
14. Support, don't see why repeated self-noms shoudl be held against someone. The Land 09:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
15. Strong Support I see nothing wrong in repeating self-noms after a one month period. I thought that this was the bare minimum time-frame for RfAs and the bare minimum time-frame for RfB is a 3 month period. This, at least to me, shows that the user is eager to serve Misplaced Pages in a more broader role. This can only be a positive thing for this project at large. --Siva1979 13:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
16. Strong Support ForestH2
17. Strong support. If he is a good editor, and he is impatient to help the community; then I do not see any reason for denying him the tools. --Andy123 15:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
18. Support per Ani and Tawker. Joe 15:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
19. Support Lapinmies 18:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
20. Support Meets my standards, and per Tawker.--digital_me 18:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
21. Support He helped me with some stuff. Very good at what he is doing. Per Ani and Tawker. FellowWikipedian 21:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
22. Support, does good work. A bit more patience wrt RfA would be nice, though. Kusma (??) 22:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

    Support . froggy 23:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

    This vote was added by 198.22.123.105 (talk · contribs). Kusma (??) 00:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

23. Support.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Uninsureddriver (talk • contribs) 01:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

    This user's only edits were establishing blue links for user and user talk page, voting here and unstriking the IP vote. Kusma (??) 01:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

    Actually I'd be surprised if this user and the IP directly above are not the same person. Kusma (??) 03:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

24. Support.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
25. Support. He is good editor, and good vandal catcher. Daniel5127, 04:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
26. Support - Liberatore(T) 12:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
27. Support. This editor will make a great administrator one day. If things do not work out this time, please allow me to renominate you next quarter. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
28. Support. Pepsidrinka 23:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

    Support. Stif1e 03:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

    This was this user's 2nd edit, and the user is blocked indefinitely as an impersonator of, well, me. Stifle (talk) 10:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

29. Sure. Poloyoe 03:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
30. Support. -- Mostly Rainy 04:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
31. Support -- The main reason to oppose seems to be that he took the initiative to nominate himself. I don't have a problem with that. savidan 23:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. March 24... April 23... May 30... Three noms in three months is not too appealing to me. I do like Pegasus (nice, good editor, etc), but seems a bit to impatient. Other editors have said they would nominate you in good time, yet you still didn't wait. Unfortunately, this leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. I'd say just keep up the good work and wait a bit longer before another try. Sorry... oppose. --You Know Who 04:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

   Addendum: I am also a little wary of Pegasus' take on delinking redlinks. Yes, some should be removed, but most of them point to areas where WP is lacking. For instance, recently, you removed a couple of links to universities. These would be perfectly valid article subjects. I know you have tempered your position some, and none of this really has anything to do with admin tools, I just thought you might like a bit more feedback. --You Know Who 15:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

2. Per You Know Who, the month intervals seem rather disturbing, with them all being self-nominations. Also in your first one, you stated: "I am withdrawing and I will try again in a few months.", but you haven't waited a few months, you've tried twice in month intervals since then. You are too anxious, that's not a good quality in an a higher position. Kevin Breitenstein 04:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
3. I echo the same concerns already stated. I suppose that makes me a Death Eater. --Michael Snow 05:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

   You know, I'm not one to suggest that lawyers can't be comics, but... zowie, that one fell flat. :-) --Sean Black 08:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

   You want to be careful tangling with someone who is both a lawyer and a Death Eater. -Splash 12:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

   Isn't that redundant? ;) RadioKirk talk to me 13:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

   Flat as a dead pan, yes. If it's not to your taste, sorry. --Michael Snow 19:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

4. Oppose great contributer, but the power-hungry nature expressed in the three quick self noms leaves me thinking it should be withheld untill the nom can go two or three months without trying. -M 10:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose great contributer, but not quite there in term of time and experience. :) Dlohcierekim 11:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
6. We're being asked to support this candidate every time there are a few weeks of decent editing. The trouble is that these few weeks are interspersed with serious errors (April Fool's day, and deletion reviews complaining about jokes, heavy-handed deletion of templates that are not deleteable and ignoring numerous editors who tell him otherwise). These things happened just last month! Add to this that these three self-noms in as many months give a distinct impression of chomping at the bit and some impatience, and I feel uncomfortable with supporting an RfA now. Most editors who succeed here have several months of good, reliable editing with usually no substantial errors during that time, and certainly not in the last few weeks. I'd suggest some patience, an accumulation of a reputation for not getting things off-center and a non-self-nom in a couple more months (and not a few more weeks). I know from myself that it is easy to think you have "seen most things/it all" and then, as time goes by, you realise just how much you hadn't seen. On the up side, I see among recent edits non-contentious AfD closures — getting a feel for more things is an excellent continuation. -Splash 12:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose. Three nominations in three months is too many (the fact that this is a selfnom makes no difference to me). Cynical 14:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose. I must echo Splash's reasons in their entirety, it is a pity because Pegasus is a valuable contributor. Unfortunately I do not think he is quite ready for adminship, as is evidenced by the problems with jokes, April Fool's day etc. I will probably support at a later date when Pegasus shows he can act with a suitable sense of decorum. Rje 14:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
9. OpposePer Rje's sentiments above. A good user, but just needs more time to show the maturity required for adminship. --Wisden17 15:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
10. I could only support if this user were to be honest about his identity to the community. --Cyde?Weys 16:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

    If you have concerns about my maintaining my anonymity to the community please by all means send me an email and I'll discuss it with you but for now my identity remains my own. Pegasus1138 ---- 21:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

    ....Um, I'm honestly confused here. Are admins required to give out their real names or something? I don't know why people would want to give people who wish to harm them any information. --mboverload@

    Comment - I doubt it's required, but I think that using ones real name allows them to get a better reputation. (If your alias gets a bad reputation, you can change it, but there is more incentive to behave when your name is used.) This doesn't apply if you use the same alias all the time though, so ignore my rambling... MichaelBillington 07:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

11. Oppose, fails 1FA (unfortunately...), but...I can see that you are on the right track. - Mailer Diablo 16:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
12. Oppose per Splash. Rapid-fire nominations are not a good sign; also, I share some civility/personality concerns regarding editor, who occasionally seems obstinate and not very open to compromise in deletion discussions. Xoloz 16:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
13. Oppose It's not just impatience with RfA renoms; it's impatience with other users. Minimum of 2 months of patience is now in order. Tyrenius 19:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
14. Oppose per above. Ral315 (talk) 21:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
15. Weakest of weak opposes I like the editor, but the RfA noms, especially for self-noms, seem a bit too impatient. Sorry. Master of Puppets 01:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
16. Oppose, per Splash and Lord Voldemort. Titoxd 01:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
17. User is too hasty. He welcomes User:Willy on Wheels should be a Sysop, calls things vandalism when they are nothing of the sort (my only guess is "dyke" set off some CVU bot and he duely reverted it without looking), reverts an unauthorized bot that changed only whitespace but reverted someone else's edit to do it with an edit summary refering to changing someone's comments? (the bot was doing spelling changes on talk pages--but this was an article and it wasn't a spelling change it was doing), reporting possible errors on the main page is vandalism? Kotepho 01:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

    Comment The link that says "reporting possible errors on the main page is vandalism?" only shows that "ulglkklh" was removed. G.He 23:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

    Sorry, this is the proper diff. There is some talk about it on his (Pegasus') talk page also. Kotepho 02:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

18. Oppose per Kotepho. Naconkantari 03:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
19. Weak oppose - when I opposed last time, I said I'd consider supporting in a few months and it's not even two since. More haste, less speed... —Whouk (talk) 08:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
20. Oppose per last time Jaranda 03:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
21. Oppose. Still needs a bit more time and experience. Zaxem 10:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
22. Oppose per Kotepho. --Zoz (t) 13:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
23. Oppose. Only 1500 edits and a few months experience. Furthermore, 3 self-noms in his/her short tenure here isn't necessarily something that should be encouraged. --tomf688 (talk - email) 14:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
24. Oppose per above. Sorry, now isn't the right time. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
25. Oppose. Fails Diablo Test. Anwar 07:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
26. I think the wording Splash used sums up the general feeling I'm getting from this user. robchurch | talk 20:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral (change to oppose) for now. Held back from supporting because of the speed of renoms. Patience is a good quality for an admin. Tyrenius 06:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

1. Neutral per above. -- Shizane _contribs 07:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
2. Neutral So many self-noms, so little time. Phr (talk) 11:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
3. Neutral Looks generally good, but very frequent self-nominations concerns me as to how patient the candidate is. Please be patient.--Jusjih 13:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
4. Neutral per Jusjih. Royboycrashfan 21:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
5. Neutral No major concerns, but a bit too new to the project for my liking and a bit too keen for the mop. I'd suggest coming back in a couple of months, when I think you should easily gain promotion. TigerShark 23:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
6. Neutral per Jusjih. --Merovingian {T C @} 03:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
7. Neutral see above --Mahogany 14:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
8. I am honestly undecided still. But i would like to give a well meant and unsollicited advise for if it is does not succeed. Wait the next time till someone else nominats you, and sure, that can take 2, 3 4 more months. I am afraid that if you try again yourself in about a month, which would be perfectly valid and such, it will start to push more buttons along the same line of the arguments I have seen here above, which I in part do understand. -- Kim van der Linde 03:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
9. Neutral per Jusjih --Robdurbar 08:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• For whatever reason I get the impression that this user has a great desire to be an administrator. Now, that's not necessarily a bad thing, but these repeated self nominations give me a queasy feeling. Lust for power never sits well with me.--Sean Black 08:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

  What about normal lust? Is that allowed? The Land 09:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

  Hm. Lust for power. You could have also taken this as a lust for greater responsibilities? --Andy123 10:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

User's contributions.Voice-of-All 20:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

--Viewing contribution data for user Pegasus1138 (over the 4012 edit(s) shown on this page)-- (FAQ)
Time range: 101 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 20hr (UTC) -- 30, May, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 5hr (UTC) -- 21, February, 2006
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 97.44% Minor edits: 100%
Average edits per day: 33.9 (for last 500 edit(s))
Analysis of edits (out of all 4012 edits):
Article edit summary use (last 270 edits) : Major article edits: 100% Minor article edits: 100%
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/sourcing): 0.8% (32)
Minor article edits (small content/info/reference additions): 0.15% (6)
Superficial article edits (wikify/grammar/spelling/tagging): 23.9% (959)
Unmarked article edits: 0% (0)
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 2000 | Average edits per page: 2.01 | Edits on top: 12.19%
Significant edits (non-minor/reverts): 45.64% (1831 edit(s))
Minor edits (non-reverts): 32.43% (1301 edit(s))
Marked reverts: 21.31% (855 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 0.62% (25 edit(s))
Edits by Misplaced Pages namespace:
Article: 37.51% (1505) | Article talk: 3.56% (143)
User: 13.48% (541) | User talk: 17.47% (701)
Misplaced Pages: 18.42% (739) | Misplaced Pages talk: 6.48% (260)
Image: 0.65% (26)
Template: 1.37% (55)
Category: 0.57% (23)
Portal: 0.32% (13)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.15% (6)

• See Pegasus1138's _{(Talk ? Contributions ? Logs ? Block Logs)} contributions as of 04:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC) using Interiot's tool:

Username Pegasus1138
Total edits 4012
Distinct pages edited 2063
Average edits/page 1.945
First edit 01:48, February 21, 2006
(main) 1505
Talk 143
User 534
User talk 699
Image 26
Template 55
Template talk 6
Category 23
Misplaced Pages 748
Misplaced Pages talk 260
Portal 13

• See Pegasus1138's edit summary usage with Mathbot's tool.
• Would you really consider youself "always civil"? I seem to remember a run-in with you on IRC on April Fools' Day. NSLE _(T+C) at 03:50 UTC (2006-05-30)
  • That was me taking a situation too seriously and a situation which I apologized for. Pegasus1138 ---- 03:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I was referring to our little spat re. Jimbo's page, which I don't think you've apologised for (at least, I don't remember it, so my apologies if you have). Anyhow, as above, I don't consider that big enough to oppose you (anymore, at least, I used that to oppose you last time IIRC). NSLE _(T+C) at 03:55 UTC (2006-05-30)

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 would help close AFD debates which I already do for clear cut cases where the consensus is to keep but I would be able to close delete and more complex ones if I had admin tools. I would also use the tools to help my vandalfighting and I would continue to keep an eye on cfd and tfd since having admin tools can help with that.

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

A: <cliche> I am proud of all my contributions on Misplaced Pages </cliche> A few contributions though that I am proud of is my continuing quest to try to get Megatokyo to featured status and my work on Ultimate showdown of ultimate destiny.

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

A: I have been in several conflicts including Misplaced Pages:Semi-Bots and the conflict in regards to the display of a picture of Muhammed at Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. In every conflict I have been in I have been civil and have listened to the concerns and suggestions of both those that I agree with and disagree with.

Optional question from User:NSLE:
Regarding the recent controversy with Linuxbeak and Raul about unblocking Selina and Blu Aardvark, what is your take? If you were called upon to make a split-second decision, what would you do? This question is totally optional, but I'd be interested to know your answer. NSLE _(T+C) at 01:28 UTC (2006-05-31)

DriniQuestion

Do you think sysops performing actions not covered on policy should be sanctioned? If so, how? -- Drini 21:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

More optional questions

In looking at your nomination I wonder just why you want to be an administrator. What tools are you missing to do what you want to do? Ifnord 14:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Digitalme

FINAL (32/17/6) ending 00:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Digitalme (talk · contribs) – I joined Misplaced Pages back around a year ago, but I didn't really start editing until November. Since then, I've ammassed a quite a few edits (somewhere around 2000, last I checked,) and done a lot of anti-vandalism and RC patrol, as well as general cleanup and wikification. I have recently joined the mediation cabal, where I successfully mediated my first case, and I hope to help with many more. I feel that I would be a good admin because I have experience, knowledge of Misplaced Pages policy, and want to help make Misplaced Pages a better place. --digital_me 00:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Why thank you, I am honored to accept!--digital_me 00:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. Seen this candidate around, no problems for me. RadioKirk talk to me 01:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
2. Support. per radiokirk. :) Dlohcierekim 01:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
3. Why not? Mostly Rainy 01:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
4. Support, I don't see anything wrong here. --Terence Ong 01:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
5. Support number of edits doesn't really impact anything if a candidate is well-versed in policy and is responsible. Master of Puppets 01:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
6. Support The only issue I have is edits outside of vandalism, but I think he would be a useful addition to the admin list. Yanksox 02:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
7. Weak support I have concern that the user is overly focused on vandalism and so we have little info about how the Digital will behave if some form of conflict comes up, but overall the impression I get is favorable and I think Digital will use the tools well. JoshuaZ 02:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
8. Moderate support per JoshuaZ (although I should say that I do comment Digital for wanting to be an admin in order to carry out the work of the community in any area in which admin involvement is required; such a sentiment reflects, IMHO, an excellent understanding of the nature of adminship and a desire for the mop, etc., for the right reasons) and RadioKirk. Joe 02:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
9. Support (edit conflict) Keep on fighting vandalism (and please add Vincent van Gogh to your watch list). Tyrenius 02:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
10. Support - is constantly using AIV and a direct link to the block would save a little time for everyone -- Tawker 02:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
11. Support Yup. Definitely. G.He 04:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
12. Support. Meets my standards. Will make a good admin. DarthVader 04:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
13. Support. Looks good. We need more vandal fighters. --Shlomke 06:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
14. Weak moral support. Not bad, though more edits at Misplaced Pages namespaces would be much better.--Jusjih 13:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
15. Support Deserves to be an admin. --Siva1979 13:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
16. Support ForestH2
17. Support Would make a good admin - Nick C (Review Me!) 18:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
18. Support Lapinmies 18:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
19. Support More vandal fighting power to ya! — ßottesiηi 23:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
20. Support per Tawker - Glen _C (Stollery) 05:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
21. I'm going to Wholeheartedly Support Digitalme. He's been very active in vandal fighting (we chat while doing so, often) and he's very polite and determined to protect Misplaced Pages from vandalism. Admins work for free, there's no need to make sure you get your "money's worth" from them being able to do everything. If we have one more person willing and able to tone down the amount of damage to Misplaced Pages, isn't that worth it? ~Kylu (u|t) 05:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
22. Support Good RC Patroller! Crazynas 16:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
23. Support Good at fighting vandalism. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
24. Support Great vandal fighter --Scot 20:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
25. Weak Support Great vandalism fighter, but not many constructive article edits --Bsmntbombdood 21:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
26. Weak support. Needs to make more productive article contributions, but otherwise a great user. — TheKMan 04:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
27. Strong Support, been here long enough to get a promotion. --Froggy 14:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
28. Strong support - good vandal fighter. —Khoikhoi 17:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
29. Support - Vandal Fighters can really use adminship well. Thus I believe it is fine to give this user adminship. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
30. Support- Stats show more than a vandal fighter,100% Admin Material.--Sartaj beary 19:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
31. Support - maybe I should write my own version of the 1FA article - but, in my mind, the only meaningful question is do I trust him with the tools. And I do, thus, I support BigDT 02:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
32. Support - Great contributor, I've had a lot of discussions with him through E@. DakPowers (Talk) 03:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

#Support - GruntiIda 04:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

IP voting, this RfA is over, just not closed.--digital_me 04:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Nop, discussion is only over when closed, it can be prolonged for some time if needed. So, voting can continue. -- Kim van der Linde 04:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright, but as it stands, that edit came from an IP. So, it is still struck.--digital_me 04:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose for now, I seen digitalme editing and he's a good vandal fighter, but I feel he needs more experince with article writing, the answer for number 3 I didn't like nither. I'm willing to change my vote if this is a close one and I'm happy to support in a few months. Thanks Jaranda 01:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose Digitalme's contributions to fighting vandalism are valued. However, I don't see the major contributions to Fencing, although Digitalme says it's the article he/she is most proud of. That indicates that perhaps there isn't much dedication to building an encyclopedia which is, after all, our primary purpose on Misplaced Pages. My primary objection: the contributions to the Misplaced Pages project space don't seem to be varied (see project space history); I'd like to see more AfD contributions (as of right now, there's only one). Administrators will be expected to make decisions on closing AfDs and therefore they should be more involved in the process. Lastly, although these two items didn't really contribute to my decision to oppose, I'm a) curious as to why April 2006 was your first month with more than 160 edits and b) puzzled as to why the date was formatted incorrectly in this RfA. I understand people make mistakes, but I just find that one especially strange. Anyway, like I said, those last two things were more of comments rather than oppose reasons. joturner 01:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

   FWIW, the date was fixed so quickly that it wasn't a concern for me. :) RadioKirk talk to me 01:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

   Heh, about the date. I guess I was so stunned by the fact that I had actually nominated myself that I made a little slip.--digital_me 01:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

3. Oppose Certainly on the rights tracks but far too soon. Started editing in November, but only made 86 contributions from then until the end of February. Only started editing seriously in March (with 150 contributions that month) and heavy editing only began last month. Looks like a good vandal fighter and the regular use of warnings is a very encouraging sign, but needs a few more months of experience and more exposure to activities outside of vandal fighting. TigerShark 02:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
4. Weak Oppose Seems to be a good admin material, but to soon. Maybe in a couple of months... abakharev 03:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose. Single-issue vandal fighters do not necessarily good admins make, no matter how much time they spend on IRC. This is not to say that they make bad admins either, but there is more to adminning than pressing 'rollback' and 'block'. In the case of this candidate there is not a lot by way of participation in the community-side of things (where adminning happens, by and large), despite an apparently large number of WP: space edits; they are all to AIAV. Couple that with only about 1.5 months of regular involvement and the experience gains that come with it, and I think that a broader, longer involvement would be needed before handing out an admin bit here. Vandal fighting does not require admin powers, and I do increasingly get the impression that the preponderance of admins in the CVU IRC channel makes people think that it does. -Splash 12:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose. Editing articles (and the engagement in content debates which this almost inevitably involves) is an important experience for an admin. Cynical 14:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose A good user in terms of vandal-fighting, but currently lacks the all-round contributions that I like to see for support. In a few months time I would suggest that this user would have this sufficient level, with more MedCab cases under their belt, for example. --Wisden17 15:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose does not meet 1FA, lacking all-roundedness. - Mailer Diablo 16:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose per Splash and TigerShark. The candidate simply has insufficient experience at this time, especially for a self-nom. Try again in four or five months. Xoloz 17:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
10. Oppose. What Xoloz said. That fencing article would look great with some more references. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
11. Oppose per above. Insufficient experience. Ral315 (talk) 21:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
12. Oppose. Not long enough as a consistent contributor. Needs a bit more experience before becoming an admin. Zaxem 10:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
13. Oppose per Splash. Good vandal fighter but lacks all-roundedness. --Zoz (t) 13:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
14. Oppose per concerns above about lack of all-roundedness. --tomf688 (talk - email) 14:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
15. Not enough experience and per Joturner. --Cyde↔Weys 17:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
16. Oppose. Fails Diablo Test. Anwar 07:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
17. Oppose. Good vandal fighter, but the number of interactions with vandals or editors you disagree on content is so low that it is sheer imposible to tell how you wil deal with serious trolling and abusive vandals that you as admin for sure will have to deal with. Sorry. -- Kim van der Linde 16:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral. I like what i see, and there may be an argument for foisting the mop for vandalism fighting only. But he would also have the power to close AfDs, for example, and there appears to be a real lack of experience in that department. However, since the editor does not seem likely to abuse the mop in an area he is not experienced enough in, i wouldn't like to oppose. So its a neutral from me, with an intention to support should the editor come back with some wider project experience in the future. Rockpocket 03:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
   • May I ask, in what way there is a lack of experience in the AfD cleanup department? - Mailer Diablo 16:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
     • I'm sorry, i didn't make myself very clear there. Let me rephrase. I meant that, in comparison to the high number of edits combating vandalism, project involvement such as AfD activity is somewhat underrepresented. As an admin with the authority to use his tools in these areas, i personally would like to see experience in a wider variety of project and community activities before offering my full support. Rockpocket 18:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
       • Just a little thing about the technical power to close AfD's. Sure, I have it too and yes, I'm not terribly involved in AfD, that exact same question was raised when I was up on the chopping block. I guess it really is a vote for or against specalist admins, and should be considered there. To use Curps's policy DigitalMe will move into closing AfD's if it ever becomes interesting. Alt-D isn't really critical to fighting vandalism :) -- Tawker 04:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
         • I agree. And this is why i have mixed feelings about this candidate. I'm sure he would make a good vandal fighting admin and would support his nomination for such a position, but have little to go on in judging his contributions to other areas. Since we must consider his suitability on more than a specialist skill, i feel unable to support at this time. However, i'd like to reiterate, i have no criticisms of what he has done, just what he hasn't (yet). A little more experience in demonstrating a firm understanding of wider policy and i'll happily support in future. Rockpocket 21:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
2. Neutral. Adminship should be no big deal, digital looks great. I have a higher standard for self-noms, though, so this one's on the fence. +sj + 03:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
3. Neutral User has reverted vandalism tirelessly, which I appreciate, but seems a little too focused on vandalism and doesn't interact enough with other users. I would suggest more talk edits and user talk edits other than vandalism warnings. SCHZMO ✍ 19:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
4. Neutral per Schzmo. I would like to see more variety in activities. Royboycrashfan 21:05, 30 May 2006
5. Neutral right on Royboy... you seem to be on the ball Digitalme... keep'er up!!! - RoyBoy 04:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
6. Neutral, leaning towards support. Ukrained 22:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments User's contributions.Voice-of-All 21:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

--Viewing contribution data for user Digitalme (over the 2552 edit(s) shown on this page)-- (FAQ)
Time range: 355 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 21hr (UTC) -- 31, May, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 23hr (UTC) -- 11, May, 2005
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 100% Minor edits: 99.79%
Average edits per day: 463.32 (for last 500 edit(s))
Analysis of edits (out of all 2552 edits):
Article edit summary use (last 355 edits) : Major article edits: 100% Minor article edits: 100%
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/sourcing): 0.12% (3)
Minor article edits (small content/info/reference additions): 1.84% (47)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 3.72% (95)
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 1638 | Average edits per page: 1.56 | Edits on top: 23.55%
Significant edits (non-minor/reverts): 1.18% (30 edit(s))
Minor edits (non-reverts): 62.58% (1597 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 35.19% (898 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 1.06% (27 edit(s))
Edits by Misplaced Pages namespace:
Article: 37.5% (957) | Article talk: 2.04% (52)
User: 12.23% (312) | User talk: 39.15% (999)
Misplaced Pages: 7.37% (188) | Misplaced Pages talk: 0.51% (13)
Image: 0.16% (4)
Template: 0.86% (22)
Category: 0.04% (1)
Portal: 0.08% (2)
Help: 0.04% (1)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.04% (1)

• See Digitalme's edit summary usage with Mathbot's tool.
• Digitalme's edit count as seen with Interiot's internal edit counter on 05:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC):

Total edits	3051
Distinct pages edited	1994
Average edits/page	1.530
First edit	17:54, 11 May 2005
(main)	1152
Talk	54
User	360
User talk	1208
Image	4
Template	24
Template talk	1
Help	2
Category	1
Misplaced Pages	230
Misplaced Pages talk	13
Portal	2

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: If I was made an admin, I think that I would use the tools to help out with my counter vandalism work. I can't even remember how many times I've gone to WP:AIV to list a vandal, and there are already four or five vandals listed. I would help out wherever help is needed, so if I was needed to do things like close AfDs, clean up a backlog at Speedy Deletions, or anything like that, I would be happy to do it. Anything that makes Misplaced Pages a better place!

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

A: I'd say that I'm most proud of my contributions to the Fencing article, and its related pages, mainly because it is the article that I feel I have the most to add to. I am also proud of my work on reverting vandalism quickly.

Update: I would like to add that I recently wrote Walter E. Scott, so maybe this will allay some of the fears that I can't write articles. --digital_me 03:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

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

A: I have probably been in a few edit conflicts, but none stick out as being particularly severe. If I do encounter one, (and I probably will, at some point) I will treat it as I try to treat everything else: with civility, understanding, and respect for all editors involved.

Question from Yanksox (optional)

4. In what ways aside from dealing with vandalism would you use your admin powers for? Yanksox 01:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe that I already answered this as part of question 1 above, but I will restate it here. If I am made an admin, I plan on using my admin powers where they are neccesary, whether it's a backlog of AfDs to close, a pileup of speedy delete requests, or wherever I am needed.

Questions from JoshuaZ As always, all additional questions are optional.

1 How would you respond to concerns that you have almost no Misplaced Pages space edits other than to WP:AIV?

Looking through my contribs, I see that I have many Misplaced Pages space edits besides those to WP:AIV. Granted, I have a lot of edits to WP:AIV, but I think that that simply reflects how active I am at vandal fighting.

2 How would you respond to concern that you have almost no article space edits that are not either reverting vandalism or minor changes such as removal of {{current}} ?

Again, I see that I have many edits that are reverting vandalism, but if you take a more careful look, there are many edits in there which are not reverting vandalism. Before I became heavily involved in vandal fighting, I made many edits to articles. I have always tried to work on improving articles, whether by wikifying them, or by cleaning them up.

Question from KimvdLinde As always, all additional questions are optional.

1 One of the things you can get involved in as an admin is conflict resolution. I see that you have only 47 talk page edits, of which 40% is vandalism reverts. The user talk page edits are almost exclusively vandalism and related warnings. Do you think you have enough experience with discussing with other editors about content and especially, in conflict situations?

A: I have had several of my reverts contested by other editors, and each time, I was able to talk it over with them in a civil manner, even if they were hostile. I have also discussed article content on several talk pages, so I think that I have experience discussing content with other editors.

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

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

Osbus

Final (9/27/5) ended 16:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Osbus (talk · contribs) – I've been around for a few months and have amassed about 1500 edits (for those of you who think that thats the most important thing in RfA). Before registering, I contributed as an anon and read through some WP policies due to curiosity of the Misplaced Pages project. Since registering, I have contributed to all parts of WP and have decided the main areas in which I contribute can benefit from my having certain capabilities. Thus, I feel I can further WP goals and scopes with some admin tools. Btw, I'm an admin over at a site called Philowiki, so I've had experience deleting, doing rollback, and blocking users for repeated vandalism.Osbus 16:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept my self-nom. --Osbus 16:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

BTW, did I ever get a sex change? --Osbus 20:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you swap names with User:Demi. Everyone assumes he's a girl. And it's your own fault, wouldn't have been an issue if someone else had nominated you :P The Land 19:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979 17:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
2. Weak support. Would prefer more experience, but likely won't abuse the tools. RadioKirk talk to me 17:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
3. Support meets my criteria. ShortJason 21:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
4. Support Participates his share into Concordia, seems an unlikely guy to abuse his position. JRA WestyQld2 02:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
5. Support. Meets my criteria. DarthVader 04:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
6. Support. Not likely to abuse his broom. Mostly Rainy 12:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
7. Moral Support Give it a month --Mahogany 14:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
8. Support. Active member in the community and unlike to abuse admin tools. SCHZMO ✍ 20:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

   Strong Support. Xoloz 14:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

   This vote was by the impostor account User:XoIoz. RadioKirk talk to me 15:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

   Support. --Froggy 14:48, 1 June 2006

   Vote made by an IP. Struck out. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

   Support because its no big deal. Babylon5 15:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

   User has never voted. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

   Support Reggae Sanderz 16:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

   Marked as ppossible sockpuppet. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

   Support per Babylon5 RFAvotebot33 18:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

   Note: this is the user's first edit. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/!? 18:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

   So? What's your point? RFAvotebot33 19:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

   What the hell? Username block, anyone? --Rory096 21:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

   And done, good. Indenting this vote.--Rory096 21:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

   Of course.  :) Vitriouxc 19:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

   User's 6th edit, userpage says he "signed up for the polls." --Rory096 21:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

   Ignored. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

9. Support per Babylon5 --t ALL IN c 23:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose, too few edits to the article namespace. Naconkantari 16:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose: With all due respect, I wasn't satisfied with answers below. Doesn't prove a thorough enough knowledge of Misplaced Pages. Maybe try again some other time down the road, after you've had more experience with edit conflicts and whatnot. :) -→Buchanan-Hermit™/!? 17:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
3. I am indefinably uneasy about your answers to the questions (in particular, the lack of any stressful interactions; all users will come across a few, and the number increases exponentially once you become an admin and other editors start to think you should solve all their problems for them). That's not in itself enough for me to oppose, but combine it with your involvement with Concordia and I'm far from sold on this idea. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 17:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose The answer to Tawker's first question might have been enough. Why wouldn't you report it to WP:RCU? Also, isn't AfD a debate not a ballot? Yanksox 19:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose Same as other users. Not enough article namespace edits, and I am not satisfied at all with the answers below. Support next time maybe. ForestH2
6. Oppose I was prepared to support, albeit weakly, believing the user unlikely to abuse the tools, but I am not at all confident, in view of the question answers given (by which I am troubled in the same fashion as are Mark, Yank, and Forest), that the user would use the mop, etc., properly; even as I don't think he/she would be intentionally disruptive, I can conceive of situations in which his/her misunderstanding of policy might be problematic. Joe 20:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose - my question 1 troubles me a bit, I'd like to see some attempts at communication first, I'm also concerned about burnout. Adminship does not really increase one's productivity (it actually decreases it, you get stuck in admin tasks and no real editing :-o ) -- Tawker 20:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose per most of the above, and question 5, and edit summary usage. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 21:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
9. Opposewould block vandals, but I found no vandal warnings or reports to AIV. I would like to see more experience in doing that. Thanks :) Dlohcierekim 22:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
10. Oppose Has a decent amount of experience & edits, but his answer to Tawker's first question scared me. I got the impression that he might block first and ask questions later, which is never a good thing. Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 22:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

    Thanks for the comment. Yes, I would block, but during the probation period, I'd try to talk to the user. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. Btw, a block for a week is pretty lenient for doing abusive sockpuppetry when one clearly knows it is wrong. --Osbus 22:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

    But that is why WP:RCU is for. It is so that you can have suspicions verified. Yanksox 22:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

    Yes, but in this theoretical situation, my suspicions are verified. (or at least, I thought they were).--Osbus 22:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

11. Opppose. Very good user, but the relatively limited areas of contributions and the short answers to questions make me question your practical policy knowledge at the minute. Try again in a few months, the extra experience will do you the world of good. The Land 22:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
12. Oppose. The answers to Tawker questions 1, 5 and 6 are very wrong. Especially the punitive parts of the answer to #1, the entirety of the answer to #5 and the use of the word "majority" in #6. Given #5 and #6, the answer to the very first question is dubious, since it claims the candidate is well-versed in AfD, when the converse is true. Evidently, the candidate needs substantially more experience of the practises, process and policies involved in some very basic parts of being an admin. Take several months to look around, read around generally "be" around and come back then. -Splash 22:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

    Thanks for the comments...however, what are the "right" answers? Remember, I'm here to learn. --Osbus 23:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

13. Oppose, lacks of experience and edits. --Terence Ong 02:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
14. Oppose, answers don't convince me. Might support in the future. Also, that's a fair use image on your user page. Garion96 02:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
15. Oppose heart in the right place, but needs more grasp of the nitty gritty to stop suspected sockpuppets from determining an outcome, and take that fair use image off your user page please. Wiki doesn't consider that to be fair use!!! Tyrenius 06:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
16. Neutral Oppose overall a good contributor, however the low amount of minor edits to the main space (could be increased by looking and tagging articles that need improvment, cleanup, or to be wikified) is a tad concerning. Answer to 1) does concern me a little. I also dislike (although it is likely not the candidates fault) the public spamming on WT:CCD (which I have reverted), and the notes on user talk pages to people who have interacted with him. Sorry. Ian13/talk 10:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

    Changed to oppose because of the answer to Twakers first question, I think talking with the user and checkuser (if they are well liked and have contributed positively) would be a better course of action (at least). Ah yes, and the fair use image, a prospective admin should have corrected that before coming here, and be aware of such policies. Ian13/talk 10:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

17. Oppose per Naconkantar. --Andeh 11:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
18. Oppose Needs more experience.--Jusjih 13:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
19. Oppose. Clearly needs more experience. Has a fair use image on his/her user page, even though I had reminded him/her of it earlier. , . S/he clearly does not understand copyrights. He/She is indeed a good user but inexperienced. --Andy123 15:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
20. Oppose, fails 1FA. - Mailer Diablo 16:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
21. Oppose, too few mainspace edits. --digital_me 18:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
22. Oppose experience — ßottesiηi 01:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
23. Oppose. Needs more experience. --tomf688 (talk - email) 14:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
24. Oppose. Fails Diablo Test. Anwar 07:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

    Oppose A "few months" isn't long enough for admin in my oppinion.--Andeh 00:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC) duplicate vote - Tangotango 07:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

    One oppose vote wasnt enough for you? ;) --Osbus 21:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

25. Oppose Seems like a nice user. Will make a good admin in not too long. Keep up the good work --Samir धर्म 19:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
26. Oppose for now. You seem like you have a level head, but you just need some more experience. -- DakPowers (Talk) 03:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
27. Oppose nothing bad I see, but need more experience. Come back after some more (main) namespace edits. -Goldom (t) (Review) 04:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

• Neutral I am troubled by the answer to question 1 (which had it's language recently altered). Yanksox 17:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

  Yes, I have problems saying what I mean the first time. :) --Osbus 17:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

1. Neutral concerning to see more WP edits than Article. Also, the fact you only have 3 minor edits in the mainspace is concerning. Sorry mate, 3 months and I'll support. Computerjoe's talk 18:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
2. Neutral per above. -- Shizane _contribs 18:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
3. Neutral but he did provide helpful commentary through the peer review process for an article I was working on and it was most appreciated. That's really the only encounter I've had with this editor to my recollection, however. --Strothra 22:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
4. Neutral. Some experience comes with time. Royboycrashfan 21:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
5. Weak Neutral Has enough experience and edits, and sounds like he knows what an admin does. But the first question from Tawker makes me feel weird, and doesn't use edit summaries enough. — Brendenhull (T + C) at 16:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• See Osbus' _{(Talk ▪ Contributions ▪ Logs ▪ Block Logs)} contributions as of 21:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC) using Interiot's tool:

Username Osbus
Total edits 1538
Distinct pages edited 606
Average edits/page 2.538
First edit 19:19, January 20, 2006
(main) 214
Talk 16
User 184
User talk 265
Image 3
Template 42
Template talk 7
Category 2
Misplaced Pages 458
Misplaced Pages talk 235
Portal 103
Portal talk 9

• All user's contributions using User:Voice of All's tool (at User:Voice of All/UsefulJS).

--Viewing contribution data for user Osbus (over the 1537 edit(s) shown on this page)--  (FAQ)
Time range: 131 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 20hr (UTC) -- 29, May, 2006
Oldest edit on: 18hr (UTC) -- 20, January, 2006
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 42.83% Minor edits: 90%
Article edit summary use (last 179 edits) : Major article edits: 76.4% Minor article edits: 100%
Average edits per day: 15.87 (for last 500 edit(s))
Marked notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/sourcing): 0.07% (1)
Unique pages edited: 593 | Average edits per page: 2.59 | Edits on top: 10.41%
Breakdown of all edits:
Significant edits (non-minor/reverts): 19.19% (295 edit(s))
Minor edits (non-reverts): 3.64% (56 edit(s))
Marked reverts: 8.13% (125 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 69.03% (1061 edit(s))
Edits by Misplaced Pages namespace:
Article: 13.92% (214) | Article talk: 1.04% (16)
User: 12.23% (188) | User talk: 17.24% (265)
Misplaced Pages: 29.47% (453) | Misplaced Pages talk: 15.29% (235)
Image: 0.2% (3)
Template: 2.73% (42)
Category: 0.13% (2)
Portal: 6.7% (103)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 1.04% (16) 

• See Osbus's 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:To be truthful, the only tools I'd use is the delete button and rollback, as I participate mainly in AfD, MfD, and do same RC and Recent Pages Patrolling.

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

A: This is one of the places where all the oppose votes will come from, but I'll still say now I'm proud of Concordia. It wasn't easy overcoming criticism, doing the advertising, or trying to convince fellow Concordians of the views I held. I'm just happy with everything I've done for Misplaced Pages and hope to improve it further.

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: No, I have not.

Well, now that I think of it, I did have a stressful morning involving me, my computer's filter, and Dijxtra. As I was editing on a laptop I usually didn't use, I didn't know that it had a content filter. Therefore, when I edited an article, I would edit out other people's comments and unintentionally vandalize. When Dijxtra left me vandalism warnings, I was one frightened n00b and asked Dijxtra of where I had vandalized. Having gotten no response and more vandalism warnings, the situation was resolved with civil discussion. --Osbus 18:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Question from Yanksox (opitional)

4. I noticed that you reverted this edit of yours , can you still explain it? Also, how would you respond to comments that think that you are only interesting in using admin powers to enforce beliefs and not do other important tasks? Yanksox 16:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I reverted that since it was an incivil statement that didn't need to be said...I apologize if it offended anyone. As for the second question, I am planning to use admin tools to enforce my beliefs- my beliefs that Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia and therefore should not contain unencyclopedic material (vandalism, nn articles, etc). --Osbus 16:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I also looked up Philiowiki, exactly how old is that site and what admin duties do you do there? Yanksox 17:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Not sure exactly how old it is, but its been around for about a year or so. I joined early April, and during that time have redesigned the main page, blocked users, and have done rollbacks. --Osbus 17:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

A question from HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs)

5. Could you say more about your involvement with Concordia? Can you point us to a particular achievement of yours within Concordia? Can you point us to something particular that Concordia achieved that you were proud to be part of? --16:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and that is Concordia's major improvemnt from Community Justice. As the name and logos differed from the goals we had in mind, I and a few other councillors advocated a change. At first, there was quite some opposition, but through discussion and some determination, changes have been made. Concordia, although far from perfect, is improving. --Osbus 16:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

OK so far, but other than its name change can you point us to something positive that Concordia/CJ has done for Misplaced Pages? --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 18:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm still not sure about you, below is my optional set of questions, these usually help me decide one way or another -- 17:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Tawker stolen borrowed from JoshuaZ and Rob Church and NSLE. They are 100% 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. You can also remove the questions you don't want to touch if you like. :)

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 I would first indefinitely block the various sockpuppets and tag them. I'd also block the user for a week or so. After the block, I'd put the user on probation.

2. 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 talk to the other admin, and if I am convinced, then I will respect his/her decisions. If I am not, I would follow up with mediation. If I eventually go to ArbCom and they reject my case, I would then use my judgement to solve it myself.

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

   A I would eliminate the use of Trivia sections (note: the header, not the info itself) in all articles.

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

   A User:AllAmericansDeserveToBeCrappedon who posts the address, phone #, school, and age of a non-consenting user and makes personal attacks on that user.

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

   A I'd keep, and no, I wouldn't answer any differently b/c as far as I know, those votes were legit. --Osbus 19:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

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

   A Well, there has to be enough for a majority...so, at least 3.

7. 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 Yes.

8. Why do you want to be an administrator?

   A To increase my productivity on Misplaced Pages.

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

   A Technical.

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.

MJCdetroit

Final: 14/26/5 ended 15:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)