Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:09, 12 October 2004

• ]

Requests for adminship (not to be confused with requests for arbitration at WP:RFAr) is a page to nominate yourself or others to become a Misplaced Pages administrator, also known as "sysop". Admins have access to a few technical features that help with Misplaced Pages maintenance. Please see the reading list and how-to guide before applying here. For current admins, see the list of administrators; for users who were recently made administrators, see recently created admins. Boilerplate questions for candidates can be inserted using {{subst:Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Candidate questions}}.

Rules

Administrator status is granted to known and trusted members of the community who are familiar with Misplaced Pages policies. Administrators have no special authority on Misplaced Pages, but are held to higher standards, because they are perceived by many, particularly new, users as the official face of Misplaced Pages. Therefore they should take care to be courteous, and exercise good judgment and patience in dealing with other users. Nominees should have been on Misplaced Pages long enough for people to see whether they have these qualities. Most new administrators have over three months of participation and over 1000 edits. You may nominate yourself, but it is advisable to exceed usual expectations before doing so.

Nominations remain for seven days so the community can vote and comment on the nomination. Bureaucrats may extend this when consensus is unclear (because consensus is subjective, bureaucrats have some discretion, but the threshold on this page is roughly 80% support). Nominations which are clearly not going to gain sufficient support may be removed earlier to prevent discussions that generate ill will; however, as most editors don't visit Misplaced Pages daily, a reasonable amount of time should be allowed. Some people oppose early removal under any circumstances. If your nomination is rejected, please wait a reasonable period of time before applying again.

To add your vote, edit the section for that candidate. You may add a short comment to your vote, but discussion and responses to other comments belong in the Comments section below every nomination. When voting, please update the vote tally of the nomination that you are voting in. The vote tally format is as follows: (Support/Oppose/Neutral).

Anonymous users cannot be nominated, nominate others, or vote. They are allowed to comment.

Template:RfAInstructions

Current nominations

Note: Nominations have to be accepted by the user in question. If you nominate a user, please also leave a message on their talk page and ask them to reply here if they accept the nomination.

Current time is 03:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Hawstom

Vote here

(21/4/0) ending 17:34 18 October 2004 (UTC)

Tom has had 1356 edits since 4 September 2004 2003, knows a lot about religion, and is strongly dedicated to NPOV. He's very skilled at seeking and reaching consensus, even on very tough topics. His style of writing is amazing. Kim Bruning 17:40, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Note: Rather than alter someone else's words, I'll just note that I am positive Kim means that Hawstom began here in 2003. He's certainly been around longer than 5 weeks -- I've seen his work on different pages for months and months. Jwrosenzweig 22:46, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Accept Thank you, Kim, for this kind, unsolicited extension of trust. Regardless of the outcome, your goodwill stirs me ever the more to live up to your expectations. Tom - Talk 16:53, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Support

1. I checked and discovered he wasn't an admin yet. ;-) Kim Bruning 17:40, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
2. —No-One Jones  19:09, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
3. I'm pretty familiar with his work on Misplaced Pages, and he's a really good, NPOV contributor, particularly on religion issues. He's devoted to Misplaced Pages policies, and he's been actively involved in resolving a number of significant POV disputes; for good examples, see Talk:Mormonism and Christianity and Talk:Human. COGDEN 20:16, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
4. ugen64 20:48, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
5. Tom has fewer edits, in my opinion, because he works on contentious articles, and, unlike so many of us, he works slowly and carefully to establish a consensus version of a contentious passage before adding it. Rather than accumulate edits in the article space by hammering out a version in back and forth, he accumulates those edits on the talk page -- preferable, in my opinion. Another fine editor with the perfect demeanor for admin who should not be penalized for his careful style simply because it generates fewer edits than those of us who forget to hit "Show Preview". Jwrosenzweig 20:59, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
6. Everyking 21:04, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
7. You've got the right idea. I apologise, I thought you'd been around since September 2004. ;) -- Grunt 🇪🇺 21:10, 2004 Oct 11 (UTC)
8. ] 00:35, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
9. I've worked with Tom and find him to be a patient, knowledgeable, and effective consensus-builder. If sysops are to be wikipedia's diplomats, Tom is a top-notch candidate. He edits, reverts, and adds impressive content to explosively POV subjects. His mine-walking should be acknowledged. Cool Hand Luke 06:59, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
10. I like what I see. {Ανάριον} 08:28, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
11. ℛyan! | Talk 11:21, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
12. 172 12:36, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
13. –Andre (talk) 14:16, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
14. Michael Snow 15:54, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
15. I know that my vote here will have no effect on how he treats what I say. ---Rednblu

    • I'm questioning the appropriateness of Rednblu's vote here when at this moment Hawstom is mediating serious allegations] against him. This seems highly inappropriate. Comments anyone?--FeloniousMonk 08:18, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

16. Knowledge and courtesy are okay in my book. Mackensen 03:00, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
17. Should have been done a long time ago - Tom gets my support. -Visorstuff 18:44, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
18. I was originally going to oppose because most of Tom's article-related edits are focused on religious topics. It's generally a good thing to have admins with broad interests. But then I remembered that religion is a ridiculuously huge target for POV warriors; WP:RFC attracts Zionism like a magnet. In Tom, we have a reasonable, thick-skinned editor who prefers religion as a topic. On top of this, he follows the NPOV policy, acts as a mediator, and has said "I would most likely not initially use my administrative privileges at all". Whoa. Tom has my full support. • Benc • 01:07, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
19. Skimmed through his history, and I'm impressed: consensus builder, and dedicated to NPOV. Also answered question 3 well. func(talk) 23:59, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
20. uc 14:39, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
21. Support. ffirehorse 20:20, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Seems like a very nice user, prone to discussing things rationally and with courtesy. Problem is the 1356 edits; of those, 457 are in Talk:, 370 in User:, and only 23 are in Misplaced Pages:. The rest of edits in a very narrow scope surrounding the religion subject. Sorry, doesn't meet my personal standards, since we can't gauge readiness. -- Netoholic @ 18:16, 2004 Oct 11 (UTC)
2. Agree with Netoholic. --Lst27 20:23, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
3. Far too few edits by my standards. Would probably support after 2,000 edits and a wider variety in topics edited. blankfaze | (беседа!) 20:43, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

   I cannot in good faith support someone this new to the community, even with more than 1000 edits. You've got the right idea; come back in a month and a half. :) -- Grunt 🇪🇺 21:03, 2004 Oct 11 (UTC)

4. Based on my recent experience with Hawstom mediating an dispute over a user's alleged POV campaigning in bad faith, I can not recommend Hawstom as an Admin. Though I do not doubt his initial intention to remain objective, in the mediation he publicly slipped a number of times in being overly deferential to one party and made several explicit and implied statements favoring one party in the mediation, both on User talk pages and by email. His NPOV in the dispute was far from complete/optimal. Hawstom also was unaware of the wikipolicy on Refactoring, a policy central to the allegations, and only became aware of it when I pointed it out. His method for resolving the dispute was lengthy, inefficient and did not produce tangible results. Questionable tactics employed by one party in the mediation went unchecked by Hawstom, as did a number of ad hominems. Additionally, Hawstom failed to respond/reply to my 5 emails sent in reply to his contacting me. When asked about this, he promised to respond to them but still has not. In defense of Hawstom he had a prior friendly working relationship with the defendant, so remaining genuinely neutral would have been a real struggle for anyone. But that also causes me to wonder why Hawstom initiated the mediation (I did not seek it), and that he mediate it, in the first place.--FeloniousMonk 07:31, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• I'm sure that FeloniousMonk is acting in good faith here, but as full disclosure, I'd like point out that FeloniousMonk is involved in said mediation. Kim Bruning 08:28, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Your additional disclosure is appreciated, but it was already apparent to anyone who followed the links to the mediation I've provided several times. I've never attempted hide my role. My opinion is the result of my direct personal experience with Hawstom. Please note Kim that you fail to make the same pointed full disclosure statement for Rednblu, also a participant in the mediation, who voted in support of Hawstom above. Being that you're the person who made the initial nomination for adminship, singling one out for mild censure while ignoring others could appear to be subtle cronyism. I'm curious why is it you only responded thusly to one who's position you disagree with, while ignoring another identically involved individual who's position you support? I've already voiced my concerns here about appearances of propriety.--FeloniousMonk 19:06, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • You did the disclosure for Rednblu yourself. Kim Bruning 20:48, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but had you disclosed Rednblu's role, I would not have had to do so myself. Your reply here does not explain why you did not, nor does it address your reason for waiting to do so, and then only for my vote, until I voted in opposition. Based on what is seen here you apparently only insist on adding disclosures to those votes that differ from your own opinion in support of Hawstom. Fairness would dictate otherwise I think.--FeloniousMonk 06:39, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • It's called Tit for Tat. Kim Bruning 10:20, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Is that in the spirit of wikipedia? Time will tell whether my concerns over favoritism and cronyism based on what I've seen here are justified; patterns seldom fade. Thanks for your contribution clarifying my concerns.--FeloniousMonk 18:40, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I think you missed the point. See your user talk. Kim Bruning 19:28, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

• One voter above expresses a concern about Hawstom working on a "very narrow" area and I wonder how that's a bad thing. The lead quote on my user page is "Try to learn something about everything and everything about something." A specialist, patrolling his fields, seems preferable to expecting him to police everything. There are certain areas in Misplaced Pages I've never gone into--e.g. the hard sciences, religion--even where I have an interest because I don't trust myself to be able to competently contribute. Strother Martin in Cool Hand Luke was right: "A man's got to know his limitations." PedanticallySpeaking 17:53, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • After being questioned often about other votes where I expressed that, I made up a personal page about my thoughts. There are two concerns when someone, who wants to be an admin, works on a very narrow scope of articles. First, there are a lot of maintenance tasks to be done here and admins are expected to do a lot of them, by virtue of those abilities granted. I myself tend to confine my major edits to a narrow scope of articles where I have particular knowledge – nothing wrong with that. An admin candidate should show willingness to work outside their area doing what's needed, and many copyedit or maintenance tasks don't require major knowledge in that other area. My second concern is that an admin candidate, who is too tied to a subject area or a few articles, will cross the line and abuse the admin abilities to inappropriately "protect" that area of interest. It certainly has happened before. -- Netoholic @ 18:39, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)
    • That first argument is totally flawed logic. We don't have a limited number of adminship positions. If someone is an admin, and only uses the extra abilities very rarely or in a very limited area, they are still helping take a little of the load off the others. I rarely use my admin-flagged abilities any more, but I don't abuse them and when I do use them it saves someone else the trouble. Isomorphic 18:50, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • Sorry if I'm confused - are you replying to my comments? I never said anything about a limited number of admin positions. -- Netoholic @ 19:57, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)

Comments

• I appreciate his efforts to mediate allegations of bad faith and NPOV at ], and will base my future vote up or down by 10/18 based on his objectivity and performance there.--FeloniousMonk 18:33, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In reply to Felonius's remark, I don't think it's policy-wise wrong for Rednblu to vote, as Hawstom is mediating in an unofficial capacity. Honestly, even if Hawstom was acting as an official mediator or arbitrator in a case involving Rednblu, I don't think there's any policy opposing that. Ethically, I think each person has to decide on their own. It may be a mark of Rednblu's great esteem for Hawstom's fairness, in that he knows that Hawstom is an honest and just enough person not to be swayed by such things. That's my reaction. Jwrosenzweig 21:41, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I appreciate your response. I bring it up because outside of wikipedia, many organizations preclude plaintiffs/defendants from actively supporting a action that benefits the judge to avoid the appearance of impropriety, quid pro quo/one hand washing the other, etc.--FeloniousMonk 07:31, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

A. While 1) I sincerely thank Kim Bruning for extending the Misplaced Pages hand of trust to me, 2) I understand that adminship is to be "not a big deal", and 3) I therefore accept this unsolicited nomination, I am not schooled in the particular reasons why more admins are needed, and what chores I might best do. I would most likely not initially use my administrative privileges at all, and I anticipate I would slowly begin to use them as I became more appreciative of the need for them. I have only recently begun to feel my community duty to the larger scope of Misplaced Pages, answering RFCs and welcoming anonymous editors. These forms of "spreading my wings" don't require admin privileges. So I leave it to my peers to judge whether I will soon be finding need for admin privileges as my sense of duty expands further. Tom - Talk 16:53, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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

A. As I indicate on my user page, I am most pleased with the team efforts that have brought NPOV success to Mormonism and Christianity and Human. I am also recently pleased with my recently blossoming efforts in welcoming newcomers and helping other Wikipedians feel valued and understood. Tom - Talk 16:53, 13 Oct 2004 (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 will deal with it in the future?

A. Thanks to the shining example of Angela who first welcomed me gently in September 2003 when I created all kinds of new-user technical havoc, I have never felt the desire to be at odds with any user. Energetic User:BoNoMoJo caused me great stress with some very difficult e-mails at one time, but I thankfully was able to respond cooly. Wonderful Wesley caused me stress (not by any irresponsibility of his) early on, but I don't think I ever allowed that stress to affect our relationship. I have been fortunate to have dealt with all potential conflicts with patience, kindness, and respect. I hope to continue to do the same always. For an example of my worst behavior (pushing too hard, sacrificing relationship for issue), see Talk:Utah War.

Gwalla

Vote here

(21/4/2) ending 20:55 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Gwalla is careful & well-informed, contributing to a variety of topics (see his user page). Reserved & focused in exchanges with other editors. Someone I consider a solid contributor. He has contributed more than 1500 edits since January 2004. Wile E. Heresiarch 20:55, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I humbly accept Mr. Heresiarch's nomination. — Gwalla | Talk 23:48, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Support

1. Wile E. Heresiarch 20:55, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
2. Graham ☺ | Talk 21:16, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
3. CryptoDerk 22:58, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC). Being active behind the scenes shouldn't preclude someone from being an admin. After an in depth look at his edits, his talk page, his discussions, and his logic, he appears to me to be ideal admin material.
4. Certainly a good grasp of policy as evidenced by VFD contributions. Also note that his edits prior to about August were completely VFD-free, which makes up for any bias against him for this reason. For the record, he does have more than 2000 edits. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 23:36, 2004 Oct 10 (UTC)
5. Seems solid. Since he's done so much VfD work, I took a close look at it—his votes seem to be much in line with community consensus, and on more controversial topics he justifies his opinion well. —Stormie 01:53, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
6. I've had numerous interactions with Gwalla, and all were positive. Very reasonable and hard-working editor, perhaps with a mild VfD addiction, but I've seen nothing but excellent article-related edits too. • Benc • 04:38, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
7. — Kate Turner | Talk 10:38, 2004 Oct 11 (UTC)

   {Ανάριον} 11:42, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

8. If anything, the VfD work is a plus -- VfD is one of the 'policy areas' of Misplaced Pages, and mature contributions there, in addition to the more general areas of the site, are a plus. I feel Gwalla has contributed well to Misplaced Pages. --Improv 18:04, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
9. Michael Snow 20:06, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
10. Go Gwalla! Support! And endorsed by Heresiarch as well. - RedWordSmith 05:20, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
11. ℛyan! | Talk 11:23, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
12. Examined a number of user's edits in main and talk namespaces; all are good as far as I've seen. Appears willing and able to explain himself when necessary, to distinguish between his personal interests and the good of Misplaced Pages, and to resolve disputes amicably and according to policy. Level of attention to VfD is abnormal, but an examination of voting patterns does not suggest an agenda (especially since the number of articles he nominates is relatively low), and a willingness to participate in this administrative task seems like an argument for adminship, not against it. —Triskaideka 21:58, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
13. Wolfman 04:43, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
14. All of the user's edits seem to be in good faith. If one of the detractors could cite concrete examples of a frivolous deletion, it might make more sense. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:36, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
15. Absolutely. I also think people opposing on the basis that he thinks most of the VfD nominators are correct are missing the spirit of the project. Our users nominate for VfD wisely, for the most part, so it's not surprising to see mainly "delete" votes. Will Gwalla be a good administrator? Absolutely. Geogre 00:55, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

    My concern is that there seems to be an unwillingness on the part of Gwalla and many other regulars on Vfd to even try to improve an article rather than delete it. I have seen quite a few articles that could have been saved with a little effort deleted, Nacho King! comes to mind. If Gwalla can produce evidence that he has previously worked to improve articles posted on Vfd, I am willing to change my vote. -JCarriker 02:07, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

16. Strong support. Being a deletionist is not a valid reason to oppose adminship. Ambi 06:43, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
17. Slightly overzealous VfDing gives me a lack of clear sense of this user. Vote moved to support. –Andre (talk) 15:25, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
18. Weak oppose. I am primarily concerned with his eagerness to delete articles without even trying to improve them.-JCarriker 05:26, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC) Support. Gwalla has addressed my concerns. -JCarriker 22:27, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
19. Good edits, including in VfD. No evidence of serious conflicts with others. func(talk) 14:19, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
20. ffirehorse 20:34, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
21. Good unbiased edits in VfD. jni 14:22, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Approximately 70% of his recent contributions have to do with VfD. Oppose. Sorry. --Lst27
2. I'm with Lst on this one. Over 1000 VfD votes logged in the last 2 months, vast majority are deletes. With no significant edits outside of VfD and a lot of repetitive minor edits, not sure how we can gauge his readiness for adminship. (my views on admin noms) -- Netoholic @ 21:36, 2004 Oct 10 (UTC)
3. I agree. User is a bit too VfD-zealous. Any way, not enough edits in my book. Would possibly support after 2,000 edits and a branch out in his contribs. blankfaze | (беседа!) 22:37, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
4. Too little edits, too many deletions. {Ανάριον} 08:28, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I agree with both blankfaze and Grunt. Come back in three weeks or so. ] 23:39, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)
2. Hey, I check Vfd often as well, but I think Gwalla spends a little too much time doing so. I'd like to see more and larger-scale edits to articles. As of now, I have a hard time evaluating how he interacts with other users. --Slowking Man 06:00, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Comments

• Gwalla has more than 2000 edits.
• I think its admirable someone is paying such close attention to the VfD ballots--he has far more tolerance for it than I--and isn't this the sort of administrative work we're looking for? PedanticallySpeaking 17:45, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
• Out of interest, why are we taking into consideration the amount of VfD work Gwalla has performed? My question is posed because that adminship is a responsibility where the person will need to be aware of the VfD process and other Misplaced Pages policies reasonably well, and I feel extensive balanced work here would be a plus for the community. Also, if Gwalla's work on VfD has been moderate, balanced and diplomatic (haven't looked at this closely yet) it might be that he/she will also be very good at arbritration disputes. To play devil's advocate on my own points, however, it may be that we want a balanced of encyclopaedia articles and meta stuff, in which Gwalla might be seen as somewhat lacking. Thoughts? - Ta bu shi da yu 23:48, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Tuba, you're right, of course. Someone who goes to VfD often ought to be considered more worthy of adminship than less. Netoholic brought up the issue, and I'm a little surprised to see people following it. JCarricker's point in general is, in general, a good one that every single Wikipedian's conscience should be pricked by. That said, I know that I've saved more than a few from deletion, but I haven't saved anywhere nearly as many as I could have. The reason is simple: VfD isn't Clean Up. I'm not dismissing JCarricker's concerns at all, but the simple truth is that when something gets to VfD, we are supposed to be deciding strictly whether something should stay or not. The Clean Up process has been overwhelmed as surely as VfD has, and far too few people work there, but I don't think anyone can be blamed for not saving articles on VfD, even if anyone who does so should be praised for having done so. If anyone asks me if VfD and Clean Up are broken, I'll say "yes," but conflating the two isn't the answer. Geogre 03:24, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• My concern is not to place blame as to why Vfd is flawed but to see if there is a part of Gwalla that is concerned that it is broken. If his response is as eloquent and thoughtful as yours Geogre, I'll remove my opposition and may even consider supporting the nomination. -JCarriker 03:49, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • I think it's less a matter of VfD being broken than that Cleanup is—cleanup's just flooded (and I have participated in cleanup, although not as much as I should). I have tried to rescue some articles (most recently, Man-Faye), but in general I think the functions should be kept separate. For one thing, the more VfD takes over the job of Cleanup, the more articles will be put on VfD because they need to be fixed up rather than deleted. — Gwalla | Talk 21:18, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• • Thanks, that answers my question. -JCarriker 22:27, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

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

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

A. I would participate in Votes for Undeletion and scan Recent Changes for vandalism. I don't expect to do much speedy-deleting, as I prefer the VfD process in most cases.

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

A. I'm pretty pleased with Initiation (phonetics), Tod Browning, and List of web comics.

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 will deal with it in the future?

A. I was involved in a small conflict over tengwar, which was resolved amicably. Some users have caused me some stress, but I take it in stride, since nothing that happens on Misplaced Pages can really cause me harm. Decisions I think are poor are, at worst, small, short-term setbacks to the project, and at best are cases in which I'm wrong (hey, it happens).

Slowking Man

Vote here

(37/1/0) ends 10:08, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This is truly one of those "I can't believe he's not a sysop" moments. Chris is a careful and conscientious contributor, doing heaps of WikiChores and VandalBusting. I took a long browse through his more recent contributions and couldn't find anything negative at all to dissuade me from listing him on RfA. In fact, I saw so many hand-performed reversions that I felt he would have a good use for the sysop rollback feature. Chris has been here on Misplaced Pages since April, and as I write this, he has 1439 edits. - Mark 10:08, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I gratefully accept Mark's nomination. --Slowking Man 15:08, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

Support

1. Mark 10:08, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
2. David Cannon 11:23, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC): I've seen Slowkingman around, and I like what I see. Give it to him.
3. For sure. --ℛyan! | Talk 13:14, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
4. Of course, great guy. :-) --Conti|✉ 15:55, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
5. CryptoDerk 16:48, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
6. Some names just give that feeling of a trusted editor. JFW | T@lk 20:14, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
7. WHAT? SLOWKING IS NOT AN ADMIN? Seriously, I've seen him forever on the IRC channel, and I never doubted for a moment that he (subst. she if female) was a long-standing administrator, who undoubtedly received a unanimous RFA, only to discover that he was on RFA at this moment... very long-winded and most noble support :) ugen64 22:40, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

   Please sign in properly. Anonymous votes cannot be counted. David Cannon 20:56, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

   Argh, missed that... sorry :) ugen64 22:40, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

8. ffirehorse 22:07, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
9. Agree with Ugen (at least, for the first sentence! :). -- Grunt 🇪🇺 22:41, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)
10. Definitely. RickK 22:52, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
11. Michael Snow 22:56, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
12. I, too, thought he was already an administrator. --John Kerry + John Edwards 2004 23:41, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
13. By all means. Ðåñηÿßôý | Talk 00:17, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
14. Mike H 01:13, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
15. I would have bet the house that he was already one! Even more surprising is his low edit count. But I will waive my standards here, coz I like the chap. blankfaze | (беседа!) 01:41, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
16. — Kate Turner | Talk 01:46, 2004 Oct 6 (UTC)
17. Absolutely. Mackensen 04:59, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
18. Of course! –Andre (talk) 14:49, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
19. Acegikmo1 17:09, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
20. Fire Star 18:55, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
21. squash 21:09, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC) Apart from 'trout slapping' in the IRC room :- ... I think you are O.K and should be an admin :-)
22. "I can't believe it's not a sysop!" (TM) ] 22:16, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
23. ] 04:41, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
24. Sjc 05:03, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
25. ] 21:59, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
26. I think Slowking is trustworthy. →Raul654 02:14, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
27. Tuf-Kat 03:05, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
28. Completely agree with Mark. I had actually considered nominating him a few days prior (no, really!) but feared his relatively low edit count would be a criticism (one which I do not hold). He does great work. -- Hadal 06:56, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
29. Checking edit history... hmm, further back... further... Mop! Bucket! Keyring! Now!  :-) SWAdair | Talk 07:48, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
30. Man, he should be working double shifts with Kingturtle. +sj+ 08:51, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
31. Ambi 15:30, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
32. At the risk of sounding cliche...whaddayamean he ain't an admin?!? There. Cliche has passed. I still support! - Lucky 6.9 01:06, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
33. GeneralPatton 20:57, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
34. Graham ☺ | Talk 21:17, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
35. • Benc • 10:12, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
36. {Ανάριον} 11:43, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
37. -JCarriker 05:21, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Looks like he has the makings of a good admin, but I have to have doubts about whether his judgement of article value has developed enough. Short on edits (~1550), with a large number of those spent on VFD and RFA and on very simple fixes. Viewing his contribs, and excluding minor edits and all non-article namespace edits, gives about 500 entries. Those entries are mostly simple "Recent changes" wikify and {{stub}} insertion. Sorting his contribs another way (by article title) shows no long-term committments to any - rarely more than 2 edits at most. I would support at 2000 edits if he spent some time away from Recent changes (*gasp*) and worked on the main focus of the project - the encyclopedia articles. -- Netoholic @ 16:14, 2004 Oct 7 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly one way or the other about your first point (# of edits), but I strongly disagree with your second point (too much recent changes/lack of article commitment) on a host of levels: 1) A few weeks ago, when I checked here, I was very bothered that people were being nominated that only contributed article content--why distract someone who has never shown an interest in helping keep Misplaced Pages tidy by making them an admin? At least some RC and/or VfD (or similar interest) work should be required, to be nominated as an admin, IMHO. 2) I think Wikipedians should edit based on their strengths and interests--some people have a lot to say, and some are better suited to fix grammar, formatting, etc. problems, and other tidying activities. 3) Based on the number of articles slipping thru unchecked, we need more people on RC and NP patrol, not fewer. 4) I have about 8000 edits (~6000 in article namespace), in the six months I've been here, but most are housekeeping--RC or NP patrol, creating disamb pages, taking things to cleanup, fixing things off cleanup, creating redir pages, avoiding redir and disamb pages, VfD participation, deleting speedies, cleaning up formatting, grammar, punctuation, fixing image display problems, responding to queries on VP, etc. Other than Seattle, Washington, Shaw Island, and Drunk driving (and the last is mostly because I wasn't using Preview as much as I should), I doubt I have more than 2 edits on any other articles, and have only started about 20, tops. However, I'd like to think that my housekeeping work adds value overall to Misplaced Pages, enabling people who want to contribute content to do so freely, even if formatting, grammar, etc. aren't their strengths, etc. I also think my interest in housekeeping is my strongest asset as an admin. Niteowlneils 03:56, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Nite - Basically, I look for balance when I evaluate a candidate. I agree that people should edit to their strengths and weaknesses, but when someone wants to become an admin, they need to be familiar with the breadth of activity here. I find that when someone has spent some time expanding and improving articles gives the admin candidate the ability to properly understand that not everything is about the "bad articles" and makes it more likely they will evaulate article worth more fairly; which ultimately means they show greater respect for other editors' efforts. See User:Netoholic/Admins for my other thoughts on adminship. -- Netoholic @ 06:21, 2004 Oct 10 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

• Slowking Man's contributions, for your perusal. - Mark 10:08, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

A. I spend a fair deal of time policing Recent changes for new users and articles, as well as vandalism. As Mark mentioned, I would find the abilities of sysop rollback, deleting redirects (for page moves) and nonsense articles, and blocking vandals as useful.

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

A. I think SubSpace and portions of The 20th century in review represent some of my better work.

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 will deal with it in the future?

A. I had one disagreement with Anthony over National Park and what it should redirect to, but we talked it out. Vfd causes me stress sometimes, but if it does, I usually just take a break.

Jallan

Vote here

(20/1/0) ends 04:25, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Jallan is careful & well-informed, contributing to mythology, history, linguistics, & other topics. Focused & reserved in exchanges with other editors. Someone I consider a solid contributor. More than 1000 edits, mostly since April 2004. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:25, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I accept the nomination. I also accept that being a sysop is "no big deal" if power is used carefully and with restraint.

Support

1. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:25, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
2. ffirehorse 05:06, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
3. ] 05:06, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
4. ℛyan! | Talk 05:13, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
5. —No-One Jones  13:50, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
6. OK JFW | T@lk 20:09, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
7. Good grasp of policy, and excellent demeanour. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 22:40, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)
8. Michael Snow 22:58, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
9. Absolutely. --John Kerry + John Edwards 2004 23:43, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
10. Mike H 01:15, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
11. –Andre (talk) 14:46, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
12. Fire Star 18:58, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
13. 172 00:31, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
14. ] 22:00, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
15. Ambi 15:30, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
16. Support wholeheartedly. - Lucky 6.9 01:01, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
17. Always keeps cool, and always (thoroughly!) explains the reasoning behind votes. Support. • Benc • 10:35, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
18. ] 16:46, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
19. {Ανάριον} 11:44, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
20. Of course! ] 21:17, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Netoholic @ 06:39, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC) -- Lots of edits and long history, if a little sporadic. My concern, though, is that their edits consist quite largely of redirect creation (for very questionable alternate spellings) and also a disproportional amount of VFD involvement. VFD votes show a strong deletionist bent – don't see any effort to save or expand moderately bad articles. Personal experience tells me this user may not understand deletion policy and the definitions involved. Encourage other voters to review this users contributions (specifically VFD) before voting. Since there is no information on their user page describing personal philosophy, I can only go by their contribs.

Neutral

Comments

• 1944 edits as of this moment. -- Netoholic @ 06:39, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)
• On Netoholic's comments after his vote: I believe that someone encountering a spelling of a name on the web or in a book should generally be able to find an existing corresponding article in Misplaced Pages by entering the spelling they find, both with any diacritics and without diacritics. Currently I have mostly been working on articles in the area of Norse myth and legend which has involved far more research than I expected and three or four hours of uninterrupted work to properly check out the material. Accordingly editing has gone slowly. And in this area there is a great variation in spelling of names in English texts. I try to accomodate this by creating redirects, but only for forms which I know actually do occur (and sometimes also with those same forms without diacritics). Accordingly the result is often the creation or rewriting of an article followed by a large number of redirects both to the article and to other material covered by the article. Sadly there are sometimes a large number of variant forms of names found in different easily available English texts. Except for perhaps three or four typing errors, which I did not think worth the trouble of asking anyone to delete, the forms I have used in REDIRECTS do exist in commonly available English texts. In many cases more could be added. I generally don't go looking for spellings other than those in texts which I am consulting when creating or editing an article, though I am often aware of books where yet other spellings might be found. A complete set of redirects for such names is for the future. As to VfD, I believe, when I have voted for deletion, it is in accord with deletion policy. I certainly do not always vote DELETE, even on articles that seem to me mediocre. Jallan 19:46, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

A. Probably new page patrol. Beyond that, I will see where I can be useful with new sysop powers. Jallan 19:46, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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

A. Sanchuniathon contains a nice genealogy in which many of the entries point to articles subsequently created by myself or greatly expanded by myself. Anna Perenna isn't bad, compared to what came before. Moloch was taken from cleanup, though it could still be improved. But I left it rather than continue debate. Baal was also improved from what it had been. I have no particular favorites. Jallan 19:46, 5 Oct 2004 (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 will deal with it in the future?

A. I have been in such conflicts and have been stressed to the point of leaving this place forever. (The web is big, the world is big, so why stay somewhere where you meet constant frustration?) That supposed policies are not enforced or enforceable is a continuing problem. I have accordingly walked away from the article, rather than both article and Misplaced Pages, realizing that there were numerous other problem articles that I could improve and articles I could write from scratch and that the vast majority of people here are not unreasonable most of the time and that one can always return to a problem article in future. I also became involved in some of the drafting of Misplaced Pages:Dealing with disruptive or antisocial editors to hopefully make it easier to solve such disputes quickly. In the future I would be more likely to use current dispute resolution procedures, in part because I know my away around here now and in part because handling of disputes has improved. Jallan 19:46, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

User:Neutrality (21/8/4) Ends 04:27, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Neutrality has been an exceptional contributor to Misplaced Pages. Uploading excellent fairuse images, volunteering with the Association of Members Advocates, making meaningful edits to articles involving history and political science, and contributing positively to community dialog have been Neutrality's hallmarks. I think the community can agree that Neutrality's 2000 edits have been an invaluable addition to Misplaced Pages, and we should expand the responsiblity of Neutrality to include adminship. --H. CHENEY 04:27, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks to Hcheney and Ambivalenthysteria: the former has been kind to me from the first day, while I look foward to working with the latter as a sysop! (see below) I am confident I can help keep Misplaced Pages sane (or as sane as it could ever be, anyway) ;) Neutrality 04:46, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)

Support

1. H. CHENEY 04:27, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
2. From what I've seen, I couldn't agree more. Ambivalenthysteria 04:39, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
3. Hephaestos|§ 04:53, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
4. Acegikmo1 05:11, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
5. Woggly 09:25, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC) the cliche, "thought you were one"
6. EddEdmondson 09:54, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
7. ALargeElk | Talk 10:09, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
8. 172 13:02, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
9. Quadell (talk) 18:54, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)
10. If you've got Hcheney's support, you've got mine. blankfaze | (беседа!) 20:12, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
11. David Cannon 20:45, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC).
12. Strongly support. Lst27 22:33, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
13. older≠wiser 22:43, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
14. Wile E. Heresiarch 23:11, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
15. Merovingian✍Talk 07:00, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC)
16. Great work nearly single handedly creating Charles Graner. Snowspinner 03:45, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)
17. Danny 05:13, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
18. I can't believe I totally missed this! Of course I support. Mike H 01:11, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)
19. Novelty a mediocre reason to oppose. - Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 20:24, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
20. --GeneralPatton 22:35, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
21. David Remahl 14:29, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
22. Support. - Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 02:37, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Um...see Vote #19, above. Cribcage 03:39, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Has been a logged in user for less than 2 months. Maximus Rex 22:25, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

   A question, if I may. I respect your vote, but I would like to ask you this: what would make me a better sysop two or three months from now, as opposed to today? Neutrality 04:24, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC)

2. I can't answer for Maximus Rex, but I can give you an answer. In two or three months we'll know you better, and see more of your work and interaction with the community. I would also point out that the controversy surrounding Quadell which caused several, including you, to vote against him, did not occur until he had been here the three months. This seems to me reinforce the idea that three months perhaps should be a hard minimum. Therefore, I oppose for now. -- Cecropia | Talk 06:49, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
3. Here for under 2 months. Has far less editing experience than sheer number might suggest; most edits have been minor, and to a small number of articles (for instance this cumulative diff for 101 consecutive edits to Dennis Kucinich, only 43 of which were marked as minor). Not always careful about wikiquette; see for instance this blanking of Talk:Charles Graner (an article Neutrality had self-nom'ed on fac), uncharacteristically marked as minor. +sj+

   That said, I loved the work on el Cid... come back in six weeks. +sj+ 16:39, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

   While I respect your decision, I do not believe the blanking of the talk page was a violation of wikietiquette. There were suggestions made to improve the article, and I made them; thus, the comments were irrelevant, and I cleaned up the talk page. I did not, and will not, ever blank or modify a talk page for reasons that could reasonably be defined as not valid (for example, removing constructive criticism of me, or the opinions of someone whom I disagree). That said, I of course respect your vote, thank you for your feedback, and forward to working with you in the future. Happy editing! Neutrality 00:35, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)

   One of the three blanked suggestions had been implemented, but two had not (see the current Talk page, where someone has restored the blanked comments). I know you weren't trying to remove criticism; maybe the suggestions were poor ones. But they should still be left up, with a note of "implemented!" or "that's silly", or at worst, archived (with a link to the archive left on the Talk page). +sj+

   I have pledged not to blank any more talk pages. The clear consensus says it's a wikietiquette violation, so I will NOT do that anymore, as a matter of common sense and respect.

   Also, thanks for your comments regarding my work on El Cid! I appreciate them. Neutrality 00:37, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)

4. VV] 21:32, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC) Agree with comments above. Nothing against this user, but too soon.
5. BCorr|Брайен 18:08, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC). I agree -- too soon -- probably in a few weeks.
6. pir 21:27, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
   • I object to counting the votes of users with three letter word usernames. Possible troll. --H. CHENEY 21:41, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
     • The problem with making comments like that in text is that is impossible to tell at what level of seriousness to take you. Sarcasm doesn't travel well over the internet. If there is a problem with Pir perhaps it would be better to spell it out directly (I don't know him from Adam, so can't tell if there is or not). PS. Are users ok if they have two numbers as well as three letters in their username? Pcb21| Pete 08:00, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
     • Agree with Pcb21, if this is a joke, that should have been made more clear. Three-letter usernames are not at all uncommon, for the simple reason that many people will use first initial, middle initial, last initial. This has nothing to do with whether they will be disruptive. --Michael Snow 16:07, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
     • Hi Lir, I mean pir. I'm encouraged that you're only voting with that account. - Hephaestos|§ 04:38, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
     • Give a reason, please. Thank you. Neutrality 04:59, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
       • Err - Pir has been here for ages and edits articles on UK topics - maybe thats why you haven't seen them. Perhaps people should leave them alone? Secretlondon 04:02, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
7. Since this nomination couldn't attract enough votes to pass during its original term -- and since even I felt compelled to qualify my Support for this user -- I'm switching to Oppose. This extension is ill-advised. Reasonable objections were raised, and Neutrality should improve those areas before renomination. Cribcage 17:03, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
8. As I don't think we should have extensions, and there clearly isn't consensus. I don't have an opinion on their behaviour as our paths haven't crossed - I don't edit on US topics. Secretlondon 04:11, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Please renominate yourself in a couple of months time, when you are more experienced. == The Anome 18:21, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
2. Might make a good sysop, but I'm sick of seeing talk pages being blanked. I saw this user do that twice to Talk:Calvin and Hobbes. Talk pages are an important record to complement an article. Everyking 09:59, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

   I've pledged to stop it. The clear consensus says it's a wikietiquette violation, so I'll oblidge. Neutrality 06:23, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

3. Between the talk page blanking issue and Neutrality's statement in voting on Chocolateboy's nomination, I am concerned that this user is still learning the ropes and needs more time. I don't think edit wars are okay, and believe that sysops in particular should find better ways of handling disputes. Normally I don't vote neutral, but since Neutrality will probably become a good sysop with a little more experience, I hesitate to oppose outright. --Michael Snow 17:41, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
4. I'd be willing to consider you in a few months, but you need some more experience when it comes to blanking talk pages and also the edit war on FOX News (which is what I've seen only). Ilyanep (Talk) 01:25, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The first and only "edit war" I've ever gotten into. And I feel I handled it quite well under the circumstances; see my comments at History, VV's talk, and Fox News's talk. Neutrality 23:49, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Comments

• Also, a preemptive response to the inquiries that will surely come: Yes, I have read the Administrators page and understand the rights and responsibilities that come with the office. I would probably patrol Recent Changes for vandals, as well as helping out at Vandalism in Progress and VfD. I’d also assist with editing the Main Page (grammatical errors drive me crazy, being the copy editor that I am.) Neutrality 04:46, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)
• A few questions.

1. In your opinion, what article have you contributed the most succesfully and helpfully to?
2. In your opinion, what has your best contribution to the running and maintenance of Misplaced Pages been? (i.e., have you reverted a bad stretch of vandalism, done extensive work categorizing articles, helped mediate a dispute?)
3. Of your Misplaced Pages edits and experiences thus far, what is your biggest regret? What do you wish you'd done differently? Thanks. Snowspinner 03:17, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)

• And a few answers:

1. Probably El Cid and Charles Graner.
2. I have categorized many Olympic-related articles. I also report vandalism wherever I find it. Occasionally I go to "Special pages: Short pages" and check implausibly short pages to make sure they haven't been blanked. If I find they have, I revert the article and report the vandal on Vandalism in Progress.
3. I wish I had the patience to use the edit summary box more.

Thanks for your questions. I hope this helps you :) Neutrality 03:38, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)

Fire Star

Vote here (19/0/1) ending 04:03 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Fire Star is conscientious and skillful, contributing to articles on Asian culture & other topics. Reserved & polite in exchanges with other editors. Someone I consider a solid contributor. More than 1500 edits since February 2004. Wile E. Heresiarch

More like 2850 edits, plus over 175 as an anon. -- Netoholic @ 07:14, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone, and please know that I accept the nomination (and this time in the correct place!) Fire Star 01:18, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Support

1. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:07, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
2. ProjeX 04:17, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
   • Sockpuppet, this was their 5th contrib. -- Netoholic @ 07:14, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)
3. ℛyan! | Talk 05:14, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
4. ffirehorse 05:25, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
5. Netoholic @ 07:14, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC) -- Seems to discuss and compromise very well.
6. ] 10:56, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
7. 172 13:00, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
8. Very strong support. Extremely likeable, easy to interact with, articulate editor. Supremely amiable, even regarding differences of opinion on the very most controvercial of subjects. Sam 18:49, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
9. I get the impression of friendliness and collaboration.. good traits for an admin. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 22:37, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)
10. Support. --John Kerry + John Edwards 2004 23:45, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
11. Sure. –Andre (talk) 14:50, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
12. Sí. --Slowking Man 22:52, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
13. Flame on! +sj+ 08:24, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
14. Support. I found his interference in the dispute between Sam Spade and me balanced. Andries 08:21, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
15. Yep --Jiang 08:20, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
16. Yes - I'm new to Misplaced Pages, but I'll vote in favor of Fire Star - ( AWilliamson - Allen Williamson, historian, Joan of Arc Archive ) 18:33, 10 Oct 2004
    • User has 23 edits. -- Netoholic @ 00:40, 2004 Oct 11 (UTC)
17. Absolutely. We need more friendly admins. • Benc • 10:19, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
18. {Ανάριον} 11:47, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
19. Sure. JFW | T@lk 16:00, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

1. Well, I haven't looked at him enough, but I've become irked by the amount of double articles he has created (We do not need two of the same kind of article for each romanization system), but other than that, I have no opinion on him. WhisperToMe 03:31, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

A. I would likely work extensively on the votes for deletion and the votes for undeletion pages. I don't consider myself a deletionist, yet given what we have to work with there it often seems that way. I have an interest in the arbitration process, and (hopefully) a sense of what is fair (for example, I would be willing to recuse myself if it was a person I had worked with or concerned a subject I had actually worked on, etc.). I also enjoy welcoming new editors to Misplaced Pages.

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

A. The entire cycle of T'ai Chi Ch'uan articles, which are works in progress, of course. Teaching T'ai Chi is what I do for a living, I work for a famous T'ai Chi family currently from Hong Kong who have been in the business for 150 years, so I get a lot of reliable info from them. It is a growing hobby for many, esp. in the West, and people will come to Misplaced Pages looking for good information on the subject and how it is tradtitionally taught before they shell out their hard earned beans. Chinese martial arts have a long history of strict NPOV in their public statements, of all things (it cuts down on fights between schools), that I have been rigorously trained in, so Misplaced Pages's emphasis on it in many ways seems natural to me.

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

A. I had a very few when I was newer here. Eventually, if I felt the other editor was intractable, I just walked away for a while. This is only a hobby, after all. As an admin, that won't be as viable an option of course, but I deal with the public quite a bit in the "real world," so that should help. As an example of how I approach conflict people may look up my one request for arbitration over the Menachem Mendel Schneerson article (which ended up being protected for a while) and how I handled it.

Comments

Wow, I have my own sockpuppet! I wonder what that means? Anyway, thanks everyone for your consideration, I accept the nomination. Fire Star 15:18, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's basically a user account created for the purposes of voting or disruption. Take a read of Misplaced Pages:Sock puppet. They aren't counted in the final tally of votes. -- Netoholic @ 16:07, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)

Thanks for the link Netoholic. I'm familiar with the term from the VfD pages, but it is mysterious to me that one would show up here... Fire Star 17:05, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't see any any conclusive evidence that ProjeX is a "sockpuppet." The account was started 4 Oct., while this vote started 5 Oct. I'm finding that the terms "sock puppet" and "troll" are being thrown around in increasingly inaccurate ways around here. ProjeX might just be a new user who's been editing as an anon for a while. I'm not suggesting that his vote should be counted, but I am suggesting that we should be careful about calling people names. func(talk) 02:15, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Quoted from Misplaced Pages:Sock puppet - "When in doubt, follow the 100-edit rule." That account has far fewer edits to their name. The note on the talk page (mentioned by Fire Star) from June probably indicates that the previous contributions were deleted for some reason. In any case, this account won't likely be counted in the tally by the bureaucrat that promotes Fire Star. This is not meant as an insult, just to flag that vote as probably invalid because "Sock puppets (are) forbidden from voting". I would like to know what previous content has been posted by that account, in an attempt to perhaps discover who it is. -- Netoholic @ 03:18, 2004 Oct 6 (UTC)

There is a note on ProjeX's talk page from 13 June asking ProjeX to stop doing something or other, so he or she may have been editing that long ago, but there isn't any record of such activity on the "User contributions" history for that account. Curious... Fire Star 02:41, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Self nominations for adminship

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

Requests for bureaucratship

Bureaucrats are simply users with the ability to make other people admins or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here. The process for bureaucrats is similar to that for adminship above, but is generally by request only. New bureaucrats are recorded at Misplaced Pages:Recently created bureaucrats.

UninvitedCompany

(24/2/1) ends 16:37, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I actually believe that we have plenty of bureaucrats, and that the ones we have are doing an excellent job. Others disagree, and since the community would appear to wish to enlarge the pool, and since nominations of others (I can think of several good candidates) are discouraged, I offer my self-nomination. I've been with the project about a year and a half, and an admin since last April. I edit occasionally at meta, read the mailing list (though I rarely post), have submitted a PHP patch or two, and follow IRC at times. uc 16:37, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Support

1. Good user. Support. --Lst27 20:21, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
2. I note that unlike admin status, bureaucrat status has nothing to do with articles; it relates purely to community issues. Accordingly, I fail to see how the shortage of recent article-editing activity is relevant to the qualifications for the position. Also, I am disturbed to see people oppose various candidates on this page simply for having specialized in a particular area of Misplaced Pages. The encyclopedia is too large for everyone to be everywhere at once or be an expert in everything, and insisting on overly generalist editors will only push people's contributions in the direction of their own incompetence. There is nothing wrong with a degree of self-selected specialization. --Michael Snow 20:34, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
3. Definitely. ugen64 20:50, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
4. I would post a long argument, but Michael S. has preceded me with a better clarification of my position than I could have done. If UC isn't a good judge of community consensus and an editor who has demonstrated commitment to fair play, I can't think of any who are. Jwrosenzweig 20:55, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
5. ...and Michael S. and Jwrosenzweig have preceded me. UC is indeed a good judge of community consensus and an editor who has demonstrated commitment to fair play. BCorr|Брайен 21:46, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
6. SweetLittleFluffyThing 22:33, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC), no argument. This is just so.
7. Excellent user. ] 23:03, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
8. —No-One Jones  02:40, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
9. In addition to echoing the comments made by Michael Snow and Jwrosenzweig, I would like to add that I believe UC is particularly well-suited for this position. His understanding of policy, commitment to fairness and the obvious degree of careful thought he gives issues elicits nothing but trust. SWAdair | Talk 04:55, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
10. Works well with other users; agrees to disagree with other users rather than try to force them to do something. -JCarriker 05:32, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
11. {Ανάριον} 09:46, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
12. ℛyan! | Talk 11:24, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
13. –Andre (talk) 14:09, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
14. UC is the perfect bureaucrat. JFW | T@lk 17:08, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
15. I am impressed with Uninvited Company, and I feel that we do need more bureucrats (many have not made on promotion, if I'm correct). So, definitely promote. •→Iñgólemo←• 04:15, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)
16. Support. Being active on Misplaced Pages: namespace suggests ample capability for the role. Warofdreams
17. Support. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 23:55, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
18. 172 09:52, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
19. Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 10:29, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
20. David Cannon 23:25, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC). A worthy candidate.
21. I am sufficiently impressed to support (previously neutral). -- Grunt 🇪🇺 02:25, 2004 Oct 16 (UTC)
22. Ambi 04:57, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
23. +sj+ 08:41, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
24. AndyL 19:49, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
25. I don't know if we have enough bureaucrats or not, but UC looks good for the job. (Actually, I think I would prefer Cecropia to always perform the bureaucratic duties, but I suppose that would be impractical). func(talk) 16:14, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Netoholic @ 17:55, 2004 Oct 11 (UTC) -- Well spoken and toughtful, but at 1723 edits, doesn't meet my minimum standards for even adminship. Seems to be a "meta-editor" – almost exclusively works on Misplaced Pages: namespace lately. Before voting, I reviewed their history, and am confused by their first few non-article edits, which seem to indicate this was not their original (only) identity. I hope I am misinterpreting, and would welcome any correction on that, but still the contributions since then don't really show readiness to me.
2. This is what I would call a non-editor. You have to go through pages and pages of his contributions to a find a few actual article edits between all the activity in the Misplaced Pages namespace. As I said in opposition to Snowspinner before, I prefer real editors to do the administrative work on the side, not professional administrators who may edit the occasional article on the side. Gzornenplatz 19:00, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Acegikmo1 18:23, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC). On one hand, editing almost exclusively in the Misplaced Pages: namespace for the last six months means that UninvitedCompany is very familiar with Misplaced Pages policy. On the other hand, lack of activity in the main article namespace means that the user is a bit out of touch with the majority of Misplaced Pages users. I see this as a problem for a bureaucrat, but as my experience with UninvitedCompany has been nothing but positive, it's not enough to make me oppose.

   Have only heard of you in the past two weeks or so, and then not in depth. Will be looking into your past edit history before making a true vote. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 21:33, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)

Comments

• For Netoholic's information: UninvitedCompany has acknowledged previously using the accounts Kat and Louis Kyu Won Ryu. Although there is nothing inherently wrong with maintaining multiple accounts, it's my understanding that since returning with this account, he has decided to use only one identity exclusively. In any case, I have never observed any of these accounts used in a way that would be prohibited by our sockpuppet policy. Also, I would caution you against other misinterpretations - UninvitedCompany is an intelligent writer who has considerable familiarity with Misplaced Pages history and actively participated in some of those historical discussions. If you read this and other statements of his without awareness of their context, you may well find them cryptic and miss the allusions to events that were happening at the time. I would recommend that you ask him for an explanation first if you find things you don't understand - he is generally willing to respond to polite questions. --Michael Snow 20:34, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Michael, thank you for the information. I hope you know I didn't imply any "wrong-doing" with the multiple accounts and I'm glad you acknowledged in might seem strange to someone who didn't know. After reviewing this UC's contributions, and those of the other accounts, I'm going to keep my vote as is. I think this user has been tool "embroiled" in the non-article space, such that I think any decisions made in the course of the bureaucrat role might be reasonably challenged, and would impact their effectiveness. -- Netoholic @ 01:09, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)

• Several users have asked questions or made comments about the extent of my article contributions as compared to the stuff I've contributed in the Misplaced Pages namespace. I thought I'd reply. In general, I'm not a copy editor. I'm not good at it and don't enjoy it. I've gone to a library and actually done research for Cult and Surrealism, and made contributions to these articles based on that. I operate a farm, and have contributed to and fact-checked a number of agriculture-oriented articles, like silo and cattle. And I've contributed some history about localities I know well, such as the articles on Rice County, Minnesota and the communities within it. I have also contributed a number of photographs, though these are officially anonymous since the copyright bears my real name. My professional expertise is in physics and computer science, both areas of the project that are already well developed. I feel at this point that I have contributed most of what I already know, and so my choices are to a) defend my watchlist, b) reasearch stuff and contributed based on that, c) copyedit, or d) contribute to the community aspects of the project.

I believe that (a) is unhelpful, (c) is not something I'm especially good at, and while I do carry out (b) it is labor intensive for the few edits that result. That leaves (d), and since I have an ongoing interest in group dynamics, as well as a good deal of experience with online collaboration, that is where I am most active.

Finally, as the project has grown, I find myself outclassed on subjects that I care deeply about but lack expertise in, such as music. I find that it is best to leave such articles to others, though I do contribute a few tidbits when I'm sure of myself.

As others have said, I believe that this sort of specialization is a product of the project's maturity. As the project continues to mature, the number of articles where any one person can contribute effectively is bound to shrink as the baseline general-interest knowledge becomes complete. I do believe, though, that at least for the time being, there is a shortage of interest in communtiy issues, and I hope others see value in the contributions I make in this area. uc 02:20, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Thanks for replying. To be honest, though, this seems more like you're simply bored with work here, and doesn't put forth any reason why you are a better candidate than anyone else. Can you explain why you deserve this promotion in light of the efforts that other people put in on the article space? Your answers to the "Bureaucratic Questions" below are notably short. What qualities, ideas, or philosophies do you bring to the position? -- Netoholic @ 03:36, 2004 Oct 16 (UTC)

Bureaucratic Questions

Q1. Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?

A1. Yup, I've read them, edited them, and reread them, and observed their action in practice. In theory, it's consensus. In practice, of the supporting and opposing votes, 80% must be supporting. Sometimes the threshold is lowered to 75%, particularly when the opposition appears to be ill-considered rather than well-reasoned. In doubtful cases, one tries to discount sock puppets.

Q2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?

A2. I do not plan to become involved in contentious nominations until weathering a fair number of blissful ones. In time, I would, and I would try to deal with them fairly and consistently, according to the rules, in accord with the community's sentiment, and in particularly troublesome cases, after consultation with other "bureaucrats."

Grunt

final (31/11/3) ends 23:23, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Judging by the (personally perceived?) average delay of several hours between when a successful admin nomination ends and when the user attains sysop status, there's still a shortage of bureaucrats around. Seeing as I'm around when a lot of these nominations end or have ended, I could be use of a bureaucrat... -- Grunt 🇪🇺 23:25, 2004 Oct 3 (UTC)

If you are considering ending this request (whether in favour of or against my becoming a bureaucrat), I urge you to hold off until Cecropia, JCarriker, and perhaps other individuals have had time to consider my response to Cecropia's controversial question about anti-American bias. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 23:30, 2004 Oct 10 (UTC)

Support

1. Anyone whose userpage has been vandalized 109 times and moved three more times—anyone who has been impersonated four times—they have proven themselves without a single doubt. ] 23:27, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)

   That's 111 times now, thank you! :p -- Grunt 🇪🇺 00:36, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)

2. What Neutrality said. --Slowking Man 23:27, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)
3. Sure deal! GeneralPatton 23:42, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
4. What they said ^ Nadavspi 23:44, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
5. Absolutely. Unfortunately, I have had little interaction with Grunt, but in those few moments I was greatly impressed. Good luck, Grunt! •→Iñgólemo←• 04:24, 2004 Oct 4 (UTC)
6. David Gerard 15:10, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
7. ℛyan! | Talk 15:44, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
8. Strongly. Opponents are trolls. RickK 21:31, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
   • • Rick - do you do it deliberately, or is it kind of a nervous tick? ;) Mark Richards 19:55, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
9. Wow... I think Grunt overly deserves this... Good job... squash 21:41, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
10. Absolutely. He has done such a good job preventing vandalism. Strongly support. --John Kerry + John Edwards 2004 22:43, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
11. By all means. Ðåñηÿßôý | Talk 22:45, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
12. A. D. Hair 23:59, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
13. 172 13:04, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
14. Without a doubt. --Conti|✉ 21:47, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
15. I'm inclined to agree, in principle, with RickK (gasp) and Neutrality (not gasp) in this matter. Also, Grunt's been extremely kind with my annoying nature on IRC (along with using Linux!), and such. 109 vandalisms? That's more than George W. Bush! ugen64 22:45, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

    How many times do I have to say that it's 111 vandalisms now? :p -- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:43, 2004 Oct 6 (UTC)

16. Emphatically support. –Andre (talk) 14:41, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
17. Indeed! Mike H 06:28, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
18. Support.--Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 16:57, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
19. Support, Grunt seems always to be here. zoney ♣ talk 17:47, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
20. ] 20:10, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
21. Ambi 15:30, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
22. I grunt my vote for Grunt! GRUNT! - Lucky 6.9 01:04, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
23. Emsworth 01:57, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
24. JOHN COLLISON | (Ludraman) 10:02, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
25. Always, Grunt. Always. JFW | T@lk 15:45, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
26. I find the notion of opposing someone because they may be "anti-American" to be absurd and offensive. Personal opinions of that nature should not be a criterion - conduct on Misplaced Pages should. Snowspinner 18:33, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

    May be anti-American? He has that assertion up front on his userpage, where Wikipedians (especially new ones) would go to find out about the attitudes of someone who has a position of trust. He has failed to comment on this after more than three days. So he declares himself as disliking a large segment of Wikipedians, and you're offended that I find this inappropriate. Of course, it has been suggested that this is a joke. Perhaps Grunt will share the joke with me so I can laugh, too. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 18:53, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

    It seems to me a disaster to limit positions of trust in Misplaced Pages to pre-selected POVs. Snowspinner 19:30, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

    A disaster? You see no difference in someone having a POV, and someone expressing a dislike for a large number of the members of the Misplaced Pages community? -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 19:52, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

    Yes. Because that seems to me to also preclude people who really don't like racists. Or people who are racists. And I think that administrative positions in Misplaced Pages need to be filled with a plethora of viewpoints. Snowspinner 20:02, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

    The first is a rather inappropriate comparison. There is a difference between someone who doesn't like a group of people (racists) for positions they take as opposed to exprssing disdain for a group who live in a particular country (the United States) and express that distaste in their profile. Second, a believe an open racist would have quite a bit of difficulty becoming an admin. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 21:30, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

    I don't vote in favor of this candidate, but I strongly believe knowledge of one's own biases is a good thing, and stating them is important (then, it might be an issue how to word such statements, but that's a secondary issue). That improves the standard of Misplaced Pages! /Tuomas 04:39, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

27. Graham ☺ | Talk 21:20, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
28. Danny 23:19, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
29. More grunt work for Grunt. SWAdair | Talk 10:03, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
30. Support. -- Gregg 11:48, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
31. Tεxτurε 21:24, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Endorsed a factually wrong RFC summary. Gzornenplatz 02:43, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

   Where? Snowspinner 18:33, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

   I assume this refers to the RFC about him. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 23:31, 2004 Oct 10 (UTC)

2. Netoholic @ 16:40, 2004 Oct 4 (UTC) -- I don't see the value-add. Admin promotion does not seem delayed, and, sorry, but Grunt hasn't offered any good reason why it should be him as opposed to anyone else. I also find it very dubious that he posted this within minutes of his Sam Spade opposition vote, and I think there may be an agenda here.

   This is because I tend to do things here on RFA in bursts. I came here to add myself to the list and saw that Sam had been recently added to the list of candidates, and decided to put my vote up before nominating myself here. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 22:36, 2004 Oct 4 (UTC)

   I think the first part of my comment was the more important one in my mind - what reasons can you give that you yourself deserve position of bureaucrat? You have only been an admin for a little over one month. How has that given you the experience necessary for this position? -- Netoholic @ 01:07, 2004 Oct 6 (UTC)

   As I've stated above, I wish to become a bureaucrat because I percieve a lengthy delay between when some candidates' nominatons expire and when they are actually appointed an administrator. I believe that I am experienced in making decisions to which there is a generally positive reaction - and if I make a decision in which this is not the case I am also adept at dealing with issues that would arise as a result in a calm, collected, civil, and above all considerate manner. I have never been involved in a heated dispute with another user and I view this as evidence to the above. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:19, 2004 Oct 6 (UTC)

   I wish to become a bureaucrat because I percieve a lengthy delay between when some candidates' nominatons expire and when they are actually appointed an administrator. So, what's a "lengthy delay"? -- Cecropia | Talk 03:02, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

3. Reverted a well thought out, reasoned and worded page without reason. His neutrality is in question now. User:Michael Krewson Oct. 6,2004 - See History under "Jehovah".

   This action was supported by consensus mainly on the basis that it is a copyvio. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:59, 2004 Oct 7 (UTC)

   User also has less than 50 edits, a majority of which relate to this same copyvio. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 23:38, 2004 Oct 10 (UTC)

   Thanks. Your actions in that case helped me in my decision to vote to oppose your request. The core problem wasn't copyvio or consensus: it was a word with at least two distinct meanings. Jamesday 01:09, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

4. I believe that there are sufficient bureaucrats. If there is indeed a shortage, I can think of more suitable candidates. uc 20:44, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
5. I have nothing against Grunt and have seen nothing but good work out of him. But bureaucrats do have considerable power, and most of them have been around Misplaced Pages—and been admins—for a very long time. I think that if we need more bureaucrats (and I'm not even sure we do need more bureaucrats), we should be promoting some of our most experienced Wikipedians instead. —Lowellian (talk)] 22:43, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
6. On your user page, you characterize yourself as "a notable anti-American ('only against typical Americans')." What do you mean by that? How would you define a "typical American" who you are against? What is an example of an "atypical American" you are not against? Why should a neutral person (American or not) not take this as a sign of bigotry, ignorance, or immaturity? -- Cecropia | Talk 22:01, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

   Sadly, I have moved my query up to "Oppose" after 40 hours of non-response from Grunt. Anti-Americanism is one of those soft bigotries that is fashionable in some quarters, and like other bigotries, is destructive to both the bigot and the target. I grew up in the era when black people in the US south could not eat at a lunch counter with white people and Jewish people were to supposed to know that they would not "fit in" at "restricted" hotels. I don't think Grunt is in any way a bad person, but I wonder whether his world is so constrained that he doesn't appreciate that bigotries have consequences, and his casual expression of a popular one disturbs me. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 15:32, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

   This vote is a good example of the utter stupidity that society is diving into headfirst. We're becoming so HYPERsensitive that people can't even joke about ANYTHING without offending someone. blankfaze | (беседа!) 18:49, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

   Is it a joke? I posted the original comment two days ago and no comment from Grunt. Anti-Americanism is very fashionable among many, and I do not find it funny. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 19:06, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

   I have to say that, while I don't think Grunt is very anti-American, I sure would not want to be up for adminship if I was someone who he considers a "typical American". In a close decision, that admitted prejudice might have impact. -- Netoholic @ 22:29, 2004 Oct 10 (UTC)

7. Acegikmo1 06:01, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC). After some deliberation, I have decided to oppose. I think that Cecropia's response to Grunt in the comments section is an adequate summary of my position.
8. Tuomas 10:14, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC) If the delay had been weeks, it had been reason to be bothered.
9. Belatedly joining the discussion. Due to the controversy and irregularities, I oppose making Grunt a bureaucrat based on this particular request. I might well support if he comes back in a few weeks. We should all try to have cooler heads about this next time around, and we might find that the concerns about community experience are also mitigated by then. --Michael Snow 00:10, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
10. Oppose because of the reason given for seeking this: unwillingness to accept a few hours delay seems like a poor rationale when judging consensus is necessary and it may take more time to be reached. Jamesday 00:58, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
11. Concur with Michael S. +sj+ 08:08, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

1. "Cannot see any real positive community involvement". Dubious vote. {Ανάριον} 15:52, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
   • Agenda-pushing revealed above has me worried. {Ανάριον} 16:50, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
     • Agenda pushing hasn't been "revealed" its been hypothesised. And quite frankly it doesn't hold water to my mind. Exactly what agenda has been revealed. You think grunt will try to stop Sam spade from gaining adminship? He can't. Sam's voting period will end before Grunt's and even if it didn't there's nothing a bureacrat can do about the result of the poll anyway. Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 20:46, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

   Just out of curiosity, would you like to explain why you feel it's a dubious vote? -- Grunt 🇪🇺 23:42, 2004 Oct 4 (UTC)

   Of course. I quite honestly question your judgement here: your adherance to the strict 75% support, despite Jimbo Wales statement 'adminship should be no big deal' does not exactly inspire trust in you to support bureaucratship. Also, the voting pattern against Samspade is rather strange. It's nothing personal. {Ανάριον} 08:32, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

2. VeryVerily 04:47, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC) I agree with comments that he is too new, but not strongly enough to oppose. I don't think the anti-American comment should be weighted so heavily, however. His characterization of the "typical American" does sound ignorant and ill-formed to me, but having a wrong opinion should not be a disqualification. The question is, is there reason to think this "bigotry" (if that's what it is) is going to affect his judgement or impartiality? My limited experience with Grunt gives me no reason to think it will, anymore than (say) a user's religious or anti-religious views, however stupid they may seem to others, would. Neutral.
3. As a life long Southerner I don't consider prejudice to be fodder for jokes, thus I agree with Cecropia's comments above. Soft-bigotries are often the most persistent and dangerous form of bigotry. ZI am disappointed and disturbed by Grunt's unwillingness to address Cecropia's concerns. I have been concerned about his lack of tenure at wikipedia, but was leaning toward support for his number of contributions and quality of work. However, until Grunt adequately states that the comments are a joke, I have no other recourse but to oppose remain neutral. -JCarriker 15:13, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

   Response to Jay: You struck out I am disappointed and disturbed by Grunt's unwillingness to address Cecropia's concerns in changing your vote to neutral. For the record, Grunt said nothing about my concerns until after the original voting period had passed, despite the fact I gave him three days to do so. When he finally did respond, he completely ignored everything I said as to why his expression on his user page (which is still there) is inappropriate for someone putting himself forth to the community. I must not have been the only one dissatisfied with his response, because he garnered five additional negatives after he posted it, and then accepted the promotion of Ugen64 (who at least had the decency to debureaucrat himself) who promoted him outside of policy after the issue was discussed by the two of them and others on IRC. He failed to take any responsibility for his bigotry by noting: I would like to express my displeasure of voting against this bureaucrat request on the sole basis that I have expressed a personal displeasure with anything on my userpage. To me, it's like saying "You can't do this because you don't like the colour pink", which is absurd. He equates an expression of disdain (at least) for those he styles "typical Americans" with not liking a colour? Is this the maturity he would display if he promotes someone and he has to explain how he came to the decision? -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 21:57, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

   I understand that to you and I it does not seem that your concerns were addressed it may not seem that way to Grunt and I have posted a follow up. Grunt has responded to your query, even if it was not satisfactory and respond was what I meant by the statement I stuckout at the time I wrote it. I consider my move to be in good faith to encourage him to respond as depsite the current time I hope he will still respond to my questions, my position in any future nomination depends on it. If my queries are not answered or I do not get the response I hope for I will again oppose. -JCarriker 01:39, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

   Right, and it's okay to be anti-French, just because Jacques Chirac voted against the war on Iraq? It's the same thing... let's rename American football to freedom football... ugen64 21:56, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

   I could make assumptions about you Ugen64, or I could point out that we share many interests and aspirations, or rebut your post with a set phrase such as Liberté! Egalité! Fraternité!, or satirize your view of me with jokes about marrying my sister or eating possum. However, I will not. I will give you the basic courtesies of wikilove, wikiquette, and basic human dignity that you did not extend to me. -JCarriker 01:25, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

   Now what is the cause of that ad hominem non sequitar? I don't see anything on JCarriker's user page bashing Chirac and characterizing himself as "a prominent Francophobe (but only against 'typical' French)." Would you be inclined to vote for him for bureaucrat if he did? On reflection I think I am more bothered by the "typical American" comment because it suggests that he knows what a "typical American" is like and finds himself superior. That is the heart of racism. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 22:08, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

   Just a quibble - anti-Americanism isn't racism because "American" is not a race, rather a nationality. –Andre (talk) 04:13, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

   Granted. But my own quibble is that I didn't say "anti-Americanism" was racism, but that the attitude expressed underlies the heart of racism. Functionally, setting any group of people apart en masse based on what you think you they are like and using that to justify a negative opinion of them isn't necessarily racism, but it walks, waddles and quacks like it. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 04:45, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

   I was planning on taking on both sides objectively, but that last sentence was just a bit too Enoch Powell for my tastes. Mike H 02:01, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC) (I don't even think I'm making sense, so just disregard that.)

Comments

• Umm ... seems to me that the waiting time for promotion has been pretty small lately. If you guys want it done faster, you could consider giving me a raise. -- Cecropia | Talk 23:47, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • OK you salary will double from midnight tonight. Now quit whining and get on with your work!  ;-) Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 20:49, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • It's just a percieved delay. Feel free to correct me if there isn't one. Of course, since I tend to work at least twice as fast as everyone else, even a few minutes would be percieved by me as a substantial delay :) -- Grunt 🇪🇺 00:05, 2004 Oct 4 (UTC)
• I don't agree that "anything below 75% support is grounds for removal" since sockpuppet votes need to be taken into account and "we do have systems with which to keep them in check" is either a joke or somewhat naive. Grunt, could you perhaps explain these points? Angela. 17:18, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

  I find it self-evident that sockpuppet votes should not be counted, which is why I did not explicitly state so. As for the abusive sysop issue, I percieve thus: we do have systems to deal with abuse on/of Misplaced Pages (e.g. the ArbCom, MC, RFC, and other dispute resolutions). In circumstances that require this we can apply these systems to sysop actions - so we do have ways of dealing with the hypothetical abusive sysop... they just have yet to be shown to work well. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 22:41, 2004 Oct 4 (UTC)

• While I admire Grunt's enthusiasm, I would like to point out that he has been contributing here for fewer than six months and has been an admin for about six weeks. While there are no established tenure requirements for bureaucrats, most of the others have been here for several years. I believe that prospective bureaucrats should have the ability to participate in a few highly contentious votes before attempting to adjudicate them. uc 21:41, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Cecropia has been so kind as to check the "delay" in granting admin promotions granted in the last two months and posted the results at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship#Bureaucrats. The evidence shows that almost all are done within hours (and quite a few are done before time expires) – the longest "delay" was 14 hours one case. -- Netoholic @ 04:14, 2004 Oct 8 (UTC)

• The question has been raised as to just what I mean with my anti-American sentiment on my user page. The basic fact is that I am strongly opposed to the current American administration and its policies and actions, and view a "typical American" to be one that blindly supports that administration (otherwise they would not legitimately be in power). It seems to me that most Americans with the skill and knowledge to edit Misplaced Pages do not fall into this category in that they are at least informed enough to understand why they support the current policy (if they happen to support it).

I'm also going to point out that I've said on my userpage that I do not let biases like these get in the way of my Misplaced Pages contributions, and that those people who have worked with me tend to know this fact. To this end, I would like to express my displeasure of voting against this bureaucrat request on the sole basis that I have expressed a personal displeasure with anything on my userpage. To me, it's like saying "You can't do this because you don't like the colour pink", which is absurd.

I hope this clears up the burning questions that have been posed here; I apologise for the delay in doing so, which was used to fully consider this response before posting it here. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 23:26, 2004 Oct 10 (UTC)

In all honesty, Grunt, you just don't get it. I didn't oppose your adminship--I posted my question under neutral and only moved it to oppose when you didn't respond for two days, to see if I could get a response, and still you didn't respond. I shared with you my actual experience with bigotry, and the substance of your response reminds me of what I heard years and years ago: "Oh, the Johnsons, they're really nice people, not like those other colored." Excuse me, I will not "Tom" for you that Americans on Misplaced Pages are "good" Americans, not like those ignorant yahoos. Remember my use of the term "soft bigotry"? A century ago the great majority of Southerners would not harm a hair on another person's head, but the feeling that others were inferior and a sense of grievance formed the foundation for the fellows with the freshly washed hoods and the ropes; the Holocaust didn't just happen; ordinary Europeans (and not just Germans) never accepted Jews and Gypsies and often others as members of the countries of their birth. And part of the foundation of 9/11 was the feeling that it was horrible, terrible, despicable, but just maybe Americans deserved it a little, because they're such terrible people.

As I said, I don't think you are a bad person in any way, but you don't have the maturity to deal with a diverse Misplaced Pages community. I will neither promote you (you're still short of 80%) nor will I remove your nomination. There are 17 other bureaucrats who can take that initiative by their own judgment. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 03:51, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I faceted questions I'd like you to answer.

1. The message on your user page and the use of the phrase typical American still concern me. As an avid student and observer of politics I can assure you that regardless of who the politician is; be it Mr. Bush, Mr. Chirac, Mr. Putin, Mr. Mbeki, Mr. Lula, Ms. Arroyo, or even Canada's own Mr. Paul Martin; the majority of the votes they gain will be at the hands of people who blindly follow them. Why is this trait unique to typical Americans, and if you so strongly oppose the Bush Administration why is an informed person who supports Mr. Bush less deserving of your displeasure?

2. Cecropia is also trying to point out that a prejudice is still wrong no matter who it is directed against. If you truly believe what you wrote, and I am inclined to believe you do, then you are not Anti-American. Anti-Americanism is not legitimate criticism of the U.S.; it is prejudice against it. To say the U.S. has an arrogant foreign policy is not Anti-American to say it is a cultural dust-bin as I have seen said in a major French Newspaper is. This is similar to Anti-French sentiment in that saying French foreign policy is arrogant to say the French are cowards is Anti-French sentiment. Both Anti-American and Anti-French sentiment are soft-bigotries and a social acceptable even encouraged in some circles, today. Please re-evaluate your claim to being Anti-American, are you truly Anti-American or just an opponent of much of the Bush administration's policies?

I urge you to present the more nuanced view offered here on your user page. I will make my decision to change my vote on this issue after I have reviewed your response to Cecropia and my posts. -JCarriker 02:55, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

It seems to me that Grunt's personal views don't matter. He's a strong user and a strong sysop with a history of handling well in conflicts and being NPOV. I happen to be a New Yorker (albeit a Democrat), and his view against Americans affects me not at all regarding his Misplaced Pages position. But, he could be an anti-Semitic (I'm Jewish) or an anti-people-with-names-beginning-with-A (as mine does) and I would still support him for bureaucracy (bureaucratship?) because I like his handling on the Misplaced Pages. Similarly, if I were anti-Canadian or anti-people-with-names-beginning-with-G, I would still support him. This is an issue where a separation must be made - church and state, or more general, the separation of POV and Wikigovernment (someone think of a catchier name), if you will. If one disagrees with him about deletion/inclusion or adminship requirements, that's one thing, but disagreeing about real world POV is another entirely. –Andre (talk) 14:41, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

While the separation of POV and Wikigovernment is admirable it is not a realistic goal, even on wikipedia. I'm trying to see if Grunt will treat people differently based on there political views and place of origin. Second, personal views do matter if they may have an effect on how the user interacts with other users. What's wrong with asking tough questons?He is answering the questions, if he is able to assuage my concern I will withdraw my oppostion. Third, I do not believe that trivializing concerns about Grunt to comparisons about anti-people-with-names-beginning-with-A is helpful to getting him a successful vote. P.S. I would oppose any nominated user who claimed to be anti-Semitic, anti-French, anti-American or anti-blank any, national, racial, ethinic, or religous group. -JCarriker 20:47, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

An objective look at Misplaced Pages:Recently created bureaucrats doesn't support the notion of any "80% rule" applying to bureaucrats, as it typically would for adminship. There seems to be a much higher threshold (more like +90%) of consensus needed for this level of responsibility. I would say that there are enough concerns that this request should be archived. -- Netoholic @ 04:01, 2004 Oct 11 (UTC)

• Thanks for replying on that one point, but can I ask you to also discuss your reasoning behind the "delay" you perceive with admin promotions, and why, if true, you are the best person to be appointed to bureaucrat? Also like to know why you waited until after the official end time (specificallly by 3 minutes)? -- Netoholic @ 00:47, 2004 Oct 11 (UTC)

Bureaucratic Questions
Q1. Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?

A1. I take "general consensus" to be at least 75-80% support (between support and oppose votes) or more for the person becoming an administrator; the 80% would apply if there are significant, legitimate concerns with the user's conduct as an administrator and 75% otherwise.

Q2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?

A2. In such situations I believe I'd be inclined to use my personal judgement. I'd feel that anything below 75% support is grounds for removal with a "consensus not reached"; let them be renominated later if there's real merit in their becoming a sysop. On the other hand, anything above 80-85% is usually a consensus to promote, and if things do not turn out well we do have systems with which to keep them in check. If I do get criticised for these sorts of decisions, I will probably attempt a discussion in a civil manner - but if there's as much controversy surrounding them as with the past borderline cases, things will probably already be clear to myself and to the people involved.

--Grunt 🇪🇺 00:04, 2004 Oct 4 (UTC)

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

Other requests

• Requests for permissions on other Wikimedia projects
• Requests for adminship or bureaucratship on meta
• Requests for self-de-adminship on any project can be made at m:Requests for permissions.
• Requests to mark a user as a bot can be made at m:Requests for permissions following consensus at wikipedia talk:bots that the bot should be allowed to run.
• Requests for comment on possible misuses of sysop rights

Ugen64

I wasn't sure where this belongs, so I'll just put it here (there's "self-de-adminship", but no "self-de-bureaucratship"). I'd officially like to ask for debureaucratship, because I am apparently "broadly interpreting" policy in an "aggressive fashion." ugen64 01:09, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

• Successful requests for adminship
• Unsuccessful requests for adminship
• Successful requests for bureaucratship
• Unsuccessful requests for bureaucratship