Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
<!-- Please note that new RfA policy states that ALL RfA nominations posted here MUST have candidate acceptance, or the nominations may be removed. Please read the revised directions carefully. Thank you. -->
<!-- Please note that new RfA policy states that ALL RfA nominations posted here MUST have candidate acceptance, or the nominations may be removed. Please read the revised directions carefully. Thank you. -->
<!-- Place new nomination(s) right below, whether you are nominating yourself or someone else. Please leave the first "----" alone. -->
<!-- Place new nomination(s) right below, whether you are nominating yourself or someone else. Please leave the first "----" alone. -->
----
{{Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Courtney_Akins}}
----
----
{{Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/SaxTeacher}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/SaxTeacher}}
Lua error in Module:RFX_report at line 63: bad argument #2 to 'format' (number expected, got nil).Current time is 12:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC). — Purge this pageLua error in Module:RFX_report at line 63: bad argument #2 to 'format' (number expected, got nil).Current time is 12:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC). — Purge this pageShortcuts
If you are new to participating in a request for adminship, or are not sure how to gauge the candidate, then kindly go through this mini guide for RfA voters before you participate.
One trial run of an experimental process of administrator elections took place in October 2024.
About administrators
The additional features granted to administrators are considered to require a high level of trust from the community. While administrative actions are publicly logged and can be reverted by other administrators just as other edits can be, the actions of administrators involve features that can affect the entire site. Among other functions, administrators are responsible for blocking users from editing, controlling page protection, and deleting pages. However, they are not the final arbiters in content disputes and do not have special powers to decide on content matters, except to enforce the community consensus and the Arbitration Commitee rulings by protecting or deleting pages and applying sanctions to users.
The community grants administrator access to trusted users, so nominees should have been on Misplaced Pages long enough for people to determine whether they are trustworthy. Administrators are held to high standards of conduct because other editors often turn to them for help and advice, and because they have access to tools that can have a negative impact on users or content if carelessly applied.
Nomination standards
The only formal prerequisite for adminship is having an extended confirmed account on Misplaced Pages (500 edits and 30 days of experience). However, the community usually looks for candidates with much more experience and those without are generally unlikely to succeed at gaining adminship. The community looks for a variety of factors in candidates and discussion can be intense. To get an insight of what the community is looking for, you could review some successful and some unsuccessful RfAs, or start an RfA candidate poll.
If you are unsure about nominating yourself or another user for adminship, you may first wish to consult a few editors you respect to get an idea of what the community might think of your request. There is also a list of editors willing to consider nominating you. Editors interested in becoming administrators might explore adoption by a more experienced user to gain experience. They may also add themselves to Category:Misplaced Pages administrator hopefuls; a list of names and some additional information are automatically maintained at Misplaced Pages:List of administrator hopefuls. The RfA guide and the miniguide might be helpful, while Advice for RfA candidates will let you evaluate whether or not you are ready to be an admin.
Nominations
To nominate either yourself or another user for adminship, follow these instructions. If you wish to nominate someone else, check with them before making the nomination page. Nominations may only be added by the candidate or after the candidate has signed the acceptance of the nomination.
All Wikipedians—including those without an account or not logged in ("anons")—are welcome to comment and ask questions in an RfA. Numerated (#) "votes" in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections may only be placed by editors with an extended confirmed account. Other comments are welcomed in the general comments section at the bottom of the page, and comments by editors who are not extended confirmed may be moved to this section if mistakenly placed elsewhere.
If you are relatively new to contributing to Misplaced Pages, or if you have not yet participated on many RfAs, please consider first reading "Advice for RfA voters".
There is a limit of two questions per editor, with relevant follow-ups permitted. The two-question limit cannot be circumvented by asking questions that require multiple answers (e.g. asking the candidate what they would do in each of five scenarios). The candidate may respond to the comments of others. Certain comments may be discounted if there are suspicions of fraud; these may be the contributions of very new editors, sockpuppets, or meatpuppets. Please explain your opinion by including a short explanation of your reasoning. Your input (positive or negative) will carry more weight if supported by evidence.
To add a comment, click the "Voice your opinion" link for the candidate. Always be respectful towards others in your comments. Constructive criticism will help the candidate make proper adjustments and possibly fare better in a future RfA attempt. Note that bureaucrats have been authorized by the community to clerk at RfA, so they may appropriately deal with comments and !votes which they deem to be inappropriate. You may wish to review arguments to avoid in adminship discussions. Irrelevant questions may be removed or ignored, so please stay on topic.
The RfA process attracts many Wikipedians and some may routinely oppose many or most requests; other editors routinely support many or most requests. Although the community currently endorses the right of every Wikipedian with an account to participate, one-sided approaches to RfA voting have been labeled as "trolling" by some. Before commenting or responding to comments (especially to Oppose comments with uncommon rationales or which feel like baiting) consider whether others are likely to treat it as influential, and whether RfA is an appropriate forum for your point. Try hard not to fan the fire. Remember, the bureaucrats who close discussions have considerable experience and give more weight to constructive comments than unproductive ones.
Most nominations will remain active for a minimum of seven days from the time the nomination is posted on this page, during which users give their opinions, ask questions, and make comments. This discussion process is not a vote (it is sometimes referred to as a !vote, using the computer science negation symbol). At the end of the discussion period, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether there is a consensus for promotion. Consensus at RfA is not determined by surpassing a numerical threshold, but by the strength of rationales presented. In practice, most RfAs above 75% support pass.
In December 2015 the community determined that in general, RfAs that finish between 65 and 75% support are subject to the discretion of bureaucrats (so, therefore, almost all RfAs below 65% will fail). However, a request for adminship is first and foremost a consensus-building process. In calculating an RfA's percentage, only numbered Support and Oppose comments are considered. Neutral comments are ignored for calculating an RfA's percentage, but they (and other relevant information) are considered for determining consensus by the closing bureaucrat.
In nominations where consensus is unclear, detailed explanations behind Support or Oppose comments will have more impact than positions with no explanations or simple comments such as "yep" and "no way". A nomination may be closed as successful only by bureaucrats. In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats may extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination to make consensus clearer. They may also close nominations early if success is unlikely and leaving the application open has no likely benefit, and the candidate may withdraw their application at any time for any reason.
If uncontroversial, any user in good standing can close a request that has no chance of passing in accordance with WP:SNOW or WP:NOTNOW. Do not close any requests that you have taken part in, or those that have even a slim chance of passing, unless you are the candidate and you are withdrawing your application. In the case of vandalism, improper formatting, or a declined or withdrawn nomination, non-bureaucrats may also delist a nomination. A list of procedures to close an RfA may be found at WP:Bureaucrats. If your nomination fails, then please wait for a reasonable period of time before renominating yourself or accepting another nomination. Some candidates have tried again and succeeded within three months, but many editors prefer to wait considerably longer before reapplying.
In the 2024 RfA review, the community authorized designated administrators and bureaucrats to act as monitors to moderate discussion at RfA. The monitors can either self-select when an RfA starts, or can be chosen ahead of time by the candidate privately. Monitors may not be involved with the candidate, may not nominate the candidate, may not !vote in the RfA, and may not close the RfA, although if the monitor is a bureaucrat they may participate in the RfA's bureaucrat discussion. In addition to normal moderation tools, monitors may remove !votes from the tally or from the discussion entirely at their discretion when the !vote contains significant policy violations that must be struck or otherwise redacted and provides no rational basis for its position – or when the comment itself is a blockable offense. The text of the !vote can still be struck and/or redacted as normal. Monitors are encouraged to review the RfA regularly. Admins and bureaucrats who are not monitors may still enforce user conduct policies and guidelines at RfA as normal.
Nominations must be accepted by the user in question. If you nominate a user, leave a message on their talk page and ask them to reply here if they accept the nomination. If you intend to nominate yourself, please take note that while there is no hard and fast requirement for nominating, editors with less than three to six months experience and 1,000–2,000 edits very rarely succeed in becoming admins.
Please remember to update the vote-tallies in the headers when voting.
Final (2/2/1) ended 04:51, 3 September2006 (UTC) (officially closed many years later)
Courtney Akins (talk·contribs) – Hi! :) I have been on Misplaced Pages long enough and have many edits by now, so I think I am gonna be a good admin. I also have a college education. I know I will be able to help Misplaced Pages a lot. Thanks.Courtney Akins04:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
2. Of your articles or contributions to Misplaced Pages, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A:
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
Weak Support. I'd say good user, but wait awhile. I see from the first oppose this prolly won't succeed. On another note, I also like the way this was formatted since I can jump to the comments, though others might not agree. Mostly Rainy04:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Not to be rude Courtney, but you just been unblocked for trolling, and the length was originally indef. I would go as far as to support that block now because you're editing here has been increasingly disruptive. You clearly don't understand some of the policies and guidelines here on Misplaced Pages and you are undeserving of adminship. And for your own sake, I would suggest withdrawing this nomination. (NOTE: After making this RFA, she was blocked for an hour by Lar for disruptive behavior and going against her recommended mentorship). — The Future04:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose - without even looking at your block, I'd strongly suggest you withdrawl based on inexperience. You didn't even answer the questions above before listing the RfA, and you joined about three weeks ago and have only 132 edits (only 15 of which are in the Mainspace). Though there is no official standard, most editors will not support an editor who has less than several months of experience and 3000+ edits. Please don't take this personally - just work on editing articles and becoming more familiar with Misplaced Pages's policy. You might want to read some editors' standardcs in voting in RfAs and waiting three months minimum before requesting adminship again. Fabricationary04:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
I have been editing Misplaced Pages for about a year and during that time have started a number of articles, and added to / improved several others. For a list, please see my user page. I would appreciate being considered for adminship.
I should mention that when I first began to contribute to Misplaced Pages, I created my username as Mdickinson. After a few weeks of exploring Misplaced Pages and making an increasing number of edits, I realized that I would probably be a lifelong user, and decided it would be prudent to change to a username that did not include my last name. At that point I created the user name SaxTeacher and have done all my editing since that time as SaxTeacher. (I am aware it's possible to have one's username changed by a Bureaucrat, but at the time, the advice given on the Changing username page was to simply create a new name, so I followed that advice.) I mention my previous user name only because someone who wants to see my very earliest efforts, or to come up with a valid edit count, would need to look under Mdickinson. Thank you, SaxTeacher(talk)18:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Self nominated 16:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
A: I have done a bit of vandalism reversion and would like to do more of this. I have also done some disambiguation page link repair (You can help!), and have created several disambig pages when they were clearly needed (for instance, Paul Cohen and Lee Patrick). I look forward to doing more of this type of work.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Misplaced Pages, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I would have to point to Sigurd Raschèr and Fenno Heath as two good examples of my work. In one case I found no article on an accomplished musician, and in another I found a stub. I created/expanded each article myself based on my own research. In the case of the Raschèr article, I realized the need for a separate entry for Raschèr Saxophone Quartet. I have done a lot of editing of Saxophone and Carillon as well. For some musicians, e.g. Larry Combs, Walter Hartley, and James Di Pasquale, I have contacted the subject of the article directly, to ask for biographical information and to obtain their permission to reprint copyrighted information.
As a professional proofreader and editor of business presentations, I find that just about any time I am reading a Misplaced Pages article, regardless of topic, I am able to find and correct several grammatical and punctuation errors.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I have addressed other editors once or twice when I felt their contributions were hasty or were not in the best interest of the article. The articles I have created/edited have not been particularly controversial topics, so this has not been much of an issue so far. But I think the nature of my contributions thus far and my age and experience would give me the background and maturity necessary to deal firmly/fairly with conflicts that may come up.
Edit counts are on the talk page. --ais523 09:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Final: (8/23/11)
Support
In my observation, in saxophone-related articles SaxTeacher has always edited with great care and seriousness. Badagnani18:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Moral support based on candidate's good work so far as an editor. However, I urge withdrawal for now and reapplication later after the candidate has greater experience in other areas per the oppose and neutral suggestions below. Newyorkbrad22:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Moral Support, don't let this RfA discourage you. You're a good user, but people are generally opposing based on a lack of experience - which is the easiest thing in the world to fix, if you persevere. Keep with it, making at least a few edits every day if you have the time, and you'll be in a strong position to start a new request in 3-4 months' time. :) Daveydweeb (/patch) 01:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Moral Support Good on you for seeing the RfA through! You seem to be quite a good Wikipedian to have contributing to the project and I suspect that with a bit more experience, you'll sail through your next request for adminship. On a related note, you might want to sign up for admin coaching, which is a program run by Esperanza that pairs experienced administrators with users who plan on becoming administrators in the future. This will allow you to become experienced in some of the administrative areas (closing *fD's, for example) with some help from your coaches. Good luck! (You should also feel free to contact me with any questions and I'll be sure to answer them or point you in the right direction in a timely manner) hoopydink21:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose sorry, you're a very good editor and have made some valuable contributions to Misplaced Pages. But you've got fewer than 700 edits across both usernames which is just isn't enough for me to form an accurate picture of you. You're edits are very sparse as well: you've only edited on 30 days this year, some of which have only one edit. Your answers to the standard questions aren't compelling either: your answer to Q1 doesn't mention any tasks that require the admin tools, for example. You've had very few interactions with other editors, which is a vital part of being an admin, so its hard to judge how you'd handle the tough situations admins sometimes face. I applaud your contributions, but don't think you're ready for the admin bit quite yet. Good luck, Gwernol20:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Aside from being able to edit and improve articles, admins and prospective admins should also be contributing to the Wiki space and talking to users, whether it be giving advice about editing or researching or warning vandals. I suggest an editor review in order to see in which areas the community thinks that you need to improve then work in these for three or four months before reapplying. Talking to people is key to being an admin! (aeropagitica) (talk) 20:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Oppose Lack of edits is a major concern here. However, your stay of about one year here is noted. Try again after three months. --Siva197921:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. You are a good editor, but not yet experienced enough to become an admin. You currently have less than 800 edits - successful admin candidates usually have at least 2000 edits, with a least a couple of hundred in the Misplaced Pages space demonstrating policy knowledge, and at least a few hundred talk edits showing community interaction. Also, although you've been here almost a year (which is longer than many admin candidates), there have been some large gaps of time in which you didn't edit. Admins are exepcted to check in pretty much daily with only occassional wikibreaks, so you're unlikely to succeed as an admin candidate until your record shows a long period of consisent editing. Good luck if you decide to apply again in future. Zaxem00:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose Discounting edits related to filing this RfA, Misplaced Pages:Changing username-related edits, and Misplaced Pages:Help desk questions, this user's only WP:space edits are to WP:RFI (and then, only one situation was reported; I've checked the contribs of both the old and the new usernames). The candidate is unfortunately relatively inexperienced and thus would be too likely to inadvertently make errors in using the admin tools. Try withdrawing and getting a better idea of what project-space is like over the next few months. --ais523 10:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose I am sorry; this user has not had enough experience or enough favourable edits to become an administrator quite yet. -- Casmith 78912:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose Too few edits, I'm afraid. read up on policy, get some more edits under your belt, and come back in six months or so - I'll be all for it then. HawkerTyphoon10:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Strong Oppose, only 618 edits at nomination? Doesn't make me think you have the necessary experience to deal with adminship.. Perhaps in a few months eh? :) --Deon555Review23:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose User has done many great things to help Misplaced Pages ,but I don't think he's had enough experience at the moment.Once he get's to 2,000 he should be ready.SOADLuver21:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Neutral, less than 10 Misplaced Pages-space edits before this RfA which means that it's very unlikely that you are sufficiently versed in the policies and other workings that are often needed from an admin. I won't oppose since this will most likely end up as a pile-on for a good editor, but I'd suggest you withdraw and get yourself better acquainted with the wikipedia namespace if you're still interested in adminship in the future. - Bobet20:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Neutral per Firsfron, you are a good editor and should keep up the good work. However, at this time, you should probably withdraw this your nomination and focus instead on getting to know Misplaced Pages and the people on Misplaced Pages. Best of Luck. -- danntmC16:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Neutral Keep working hard, participate in WP:CfD's, etc. Also, watch other's RfA's for points to focus on to get the "mop" one of these days. Thanks for all your hard work. Hang in there - JungleCattalk/contrib18:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Neutral I became an admin because I wanted the ability to more effectively fight vandalism, so I appreciate the desire here. Being able to speedy-delete appropriate articles and images is helpful without the need to tag those which can be deleted immediately. It saves other admins work, and you can *never* have too many admins doing vandalism patrol. Still, I agree with the consensus that a little more time is needed, and at this point neither a support or oppose vote would change the result anyway. — Ram-Man20:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Neutral— Everything has been said, but not everyone has said it. Saw nothing wrong with your edits or comments; but would like more data to work with. More mileage on the tires will make me a supporter. Williamborg (Bill)20:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Additional comment - Your “edit summary” usage is 42% for major edits and 18% for minor edits. This doesn't disqualify you, but it is generally an indicator of inexperience. You’ll find that the edit summaries are useful when you’re reviewing an RfA candidate, so it is in the applicant's best interest to provide them. Come back as soon as you’ve got some more experience. Skål - Williamborg (Bill)21:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Please note that you can go to Preferences and click the box for the setting that will automatically prompt for a summary whenever you are about to post an edit without a summary. Newyorkbrad21:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Neutral - I don't want to oppose someone who is evidently a good editor. Please get some experience in areas away from the main space such as AfDs, so we can get a better sense of you and you can get a better sense of the kinds of debates an admin has to get involved in. Also, do some more intense editing from day to day so, again, we all have a better sense of your approach. If you do that and come back around the end of the year, you're likely to succeed in a second RfA. Metamagician300008:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successfulrequest for adminship. Please do not modify it.
For followers of the 1FA principle, he contributed heavily to Flag of Australia (mainly the January 2006 history).
He also helps with gnoming, such as wikification, disambiguating, fixing redundant cats or replacing supercats with subcats, etc, as well as helping to to insert LGA infoboxes to many Sydney LGA articles ().
The main pillar of encyclopedic integrity is the maintenance of NPOV and one of the most important characteristics of an administrator is to set a good example of NPOV for users. JPD does this quite a lot, most notably in combatting the "tourist-brochure" syndrome which affects many city articles such as Melbourne (, ) and most notably Sydney, (, , ), where he kept a calm head despite the persistent and disruptive marketing style editing by the now-banned User:Jackp. He also keeps a close eye on removing aspersions, hagiography, advertising, and weasel words from articles (, , , )
His extensive presence at talk pages such as Talk:Westies (people) - (, , )
steering off-topic debate (, ) and mathematics (). He keeps a close eye on Sydney and Australia, as evidenced by the ample discussion on the accompanying talk pages, especially attempting to reason with Jackp. his polite, and logical debate throughout shows an ability to withstand the heat and red herrings to which an admin is often subjected. He also communicates well with other users (, , , ) and does not engage in edit-warring or disruption.
He is also active in helping at Australian Noticeboard in discussions to coordinate and help standardise material (, , ), and has an understanding of how to resolved disputes ().
JPD contributes regularly to reverting vandalous and nonsense posts, warning the user appropriately, as well as removing linkspam ().
He has a strong understanding of the image policy, in particular the fair use policy, which appears to be a big problem with many wrongly used fair use images (,
,
).
JPD also has a very thorough usage of comprehensive edit summaries, allowing others to see what he has written and follow the historical development of articles. His email is enabled. His userpage and signature are in order.
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept Blnguyen's flattering nomination. JPD (talk) 12:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
A: I like to do different things from time to time, so would probably pay a lot of attention to which backlogs most need clearing. I particularly anticipate dealing with deletions, especially speedies, but also AfD and images without copyright questions. I would continue to revert vandalism, and would definitely appreciate the rollback button. Admin tools would also help when dealing with banned users and other persistent vandals.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Misplaced Pages, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Blnguyen has already mentioned most of my better contributions, so I will mention here what I like about some of them. I was particularly pleased to contribute to Flag of Australia, which was an enjoyable experience, and I feel a fine example of how collaboration can work very well. I like to think that at Representation of a Hopf algebra I made the point of the original article clearer and easier to read for some at least. I have also been pleased with some of my more individual efforts at Bob Skilton, Carlo Lazzarini and Parliament House, Sydney.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I have been involved with conflicts with (now) banned users such as User:Jackp and sockpuppets of User:Pnatt. Before they were banned or I realised they were sockpuppets, I have tried to engage in discussion and explain why their edits have been reverted by myself or others. I acted similarly with User:Felix Portier who was adding a lot of doubtful unsourced material, and even in disagreements with clearly constructive editors such as User:WikiCats (Template talk:Sydney regions, as well as Westies mentioned by Blnguyen) and User:Rarelibra (Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Countries and user talk), I have tried to emphasise discussing the relevant issues and gaining consensus. I have been slightly upset by some of the suggestions these users have made about my motivations, but I feel the best way to deal with this, as other things, is to continue talking, focussing on issues relevant to the article.
4. How would you deal with a long term group trouble users, blocked temporarily on several occasion for 3RR/NPA, who manage to flame, "tag team" revert war, and add unsourced original research to pages just enough to avoid any instant indefinite blocks? Would you seek an RfC, RfAr, or AN/I as the first step?Voice-of-All22:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
A: In my experience, I tend to be more patient with these sort of users than some, continuing to attempt to discuss the issues. I don't see this as a good thing or a bad thing (except that it is good to have people with different approaches), but it does mean that I am less likely to be the one iniating RfCs, etc. I can't see RfAr being the first step. Other than that, it would depend on the specifics. RfC is the obvious thing to do when the users are engaging in discussion. Without discussion, I would suggest they probably do deserve an instant indefinite block, which I would want to confirm at AN/I.
5. Given the above, if an admin who edited the article blocked one of these users, could that ever be considered appropriate, or should only unrelated admins block? Would you consider that serious administrator abuse?Voice-of-All22:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
A: Of course it is ideal that an uninvolved admin should block. In the case described above, this is probably necessary. However, I would not be bothered by an admin who blocking on a clear violation of policy, or with the support of the community, no matter how involved they were.
You mentioned above that you will help out with admin backlogs, would you consider working on WP:RQM? I know this is not one of the most attractive areas but it is usually backlogged. Regards, E Asterion12:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Support I've long considered JPD an exemplary Wikipedian and have had plans to nominate him for adminship for quite some time. Although I've dipped out on that honour, Blnguyen has done the task justice, comprehensively outlining why JPD ought to be given the mop. He has sound knowledge of policy, excellent communication skills and he never loses perspective. Long overdue.--cj | talk09:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Support. An excellent candidate who has been around since May 2005 and contributed solidly throughout the project. JPD has a level head and I'm certain he'll be a great administrator. -- I@n09:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Support Good contributions to sports including cricket. Updates cricket related articles frequently. eg: darrell hair, pakistan tour to england 2006 --Ageo02000:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Support seems to be very well-rounded and well-versed in many areas of Misplaced Pages. It seems as if he's certainly to be trusted and will do good work on the administrative front. hoopydink23:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Support I have no doubts he would make an excellent admin. Have seen his work, esp around Australian related articles. Thumbs up from me. Rafy03:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Support without reservation. I've seen the user around a lot and everything I've seen has impressed me favorably. Clearly understands both policy and article-writing, will make an excellent admin --- Deville (Talk) 05:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Support, this user is very active, and just as importantly, is very civil, based on my running across him, such as in AfD discussions. Seems that he would be an excellent admin. --Kinu/c05:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Support No hesitation as he has been very polite in the occasions where we have been in contact and has a good record of watching pages which are also on my watchlist. Ansell 08:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Support as it appears from Philosophus' userpage that he is no longer participating on Misplaced Pages, my request for more information was made two days ago, and my own checks have turned up nothing to object to, I will certainly support this nomination. User is a solid editor, and I feel we need more Admins from Down Under anyway, as so many of us are off-line when things need fixing. Firsfron of Ronchester01:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Support This user has had enough experience and edits to become an administrator. I trust you will fulfil your role admirably. -- Casmith 78912:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
SupportThere are currently 846 administrators, 48,452,849 users and 6,929,247 articles on Misplaced Pages as of Tuesday, December 24, 2024. JPD will make that 846 + 1 when this RfA closes. Williamborg (Bill)20:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Support well-rounded and highly civil contributor, clearly fit for adminship. As a slightly off-topic aside, kudos to Blnguyen for writing one of the most persuasive and comprehensive admin nominations I've ever seen. Great work. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind01:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. Overuses warning templates when taking a few more seconds to write relevant warnings would be more effective and courteous. --Philosophus19:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Note to closing bureaucrat this user has left Misplaced Pages per here. Thanks. Stubbleboy 03:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC) NB. "This user" refers to Philosophus, not to the candidate for admin. Carcharoth10:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Just weighing in here. I would imagine that if a user leaves Misplaced Pages, that their opinion as a matter of consensus does not matter. Consensus has to do with the community, not those outside of it. Making the choice to leave, IMHO, means that you've rejected the community. But my opinion here matters not. The point I think is that JPD has unanimous support except for a single opposition vote from a user that isn't even a stated member of Misplaced Pages anymore. That speaks volumes to JPD. -- RM01:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
What about short-term blocked, and banned (indefinitely blocked) users? Are their votes discounted as well? Or rather, to move away from numbers, would the closing bureaucrat be more likely to discount their views? Carcharoth02:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure about short-term blocked, but at least in the case of banned users or those who have otherwise left semi-permanently (nothing is really permanent on Misplaced Pages), I would *expect* their "votes" to be given less or no weight, especially if there concerns were unique. But of course broad generalizations are hard to make, and it would be up to the closing bureaucrat to make that judgement call. And again, this is just my opinion, but if a user violates the trust of the community, I don't think that they deserve to be treated equally. We reject meatpuppets who are clearly not in the interest of the community. Also, imagine if some organization made a concerted effort to recruit a hundred users who contributed legitimatly for, say, 400 edits, before being used to "take control" of the voting here. How seriously should their votes be taken? To get back to my main point, whether or not this vote "counts" or not, as far as I am concerned, this vote has the unanimous consensus of the community. -- RM12:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Neutral
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successfulrequest for adminship. Please do not modify it.
Carnildo (talk·contribs) – Carnildo is a former administrator whose admin status was revoked by the arbitration committee six months ago as a remedy in the matter that came to be known as the Pedophilia userbox wheel war. Carnildo's actions in that matter appear to have been a one-time (albeit egregious) failure of judgement rather than part of an overall pattern. Time has gone by, and in discussing that unfortunate matter with Carnildo, I have concluded that he has learned from that mistake. Just as importantly, he has continued to serve the project, in stark contrast to the other administrator subject to a similar remedy. Carnildo's most recent work has been the important but thankless job of policing fair use image claims. I also note the considerable productivity he has demonstrated in the past using the admin tools. I believe that the project would be best served by granting him adminship once again.
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
A: Deleting no-source and no-license images and other image CSDs. Undeleting images on the rare occasion where someone provides source or copyright information after the image was deleted. Explaining to people why their no-source or no-license image was deleted (much easier if I can check the deleted image description page to say "You uploaded it on the 7th without any indication of where it was from, it was tagged on the 13th by User:Joe Bloggs, my bot removed it from the article on the 18th, and it was deleted by User:SomeAdmin on the 21st"). Right now, all I can do is point to the image use policy and refer the user to the admin who deleted the image.
For those who say I can run OrphanBot just fine without administrator rights, here's a list of things related to running the bot I currently can't do:
I can't delete images when someone tells me they uploaded it by mistake.
I can't undelete images when someone comes to me with source or copyright information.
OrphanBot can't edit protected pages to remove unsourced or no-license images. I can't either.
I can't delete "by-permission" or "no commercial use" images that OrphanBot finds while tagging new uploads.
There's no point in me following up on images OrphanBot has identified as untagged, since 95% of the time, the images need to be deleted.
Since I'm not an administrator, there are certain ways that people could interfere with OrphanBot's operation that I can't prevent.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Misplaced Pages, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: The increased focus on image copyright problems. I can't take all the credit, but there was a definite increase in attention on the subject after I started objecting to the majority of Featured Article candidates as having problems with the images.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Most of the stress I face comes from enforcing the Misplaced Pages image use policies. Probably the hardest part comes from having to inform users that the hard work they've done to get permission for Misplaced Pages to use an image isn't good enough: that they need to get the image released under a free license.
Peoples' responses to OrphanBot haven't been much of a problem recently: the people who oppose Misplaced Pages's image use policies have either figured out that the bot just enforces the policies, so opposing the bot won't change the policy, or they've resorted to petty harassment and vandalism, which deesn't affect either me or the bot.
4. There are some comments below that you have "yet to apologize for actions" with respect to the situation that led to the desysopping. Can you provide diffs (ideally from relatively close to the time of that case) that show your reaction to the ruling, and any communications you made that would shed light on your opinion of your own actions?
I'm not sure exactly what you're asking for here. Blocking Giano and El C was a mistake, which I've said several times in emails to people. For the most part, though, I haven't thought about it or discussed it on Misplaced Pages; I've been busy with other things.
For people who want some form of accountability from me, I agree that if four ArbCom members feel that I should no longer be an admin, I will resign my adminship. Additionally, I'll discuss any blocks that I feel need to be made on the Administrators' Noticeboard beforehand.
5. I noticed you were de-admined for a wheel war as mentioned in Request_for_de-adminship. How can you demonstrate you will not repeat this?
I was de-admined for blocking other editors; I did not wheel war. As I noted above, I'll discuss any blocks that I feel need to be made on the Administrators' Noticeboard beforehand.
I only know what the page said. I do not know the whole story. Would you explain it and then explain how you have demonstrated that you have moved passed it and will not repeat it? Anomo02:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
6. Hi Carnildo, please respond to the following if you would: In your previous Rfa bid, PedanticallySpeaking raised a very valid point regarding the nature of the vast majority of your contributions to Misplaced Pages. I see all this praise from all camps regarding your "great work". Apart from your self-appointed duty as the number one image copyright cop, and running a copyright robo cop which removes images from articles, what have you really done to make this project richer in terms of actual CONTENT? How many articles have you started or expanded from mere stubs? Have you been anywhere near at least one FA? Thanks for your time --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)22:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I've started or significantly expanded about two dozen articles, I've uploaded about 40 free-licensed images to Commons, about a dozen to Misplaced Pages, and I've got several dozen other images that haven't been processed for uploading yet. I've also got a watchlist of 1200+ pages that I keep an eye on for vandalism or edits that need cleaning up. If you haven't seen any additive contributions to Misplaced Pages from me, that just means you haven't been looking very hard.
Support. I believe the incident for which he was desysopped was a gross error in judgment. However, I have seen nothing but civil and professional behavior from Carnildo since, even in the face of the great deal of abuse he gets for running OrphanBot. I agree with UninvitedCompany's nomination statement: he does valuable work for which the admin tools would be very useful, and I have no reason to expect any similar lapses in judgment in the future. I am hesitant as a matter of form to voice an opinion in the RfA of someone I had a hand in desysopping, but I would like to state this publicly; desysopping is not intended to be a permanent measure for an otherwise good user who can regain the community's trust, and I think it is not too soon to reextend that trust to Carnildo. Mindspillage(spill yours?)03:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Support. Carnildo is a real asset to the project. No reason for us to go without his admin work for some indefinite longer period of time. Jkelly
I think of myself as rather intolerant of malfeasance, and I was very disappointed at the wheelwarring that transpired during this incident, but I have nothing but admiration for someone who works hard at a thankless task like that carried out by OrphanBot for a very long time with little fanfare, just getting the job done... and for someone who would be brave enough to stand for adminship again, putting themselves in front of the community, in what is sure to be one of the more contentious and unpleasant nominations in some time. That's the sort of attitude we need among admins. 'Heartyweak support' ++Lar: t/c03:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
You'll want to view the whole thread, as there are further responses from myself and others there. I admit I find the block log damaging: and am concerned that (apparently, but see Mike's Q#4, as yet unanswered) no remorse has been expressed. Expressing it now may be a bit late to the game. Changed support to weak. I still at this point think this user on balance would benefit the 'pedia, but I'm wavering. ArbCom members supporting... that means a lot I think. ++Lar: t/c17:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Support 90% because of his excellent work in the notoriously thorny area of image deletion and 10% as an anti-hyperbole measure. One instance of bad judgment during an apparently contagious outbreak of bad judgment is not "destroying" anything. Opabinia regalis04:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Support I supported him once and I will support him again. Everyone makes mistakes and to condemn a former admin for his past mistakes incessantly would really demoralize any Wikipedian. I acknowledge that he had made mistakes in the past. Does that mean that he will never be able to gain his adminship for the resr of his time being spent in this project. Moreover, he is very, very unlikely to repeat those mistakes. If we disallow a former admin from ever gaining his admin duties because of past mistakes, every administrator in this project will be living in constant fear of erring due to some reasons. Just look at Chacor's (formarly NSLE) past contributions as a case in point. We as Wikipedians must learn to forgive, although I do not necessary mean forget, one's behaviour in this project. Yes, the user's violations of policy is inexcusable, but is it unforgivable? Time is a great healing tool in these cases. --Siva197904:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Support One grave mistake, in an affair in which everybody behaved poorly, does not obliterate an otherwise stellar wiki-career. He deserves the mop, and we'll be better for it. Xoloz05:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Strong support per Mindspillage. The returning of his adminship is overdue. OrphanBot is an extremely useful contribution to wikipedia. Great user (barring the silliness back in February). DarthVader07:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Support. I've read through the case at the center of the controversy. It's not pretty, but he/she has certainly been helpful in the past when I've encountered him/her (image related instances). I would like to see him/her have a second chance! InvictaHOG09:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Strong Support does invaluable work. Time has passed since his mistake, and has had already to go through the undignified process of desysopping and a failed RFA. The maturity he has demonstrated by responding calmly, and continuing his hard work (some have turned into a vandal, Annakin Skywalker style, for far less). I hope that, like AFD, the quality of comments will be assessed when closing this RFA, rather than merely statistical: many of the oppose votes come from people who have violated copyright, or can not be bothered to follow simple instructions in the upload process. The JPS10:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Strong Support should have had it restored last time around. Despite all the controversy and losing admin status, has consistently kept working in a difficult and contentious area, which is ultimately of great benefit to wikipedia. --pgk11:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Support Carnildo has done invaluable work for Misplaced Pages. The fact that he has continued to make invaluable contributions to the project after making a terrible mistake, being desysopped and being soundly rejected for re-admining six months ago shows me his commitment to Misplaced Pages. Given the wheel war incident, there is little doubt that plenty of people will be wathcing his progress and any hint of such behavior would result in immediate action by the commmunity. We have to be prepared to forgive one shameful incident, recognize how much Carnildo has given and has to give and give him the mop back. Gwernol12:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Strong Support per Lar, The JPS and Gwernol. In the six months since he was desysoped, Carnildo has shown sound judgement and great dedication to the project. In his response to the parade of nasty comments he gets from inexperience users about OrphanBot, he shows impressive patience and civility. Carnildo will be an even greater asset to the community with admin tools, and I am confident he will not abuse them. ×Meegs13:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Support. I prefer not to mince words and call the userbox incident a "mistake", as a mistake is something you do accidentally. That was an error in judgement, but one that I don't think the candidate should be held to account for forever. Carnildo does terrific work in copyright, and we need more admins in this area. --Aguerriero (talk) 13:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Support, per Uninvited Co.'s nom. and the above comments. Most of what comes to mind has been said already. Syrthiss13:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Support (despite my almost ignoring RfA now that's it's gotten so friggin' complicated). At this point, it's pretty much a moral support. I don't agree with his actions that caused him to be desysopped in the first place, but that one thing doesn't mean he should have the sysop flag off permanently. --Deathphoenixʕ13:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Support, I think that uninvited's nomination is worth the consideration, and second chances are possible. User learned his lesson? Give him the opportunity to prove it. Bastique▼ voir15:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Support. I'm confident that Carnildo can be trusted with the tools, and I find his behavior after the desysoping instructive: he kept right on working, helping the encyclopedia. I find many of the opposes below ridiculous: people who hate OrphanBot, people who refuse to forgive. I'm prepared to give him a second chance. Furthermore, looking at the supports above, it appears that the Arbitration Committee is prepared to trust him, and that says a lot. Mackensen(talk)15:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Every Wikipedian has the right to participate and for his/her opinion to be respected and valued by the community. Also, since this is a discussion, it's good to have multiple perspectives. If you wish to discuss some of the reasons for opposition, I invite you to, but please help the discussion remain constructive and refrain from using insulting labels hoopydink16:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Support once again, shouldn't have lost it. Also the troll factor observation by Mackensen is right on the money. —freak(talk) 15:21, Aug. 29, 2006 (UTC)
Support, one ugly incident is forgivable. Carnildo's obviously committed to enforcing Misplaced Pages policy, as evidenced by a handful of the oppose votes below. Christopher Parham(talk)16:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Strongly Support Carnildo is one of out best in images for over an year, and there are some bad backogs than ever before in there. His OrphanBot does amazing things. One incident is forgivable. A must for adminship. Jaranda17:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Support. Benefits outweigh risks. He has had 6 months to mend his ways. I've come across his edits from time to time and believe his judgement is sound. Hopefully, he will step back and gain consensus from other admins before blocking anyone but an obvious vandal. From the "oppose" rationales below, it looks like this civil war continues on a lower scale. May I perhaps respectfully suggest that the residual bitterness is clouding judgment? Let's leave the past in the past and look forward to the future benefits this candidate can bring to an area desperate for attention. I believe his answer to question 3 shows he understands and respects the views of others and that he his able to carry out difficult work in a dignified and respectful manner. The only images in danger are those that violate policy. These images need to go regardless of how any of us feel about them. I give anyone credit for undertaking as unpleasant and unpopular task as this. Regardless of the outcome of this, I applaud his efforts and urge him to continue. :) Dlohcierekim17:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Support. It's time to put the userbox mess behind us for good. With WP:GUS, I believe it is unlikely that things will escalate to that level again in the foreseeable future. Scobell30217:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Support, it is time for a second chance, being a full six months later. I expressed the view during the case that ArbCom desysoppings may become forever irreversable if sent through the RfA process. At some point I hope to be proven wrong, due to the long term implications of that result. Now would be a good time to prove me wrong. NoSeptember 18:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I think it's fairly clear he would have succeeded the last time if he had just been willing to admit he made a mistake and apologize. Most people can forgive one even major mistake, especially given the other great contributions. So this one not being a shoe in doesn't have anything to do with the arbcom desyssopping, but his unwillingness or inability to accept that he made a mistake. - Taxman18:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, there are always special circumstances in every case, but the overall record of reapplications continues to be abysmal. NoSeptember 19:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
You're correct, but another possibility is that a majority of admins who were desysoped were unfit to be admins. Guanaco was desysoped a second time, Freestylefrappe created several disruptive accounts and Karmafist has been community banned/unbanned several times. The fact that their re-RfAs didn't succeed isn't that surprising. SuperMachine19:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Support. Carnildo's work with images is valuable. Now that several months have passed since that incident, he should be allowed to regain use of the tools in order to carry out his image copyright work more effectively. Oldelpaso18:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Support. Image copyright stuff is a pain in the ass, and we could use the help. Plus, as nom says, it was a one-time lapse in judgement, and long in the past now. Mangojuice19:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Burn out?! He was an admin less than 6 months before Jimbo and the Arbcomm found it necessary to DeOp him. So your main criterion for adminship, seems to be how stubborn and hard headed a candidate is. By that (ill)logic, I agree that you could hardly find a more suitable candidate.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)22:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Support I strongly opposed the desysopping, having thought, inter al., the disruption attendant to Carnildo's actions to have been de minimis, and offered the first support at the second RfA, in which support I termed Carnildo an excellent Wikipedian in whom I was altogether happy to repose trust. Inasmuch as the latter is, consistent with my RfA guidelines, the sole criterion on which I base RfA decisions—codified generally as whether I think it more likely than not that the net effect on the project of a user's being an admin will be positive—I must support, but I am a bit disconcerted that Carnildo devotes a good bit of his time to supporting the third of our five pillars, viz., that the encyclopedia ought to be freely distributable and that Misplaced Pages ought never to infringe on copyright; many of us, of course, continue to believe that images ought to be dealt with on an individual basis, such that we ought always to contravene copyright law where it is eminently unlikely that legal action will entail in view of our infringement, and I cannot understand why one would think extant policy to be correct (to be sure, though, Carnildo is quite right to say that OrphanBot acts consistent with extant policy and toward the indemnification of the Foundation, but I rather think one might better spend time advocating for our enacting different policies). Joe21:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Support. After vacillating a bit on my lingering doubts about Carnildo concerning the rashness of action and resulting rancor and ill-will generated during the contentious times which resulted in the ArbCom sanction. The facts are that Carnildo's vast amount of beneficial work outweighs his controversial role in the wheel warring that occurred regarding the retrospectively minor issue of a type of user box. Absolutely unattractive behaviour from some of the active participants that day, to be certain. I am also certain that Carnildo's future work when re-instated will be most closely scrutinized by interested Wikipedians at large, and affected parties in particular. Safe as milk, IMHO. Hamster Sandwich21:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
EXTREME IMAGE-DELETING SUPPORT seriously, this user is my "go-to guy" on image copyright questions, and contrary to some experiences said here has been very helpful to me anyway. RN21:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Support. I think we should stop punishing a very good editor for making an error of judgement in a situation from which, in my opinion, nobody came out well. I think Carnildo will make very good use of the tools, and his behaviour since being desysoped has been nothing short of exemplary. Carnildo should be let out of the dog-house, a bad call shouldn't hang over him forever. Rje22:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Support What is past is past. Carnildo shows nothing other than dedication to the project. He made a mistake in the past; let's let him make it up now. I'll give a word of warning, though: the ArbCom will not look kindly on a repeat. Sam Korn22:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Support. Lets not extend the desysoping to "punish" him over an action. Remember that the main question is "will he use the tools reasonably". The pedophile userbox incident was an exeptional, diving issue, and while he should not have done what he did, I think he will avoid such things in the future.Voice-of-All23:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Support I see no reason to think he'll cause more problems than he'll do good - quite the opposite. --Doc23:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Strong Support - There is so much work to be done in image copyright verification, deleting images which are invalid for use on Misplaced Pages and they are consistently backlogged for 5 days with 3000-5000 pictures on the queue. Because OrphanBot does basically all of the tagging, most people aren't familiar with the image deletion policy and the backlogs fill up because OrphanBot isn't allowed to delete. eg, Kimchi.sg aka Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh has deleted 16000 things in two months as an admin (mostly pics) and the other day I did ~550-600. The vast majority of people and dare I say it admins here aren't familiar with the image policies or what is invalid fair use. As for the comment that there are other suitable candidates out there that can do the job, I disagree, it is always the same 10 people deleting the images. Carnildo is a must for Misplaced Pages, unless the opposing admins below suddenly make a commitment to delete images and hunt down inappropriate fair use images or orphaned fair use images, which doesn't seem likely. What he does, others are unwilling, are unable or can't be bothered doing- so his one mistake must be balanced up against his rare ability. As for his refusal to apologise, well, if we had a regular admin review, then a lot of admins could be knocked off under that criteria. Blnguyen | rant-line23:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Support A candidate I respect immensely. I have confidence in his judgement despite the issues mentioned here. Ingoolemo00:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Support - Continued whining & complaining from certain individuals goes against everything I believe RfA stands for. If certain individuals want to rehash old wounds once more and decry Carnildo as the most evil villain on the face of the wikisphere, then that is their problem. But at the end of the day what's done is done, the storm has passed, and it is time to rebuild. --Jay(Reply)01:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Neutral leaning Support. Bouts of stupidity per fuddlemark are not a bar to adminship per se - but I would like to hear a more coherent statement of what went wrong, why it went wrong, and how the candidate is planning to be accountable. - CrazyRussiantalk/email15:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
To clarify my thinking on this, since it seems there is great demand here for the nominee to give assurances, I will support if the nominee either imposes on himself some sort of probation, which will give clear guidance to the ArbCom in the event of recidivism, or submits himself to recall, as part of the category or otherwise, on his own terms. Give us something to allow us to support you. - CrazyRussiantalk/email00:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Support. Hopefully we can set a precedent that people desyssoped by ArbCom can rehabilitate themselves. While no apology seems to have been forthcoming for the pedophile issue I think it's time to move on. The Land10:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
SupportThough I never saw the incident happen I can only assume that it was a one time mistake. Invaluable contributor to Misplaced Pages, everyone deserves a second chance.Canadian-Bacon02:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Support. I think he's done penance enough, and is appropriately remorseful. I imagine that all the time wasted because of the pedophilia thing will have taught him his lesson. :) --maru (talk) contribs03:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Support He has "done his time", and I doubht the is any risk of repeat offenses as it was a very unusual case. My personal experience with this user is nothing but positive, and we rely need more admins working on image and copyright related problems that know what they are doing. --Sherool(talk)10:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Support He's invaluable in image issues, which is a tough, thankless job. He manages to be moderately polite about it, which is probably very hard after the first hundred complaints in a given day. The Pedophilia userboxing was silly, and he was properly desysopped for it, but he has done his time, without making a big fuss about it, which was also likely very hard. Per CrzRussian I'd be happier if he added himself to the "admins for recall" category, but that's not specific to him, I'd be happier if most admins did so; I won't insist on it. I see there is some serious, reasoned, opposition to his re-adminning, and some "he deleted my image!" -- "so I was blocked six times, I still want to disrupt some more!" opposition, and hope that the bureaucrat manages to distinguish between the two. AnonEMouse13:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Support Changing from neutral. The user made one set of mistakes, since then he has continued to be a productive editor without any issues. Compared to how the other desysopped admin reacted he has been a model of self-restraint and hard work since then. As long as he understands not to use his tools in a controversial or out of process manner we will be fine. JoshuaZ02:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Support. Changed from neutral. Although Carnildo's answer to Q4 does not show any evidence on Misplaced Pages of his opinion of his actions, it does assert that he understands it was a mistake. I see no reason to disbelieve him, particularly as he says he will discuss blocks before implementing them. That seems to me to remove the greatest potential for a problem. In addition, he sets a bar for desysopping which is lower than for most admins. I'm also not clear that there's much more he could do to earn a second chance than he's already done. Given the very clear use he could make of the admin bit, and the real value to Misplaced Pages of giving him that bit, I'm switching to support. Mike Christie(talk)03:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Support - I was unaware of the wheel-warring until just now. As aggregious as that lapse in judgment was, Carnildo simply does too much good work to be overlooked. This project is drowning in a sea of dodgy images, and Carnildo has shown the dedication and ability to make a real difference. He takes more crap in one day than most of us take in a year, and handles it as well as can be expected. That being said, I feel it would be wise for other admins to keep a close watch on Carnildo's actions should this nomination succeed, at least for a little while. --cholmes7504:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Support, of course. We should look at the desysopping as a reset button - he recieved his punnishment and attoned for his significant mistake - and look at his actions since then. Enough time has passed and the candidate has proven to be decidedly admin worthy. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*>11:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Support, following a credible answer to question 4. I am persuaded that the benefit to the project from giving Carnildo back sysop rights, in particular in the area of image copyright, outweighs the potential disbenefit. I don't see much likelihood of another userbox wheel war anyway, and Carnildo was far from being the only one to get carried away. I reiterate my hope that the closing 'crat will have the sense to ignore any opposiiton based on OrphanBot, which is (whether the uploaders like it or not) of crucial importance in the fight not to get our asses sued by a disgruntled copyright holder or opportunistic IP lawyer. I also agree with Mindspillage that he demonstrates almost daily an ability to handle trolling of the most egregious kind, generally with complete equanimity. Just zis Guy you know?16:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Support (switched from nuetral) admission that blocking was mistaken and undertaking to take issues to WP:AN/I, combined with time eleapsed and excellent work on images gives me confidence to support. Eluchil40417:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Support The absence of remorse is troubling but the key is whether he will misbehave again. I find the commitment to discuss blocks on the admin noticeboard to be a sufficient safeguard. --Spartaz19:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Support - He acknowledges his mistake, and I see no reason to expect him to repeat it. Admin tools would let him be more helpful to the project. Tom Harrison20:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Support, solely because he's done more and better work in images than anyone else on Misplaced Pages, and he could do more with the buttons back. He has agreed not to block anybody without discussion, and acknowledges that he made a mistake, and we could really use him back. Everyone deserves a second chance, especially users as helpful as this one. --Rory09600:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Support. I may not always agree with him, but he's doing extremely valuable work with image tagging. If there's anyone who needs the mop, it's him. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Support. Extremly valuable on Misplaced Pages. He probably learned his lesson now, maybe it's time to turn the page and see him go back in the hard-working administrators ranks. --Deenoe01:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Support In spite of the initially poor answer to Q3 , I think the answer to Q4 is evidence that he has learned from the incident. We need people who can enforce image policies. --Guinnog03:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Support He does a very good job and adminship would help him in this. I believe he learned from his past mistake and is more responsible now. Jecowa14:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Support. It is time to move on. He shows dedication to the project and has acknowledged the mistake and says he will not repeat former actions. He does valuable work with image policy and can well use the tools.--Dakota23:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Support. Carnildo is a very productive user whos productivity has been hurt by a exceptional mistake of Arbcom... where they acted punitively rather than preventative, in contrast with their stated purpose. Frankly the community has no business denying carnildo adminship, but it just wouldn't be like us to avoid cutting off our nose to spite our face. Also, it's taking great restraint for me to avoid going through and visably striking comments that mention the bot, or which have come from users with a history of copyright abuse... God forbid we have an admin who helps us execute the policy and practice of Misplaced Pages to better conform with our stated goal of free content and with the law... --Gmaxwell05:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Support. None of the oppose votes was based on uncivil comment or improper behaviour since his previous RFA, which makes me think he has learned to stay cool. Nevertheless past problems, I like giving people a second chance. -- ReyBrujo13:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
From my limited (singular) and spectacularly negative experience: Unrepentant and unremorseful, unpredictable and impuslive, unconciliatory and uncommunicable, unreflective and uncritical, disrespectful and as offensive as any user I've ever met on the wiki. Untrustworthy. If you wish to discuss the above comment with me, please use this RfA's talk page, not my user talk page and not a threaded conversation bellow this. El_C08:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Oppose I've never met nor even seen the candidate before, but after looking at the situation that led to Carnildo being de-sysopped, I don't think that Misplaced Pages would be better off giving this user any abilities beyond that of a registered user. hoopydink03:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Are you at all aware of his extensive work with images? How much time and effort his bot and his actions have saved? How often he's been instrumental in enforcing our copyright policies? If you were, I highly doubt that you would say that Misplaced Pages wouldn't be better off with Carnildo as an admin.--SB | T03:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I snuck a peek at Carnildo's talk page before weighing in, and from that, I was able to see how involved in image maintenence he is (I was also made aware of his bot through his talk page). My opposition is just one man's opinion and I'll stick to it for now, but I appreciate you taking the time out to comment, Sean! hoopydink03:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
There are about 10 admins who do basically all of the image work. Most admins don't seem to be remotely confident with image deletion policy or identifying incorrect usage of fair use material - or can't be bothered doing any image work. Misplaced Pages will be far better off with him as an admin, as there are wrongly claimed/used fair use images all over the place - like screenshots being used to protray the actors/artists rather than the movie itself, etc. Blnguyen | rant-line23:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Strongly Oppose This user's violations of policy are inexcusable. He has yet to apologize for his actions, and frankly his bot is the most destructive thing on this encyclopedia. In addition, he is rude and condescending, the opposite of what an admin should be. talk#c03:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, bollocks. I mean, I slip into hyperbole below, but ... bollocks. I gather you've uploaded a few dodgy images in your time and been upset with the response? fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 03:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
You like Carnildo. I do not. Doesn't mean you have to harass me and belittle my opinions. Kthx. talk#c
Oh, I remember you... aren't you the user that vandalised OrphanBot's pages, repeatedly? Then got nasty about it when you got blocked over it and so got your block extended? Perhaps you've improved since then though. I can certainly see why you might not totally agree that this editor does good work. ++Lar: t/c05:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Who's the one being nasty now? I'm not the one being nominated for adminship here, I don't see why my past is relevant to this topic at all. Anyway, I will not defend my vote anymore... any further discussion on the subject will be ignored by me. talk#c06:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC) (amazed at how low some will stoop)
This isn't a vote. It's a search for consensus. I think your past is highly relevant and I'm demonstrating that your standing to comment is badly tainted by your past actions. That's not being nasty... Nasty is vandalising the page of a poor defenseless bot, repeatedly. It's not stooping low either... Stooping low is calling for OTHERS to vandalise the page of that bot after you got blocked for it. Please note: There are a lot of editors I highly respect speaking out against Carnildo's nomination, and their words ought to carry weight with others who haven't made up their minds yet. I'm not sure you are one of them though, unless you've changed greatly. ++Lar: t/c13:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Lar, Mark, you don't need to defend yourselves here. Whether this vote should be treated as a good faith one or not is fairly obvious to anyone now that the facts are out. - Taxman18:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
So my past keeps me from being able to comment on RFAs, but Carnildo's past can be forgotten and he can be given admin powers? Huh?!?! talk#c19:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
No, it's just that your obvious history with respect to OrphanBot means that your input in this RfA might be discounted by the closing bureaucrat. I thought that was pretty clear from the above. JzG17:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Again, huh?!?! I have a bad history with him.... that's why i voted oppose. Isn't that what you do?! Would somebody who went to high school with Carnildo and voted support also have his vote discounted? Juppiter17:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Mark's work with image copyright has been fantastic, and he's a great asset to the project. However, his blocking of Giano, El_C and Carbonite in the paedophilia userbox incident was quite possibly the worst thing that any admin could have done in the circumstances, and he did it without blushing. That sort of unthinking stupidity is quite worrying, and not something I'd like to see in an administrator. Might change to support if he can assure me he doesn't intend to use the blocking tool or, better yet, do anything stupid in future. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 03:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Oppose for bringing Misplaced Pages the closest it has ever been to total and complete destruction, explicit lack of remorse in the subsequent RfA, and I just don't trust him not to carry on his private war. A justified, preventative emergency desysopping. CanadianCaesarEt tu, Brute?03:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Oppose I read Kat's support and felt inclined to perhaps support or be neutral, however, I read the Arbcom case and the previous RfA; and my confidence has been completely shattered. Most of my oppose is per Mark and CanadianCaesar, I'm just stunned and can't support. Yanksox03:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Strong Oppose As per above and my comments from the candidate's previous Rfa. He still demonstrates no remorse, except that he lost his SysOp's mop in the first place. His bravery is actually arrogance. Give him his powers back and he will be even moreso. Besides, no one has yet made a compelling case as to why he really needs the Op Mop to be the number one copyright cop. Especially not with Orphanbot doing most of his grunt work. Adminship is a duty and trust, not a reward. If you want to reward him, give him a cookie or a barnstar. But he has proven himself untrustworthy and simply not worth the risk. See Guanaco for instance.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)04:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Oppose per above CanadianCaesar, Kirill and w.marsh. Will continue to oppose until an apology and remedial action is forthcoming. - Mailer Diablo06:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Strong oppose. We are not so hard up for new admins that we must hand the bit back to someone who has yet to show the slightest shred of remorse for the actions that caused him to lose it in the first place. To have merely his word that the incident would not be repeated (although he has not offered even this!) would be insufficient; I am of the opinion that we cannot even consider giving the mop to him again until he acknowledges that his actions were wrong—and not merely because they failed. Kirill Lokshin09:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
What a bizarre comment, Carnildo had admin powers for a long time and we still have lots of images. If you mean images tagged incorrectly got deleted, then that continues regardless of this editor's admin status. If you want images to be "safe", tag them properly and only use fair use within the bounds of the fair use policy. --pgk
Surely a joke. I delete lots of images that his bot tags. There are tons of incorrectly used "fair use" stuff around which nobody knows how to or can't be bothered cleaning up. Carnildo is one of the rare exceptions.
Oppose. I don't trust Carnildo's judgement enough to support returning the admin tools and, as Kirill says, there is no shortage of other, more suitable, candidates. Leithp12:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I think that you should look at the deletion log and see how many guys understand and practice proper image deletion polcicy. Usually 10-12 guys do all the deletes and very few people understand the circumstances under which something is fair use or not. Blnguyen | rant-line23:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't dispute Carnildo's understanding of the image deletion policy, what I do dispute is his/her understanding of the blocking policy and everything else that goes with being an admin. Bishonen gives a perfect example below of why I think this user is unsuited to being an admin. Leithp08:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Carnildo's works to OrphanBot is awesome, but as for adminship, I don't think so. Good editor really, but I'm sceptical of granting this user tools again. Oppose per Kirill Lokshin and R.D.H Ghost in the Machine. --Terence Ong(T | C)12:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
No, I was only going to vote oppose per only Juppiter's opinion, which I agree with. The "Strong" part was from harrassment towards him, such as you may be doing to me now. Bullies tend to flock together, I don't like bullies, and putting questions like that immediately after votes I consider to be bullying. Yankee Rajput16:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. I read the arbitration case in full and was horrified. What's more disturbing is that this user has not offered any apology whatsoever for his actions. Additionally, looking over his/her 50 most recent edits, I counted thirty three edits with no edit summary (other than occasionally /* whatever section the edit was in here */, which does not count). Srose(talk)15:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I haven't decided how (or if) I'll vote, but I'd like to point out that the purpose of an edit summary is to tell people what change you've made to an article (or a template or a user page). There is no special necessity to put "added a comment" or "stated my opinion" in the edit summary for a talk page, as people can usually guess that that's what you did. Carnildo's last fifty edits to articles have 100% edit summaries. AnnH♫16:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. I believe that it's not too much to ask for an editor to simply type "reply" in an edit summary when commenting in a discussion; everyone else does it. It seems like a lack of effort, and it'd be nice to see a preview for what he has to say - if he could just offer a little overview in his summary, like "agree" or "disagree" or "my opinion". Additionally, my major reason for opposition was the first one I stated. Srose(talk)18:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, for what purpose? To me, this demand seems like nothing other than another arbitrary, useless and anal demand so RfA-dwellers can objectively carry out what is an inherently subjective discussion. Sam Korn22:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Wow. I'm not entirely sure I wish to respond to this uncivil comment. And could we WP:AGF? "Arbitrary, useless, and anal"? I do not think that asking for an apology to the users he obviously wronged is "arbitrary, useless, and anal". The major issue in supporting a candidate for adminship is trust. I cannot trust someone who indefinitely blocked established users and shows no remorse for it (Question 4 is still unanswered, and I am deeply concerned by Carnildo's previously mentioned response to concerns about his indef blocking of established users previously - "no big deal"). Edit summaries are one of my personal standards, but the edit summary issue is a minor complaint here, especially compared to my other concern. If I felt I could trust this user, I could and would easily forgive the lack of talk edit summaries. To the main issue, though, I will not support a candidate who has already abused the admin tools and has not apologized for it in six months. If you review my RFA voting record (and my contributions, for that matter), you will see that I am a very level-headed and civil user. I do not appreciate your less than civil accusations and hope that my explanation (my third explanation) has put your concerns to rest. Srose(talk)14:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Strong Oppose: I was one of the people he wrongly, unjustly, nastily and spitefully blocked for hate speech. Never once for one instant has he apologised or intimated to me that he regretted his actions. As far as I can see he would do the same again to some one else the second it took his fancy to do so. No one should have to risk being so accused and blocked again by an editor who is arrogant enough to return here without even attempting to make amends. Giano | talk16:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I believe the block was unjustified and incorrectly labeled. I think it should be expunged. Currently as I understand it, that requires direct developer intervention. If anyone reading this thinks it might be a good idea for functionality to be added to allow that to be done by trusted folk (stewards perhaps, or a special bit like oversight) please consider commenting in reply to this post on VP , thanks ++Lar: t/c11:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
No, we should not start expunging blocks. If a block was truly improper, the blocked user can save the links to the discussions at WP:ANI or elsewhere that clears them in case the issue ever comes up again. We have all sorts of false accusations on talk pages too, we don't delete those either. NoSeptember 12:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Oppose Per Srose. If the candidate would offer a good response to (Optional) question from Mike Christie above, I might change my view on this. JungleCattalk/contrib17:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment The lack of response to the optional question #4 presented by Mike bothers me. This candidate has had plenty of time to respond to this, but kept on editing instead. No remorse, no concern of addressing our anxiety of possible repeat offences. That says enough for me. Not good. JungleCattalk/contrib12:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment I have looked at the candidate's response to the opt qustion from Mike. User said that he didn't really have time to think about it on Misplaced Pages - "too busy". That issue should have been addressed here, not just by emails. Sorry, not changing my Oppose view. JungleCattalk/contrib12:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
oppose to me at least, an ugly incident is only forgiveable if someone admits they were wrong and promises it won't happen again. I'm surprised how many are supporting given that there apparently have been no such assurances offered. --W.marsh 17:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC) Switching to neutral. --W.marsh14:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. His unwillingness to admit he made a mistake, even though that was what seemed to me to be the biggest thing that caused his last nomination to fail, is a problem. It represents that either he is unwilling to admit mistakes or doesn't think he did anything wrong. Both are a problem for having admin tools. I am more than willing to forgive and forget, as Carnildo does amazing and very important work, but not if he can't reallize what he did was egregious. Of course, the problem is he has had a ton of time to do that and hasn't. It would be tough to demonstrate sincerity now. - Taxman18:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Weak Oppose. In a situation like this, it helps to go back to first principles. Those principles are trust (as set out above in the introduction to RfA, and includes having high standards) and need (by implication of the first standard question). On the issue of need, I am satisfied the nominee meets that criterion. However, on the issue of trust, I am not so convinced. The fact that there are a significant number of editors who feel like that trust has been broken speaks volumes. It is almost always possible to re-establish trust, it just takes time and effort. While time has elapsed, I don't see the effort. The nominee should have addressed the issue head on; instead, there is silence. Agent 8619:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Oppose: Having read up on the situation, I just can't justify supporting. It's nothing I have against this editor, but as many have already observed, he hasn't shown any remorse for his actions. I don't believe that merely "doing time", so to speak, is enough for one to earn back trust; one really needs to actually show that one regrets what one has done and that one won't do it again. Heimstern Läufer19:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. In arguing with my Oppose vote six months ago in Carnildo 2, Carnildo spoke of blocking in a way I found amazing, and there's nothing--nothing whatever--on this page suggesting that he has changed his thinking about what a block is and does and how it affects people. Please excuse me if I quote rather than link, I just do think what Carnildo said then needs to be read.
I imposed a block and made a few hastily-worded statements. The block was reverted within ten minutes, and the statements were mostly ignored. I'd feel regret if the consequences had been more significant, but I don't see how a heated opinion and a few minutes of not being able to edit Misplaced Pages is worth agonizing over. --Carnildo01:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Ignored? Surely you must be aware of how far from ignored they were by the people they were directed at. One of the people you blocked, El C, was desysopped in consequence of his outraged reaction to your block and your block reason. Another, Giano, as you can see, still feels insulted and upset at the way you described him. There was a human cost. I'm sorry to see you counting only the arithmetic: a few minutes of not being able to edit. Bishonen23:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate and admire Carnildo's thankless image work, but I won't support giving the block button back to someone with that view of what it does. I don't see myself as "overfocused on apologies"--on the contrary--there's too much insincere apologizing going on in this place--but Carnildo still hasn't made any attempt at any kind of bridge-building with the people he blocked. And I still don't see any sign that he knows what blocking is--what it means, what it does. That a block affects people, shocks them, insults them. Or, for instance, that the block reason is also important--it's not to be worded hastily--that people are vulnerable to it. Giano and El C now have block logs that say "hate speech". That comes down to "not being able to edit for a few minutes"? Typing it, I feel the same incredulity as in March: did he really say that? Yes, he really did. It was a long time ago, but such things need some kind of mending, they don't just need for time to pass. If there's even a comment, any comment, from the candidate on what caused the desysopping, or on what was said in Carnildo 2, I can't find it. Bishonen | talk19:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC).
Reluctant oppose per Bishonen, and the difs provided. User's current contribs are good, and Orphanbot is excellent, but there are still some problems that I feel haven't been addressed. Sorry. Firsfron of Ronchester19:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Oppose The question of whether Carnildo will abuse the admin tools when given them was already answered in February. Additionally, the nominee didn't say anything about the desysopping in this RfA (no thoughts on the matter?). Thus, I do not have a reason to waive item (x) of my standards. -- tariqabjotu20:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
You are free to disagree, but given that the only involuntarily de-sysoped person to be re-sysoped had to be de-sysoped again, I'm not easily willing to give second chances on adminship. I believe the incident involving Carnildo was quite major, and that the nominee's lack of comment regarding it is an issue. -- tariqabjotu22:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Oppose It's a noble task to keep Misplaced Pages from being sued, but Carnildo seems to be doing it in a way that hurts Misplaced Pages just as much by causing ill will towards potential contributors. The ends don't justify the means. Vice President In Charge Of Office Supplies22:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me, but I thought we were done with this. I had the same problem with you people last week, and I assume this has to do with that karmafist person, who I live in the same town as. If i've broken some rule somehow, let me know, and we'll work it out else where, i'm not looking to make trouble. Until then,please desist with the defammation. I'm assuming that Coffee Shop is in the same shoes as I am, and I'd hope that the Assume Good Faith page is not meaningless, so i'll help him even if nobody else does. Vice President In Charge Of Office Supplies21:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
As a bureaucrat it is my job to determine consensus in RfAs. Do not undo my indenting of a comment, and certainly not for one that supposedly isn't you. Your comment is still here so if anyone wants to take it into account they can. I'm not currently going to bother purusing blocking you from editing, but as you are in obvious violation of WP:SOCK I am going to make sure that is noted so this consensus gathering exercise is not disrupted. - Taxman22:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok, 1. You're the one disrupting this "consensus gathering exercise" by accusing me of things just for me sharing my opinion. 2. Bureaucrat or not, you've also voted in this "consensus gathering exercise". You're a biased party and cannot ethically assess a fellow voters opinion while having your own vote stand. 3. I will not yield to intimidation or bullying(regarding your comment to blocking me), regardless of whoever you think you are. This just makes me think even more that the consternation that must revolve around Carnildo makes him not worthy of this position. Vice President In Charge Of Office Supplies22:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Oppose at least until Carnildo answers question #4. What could have possessed him to block 3 established users indefinitely? --Fang Aili22:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
strong oppose Last time i said that those stupid enough to engage in this wheel war didnt deserve the trust ever again, whilst i still stand by that the fact that he hasn't shown any remorse make me want to strongly oppose Benon02:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. Second chances are for those who understand that they screwed up in the first place. I am not saying Carnildo should publically apologize for something he doesn't believe was wrong—on the contrary, I admire him for sticking to his guns, and for continuing to contribute to Misplaced Pages despite the consequences of doing so—but the error was egregious in my view, and if he does not indicate he understands this then there's every reason to believe there might be other errors. -- SCZenz03:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Weak Oppose I'm going to agree with the comments of Agent 86, despite being inclined to give second chances (Hence the weak opposition). — Ram-Man13:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Oppose Running OrphanBot is excellent work and is of huge benefit to the encyclopedia, and can still be done as an non-admin. However, the main issue is one mentioned by most of the other opposes. Even a "gross error of judgement" is forgivable, but for it to be so, there has to be confidence that the person who committed the error actually realises it was an serious error. Without that, we are simply risking the same errors happening again. Unfortunately, I do not have that confidence, the lack of response noted by others, and the unreplied question by Mike Christie in this rfa, all worry me. In short, excellent contributer, with very useful work with the bot, but not suitable for the sysop bit at this time. Regards, MartinRe13:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Oppose per Agent 86 and Bishonen. I think his work on images is admirable, but largely can be done as a non-admin. A response to #4 above, or a pledge to only work on image-related matters, might allow me to change my mind, but for now I am firm. -- nae'blis15:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Weak Oppose. I've been holding back from this one until now to see if Q4 would get a response, or to see if anyone else has provided any evidence at all of a recognition from Carnildo that he did something wrong. Had there been a recognition of mistakes made, then I'd be quite happy to consider supporting this RFA, I certainly believe in second chances. However, I see nothing from the candidate (only the opinions of others) that suggests a similar incident won't happen again. I certainly am not opposing because of the image work as some others are. Petros47117:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Changed to weak oppose, in light of a reply to Q4. Still oppose because reply should have come much sooner, and not fully satisfied with it. Petros47117:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose Whatever the rights and wrongs are, I suggest you give it at least another year, Carnildo. best wishes Bob BScar2362518:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. It is true that one infraction can be forgiven. But it can't be forgiven if the infractor doesn't get that it was an infraction. With no apparent rememdy to the disconnect in understanding that gave rise to the whole thing, I can't support re-adminning the candidate. This does not disrespect his editorial work, but I am not lent the confidence I need to have a hand in dispensing a sysop bit here. We've had our finger toasted before by re-sysopping the de-sysopped, and it's a mistake we should avoid making again. -Splash - tk20:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Oppose This is a tough choice for me, but because Carnildo's reluctance to apologize or answer Question 4 make me feel that he has not fully recovered from the late unpleasantness.-- danntmC00:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Oppose per above. Carnildo has contributed commendably to the Project as a non-admin, and I sincerely hope he continues to do so, but given the high-handedness with which he has wielded administrative powers in the past I am extremely disinclined to return them to him. --keepsleepingslackoff!03:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Oppose His work with images is commendable, however adminship is not a reward for a job well done. I am unwilling to trust this user with the ability to block other users. Mexcellent 06:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Oppose - I feel bad about opposing, but there is no evidence of contrition for past behaviour. I wish there had been something, but there isn't. Absent that, I can't give this person my trust. Metamagician300007:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. His actions back then were the worst use of admin powers I have ever seen on Misplaced Pages and terribly destructive. That's not the reason I'm opposing though, it's the fact that he has not apologised or expressed any remorse - quite the opposite in fact (see Bishonen's comment). the wub"?!"09:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. With regret. Per refusal to cummunicate on this RfA. I don't have high requirements for admins. But an admin should be able to address concerns brought up. --Ligulem11:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate the recent post of Carnildo here. But the wording he used is not really convincing, sorry. I keep with my oppose. --Ligulem08:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment Having been irked by apologists myself, I know what you mean. Good debate, though. I managed to be unaware of the Userbox War till it was all over. I feel bad for the people who got hurt over this, and understand their need to oppose. My viewpoint and that of other supporters probably will not carry enough weight for this RfA to succeed. It may never be that enough time passes for this to be left in the past. It's just a pity that so much harm came out of such an issue as useboxes. They were part of the landscape when I joined Misplaced Pages, and I took them for granted. I just can't see wheelwarring over them. Sure, in the long run, denying Carnildo's RfA won't make that much of an impact on the image mess, but I feel the good he could do might make up for some of the harm he caused.. :) Dlohcierekim13:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Oppose: Still no regret over his comments and actions. That they were reversed/ignored is a testimony to the good character of the rest of Misplaced Pages, but, despite the massive amount of very valuable work he has done and does, I don't want to see another crisis. Geogre13:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Oppose per Bishonen and Geogre. If he admitted some sort of fault or offered some sort of apology, and noted that he learned something from his actions, that would change my opinion. The pedophilia userbox war was very damaging, though, and I'm not convinced that everyone learned their lesson and promised not to repeat the behavior in the future. --Elkman - (Elkspeak)16:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. Tagging images and discussing copyright and licensing issues does not require administrative facilities. His poorly-considered blocks actions have incurred a human cost, as can be seen at WP:AN/I, and I yet have to see any acknowledgment of that. Dr Zak17:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Strong Oppose. Candidate has failed to even apologise for the conduct that led to desysopping, therefore the objection based on that conduct still stands. Also, from a pratical point of view, giving Carnildo sysop powers would mean that images targeted by OrphanBot would be deleted without another user checking to ensure that OrphanBot was correct. (yes, I realise that OrphanBot does not itself delete images, but I would prefer the 'oversight' to be done by a user without connection with the bot). I am also very concerned about the way that some of his supporters have been treating Giano. Cynical06:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. Regretfully still oppose. Candidate's work with image copyrights and Orphanbot are laudable. but, if he can do these without the admin buttons, why take the risk of his abusing the admin buttons if he doesn't need them? Adminship is not a reward. Based on candidate's expanded answer to Q#1, I now believe that having the admin buttons would further his work with images and I would like to be able to vote in favor of giving them to him. Nonetheless, candidate still needs to address the issue of the original "pediophile userbox" incident and the fact that many Wikipedians still think this was a big issue whereas he does not seem to think it was that big a deal. It is not sufficient to say "it was a mistake". Candidate has made comments arguing that it wasn't that big a mistake. Personally, I don't think it was as huge a mistake as some make it out to be (i.e. I don't think Misplaced Pages was at risk of coming apart at the seams). However, it was certainly a bigger mistake than the candidate seems to think it was. We need to understand WHY the candidate says it was a mistake, what sort of a mistake he thinks it was and to be convinced that it won't happen again. Candidate seems to think that an assurance of not abusing the admin buttons is sufficient. Wikipedians voting against this RFA seem to want more than a promise. They are looking for a change of heart which, unfortunately, does not seem to be forthcoming. I also agree with those who have said that part of the opposition to this RFA is about sending a message that those who abuse admin powers will not easily get them again. --Richard09:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
OpposeDoesn't need admin tools to run OrphanBot, and I see scant evidence that he can be trusted to wisely wield the mop. Baseball,Baby! 10:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC) I was asked to reconsider, and I have. I reread the ArbCom case and I read his answers to the questions. Unfortunately, I cannot change my position. I understand that there are images uploaded that should not be here, and I understand that it's a problem, but I do not see enough evidence that he will wisely wield the scissors. It's not enough to say, "Get over it because I have." Once bitten, twice shy. Baseball,Baby!21:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose as he's already demonstrated a tendency to abuse the tools. No reason to believe his approach has changed since that time. We need fewer hotheaded, drama-escalating admins, not more. Friday(talk)15:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Strong Oppose, after the answer to Q4. Every piece of kudos and praise that can be heaped upon Carnildo for his work with OrphanBot is highly deserved - magnificent work. His answer to Q1 indicates that his sysop activities would be restricted to dealing with image issues flagged up by OrphanBot. Normally that would not be a problem for me - a single focus admin (dealing mainly with one particular realm) is possibly even a good thing. For me, the problem is that admins inevitably get drawn into many other areas on WP. Carnildo's answer to Q4 troubles me greatly. It cedes no recognition to the gravity with which his previous "transgression" was viewed by the community. My summation of this answer, from the language used, is along the lines of ... "I made a mistake, I e-mailed some friends to say so, it's no big deal - get on with it, I've been busy." Please correct me if I'm wrong with this summation Carnildo, and expand as need be, This answer suggests to me a disregard for community opinion, that important lessons have not been learned, and future problems will probably ensue as you get drawn, inevtably, into WP areas outside OrphanBot's remit. Sorry, but not for me this time. --Cactus.man✍18:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose This candidate has already had the opportunity to be an admin and abused that power. And Cactus.man sums up my thoughts on the candidate's answer to question #4 perfectly. DrunkenSmurf00:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose OrphanBot is doing some great work, but there are such significant civility issues here that I'd be pretty uncomfortable coming to him if I had a problem. An administrator should be transparent, willing to be held accountable for his actions, and have much more respect for community opinion. — riana_dzastawreak havoc|damage report02:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose as I feel that Carnildo takes blocking rather lightly, saying that the indefinite block was "just a few minutes of not editing," when delibrations over even short blocks are vetted on ANI, with a warning far more typical than a strong indefinite block. Hbdragon8807:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose per Cactus.man. Carnildo did nothing in his Q4 answer to demonstrate that he considers his "mistake" to be as serious as the opposing editors here do. Vadder12:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Strong Oppose. My experience of dealing with Carnildo is strictly unpleasant. He seems to be as "unconciliatory and uncommunicable, unreflective and uncritical, etc" as ever. His bot, in its current form, is a disgrace of this project. --Ghirla18:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Strong Oppose, per previous activity, along with creating a destructive bot. Admins can take care of any image issues, and OrphanBot disrupts Misplaced Pages and hurts the overall quality of the encyclopedia. --CFIF☎21:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
deleting 100s of images is hard work. haveing to go through and remove them from articles as well (along with haveing to warn people) is beyond the admin numbers we currently have.Geni17:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
He admited it was a mistake and have said he will discuss all blocks before making them in the future, what more do you want? Groveling? --Sherool(talk)05:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
In a word, yes. He needs to do the sawdust and hairshirt thing. If he did, I think a number of Oppose votes might shift. It's the same problem as came up during unsuccessful RFA #2. --Richard09:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
He said it was a mistake, but he didn't say it was wrong- kind of the same way leaving $100 of your own money on a bench in a mall unguarded is a mistake, but not morally wrong. CanadianCaesarEt tu, Brute?19:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. I don't normally vote in or follow RfAs, but after I stumbled upon this one while looking for some other information, and subsequently reading the ArbCom ruling and evidence (as well as the various reasons support and oppose here), I'm worried that this user's actions may well repeat in a heated situation again. I think his work with OrphanBot is great, especially given my occassional past efforts at tagging unsourced and unlicensed images manually (not fun), but adminship shouldn't be a reward, IMO. Also, as others have expressed as well, I really don't have great confidence in his ability to not repeat the errors of his past. I hate to assume such things, but if a person reacts in that fashion to one hot-button issue... --FreelanceWizard20:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Strong Oppose as I stated in his previous Rfa: Simply put, Carnildo is a bully. No bully should ever be allowed near Misplaced Pages, let alone admin tools. I also stated how everyone should be given the chance to redeem themselves if they want it. In the previous months, I've seen no sign Carnildo wants it, nor that he has significantly changed his ways. Once a bully, always a bully. This is a proxy vote cast on behalf of User:Karmafist by User:R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)
Neutral
Weak Neutral, leaning towards Support. I can't believe people complain about OrphanBot. As for his past problems, he has already tried adminship before, Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Carnildo 2, after being desysop'ed. I would like to see diffs between his second and this request to probe that he is likely to abuse the tools. -- ReyBrujo 03:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC) Changed to Support. -- ReyBrujo13:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Neutral OK, this is a highly-divisive issue and I would lean towards support for a good contributor but for one thing; I cannot see any expression of remorse for the actions that you performed in order to have the admin status stripped from you in the first place. Such an expression doesn't appear here or in your previous attempt to pass the RfA. Is it possible to receive assurances from you that a repeat of this wheel-war event won't happen? (aeropagitica) (talk) 08:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Neutral. I would really like to support, but the candidate hasn't even mentioned what is obviously the central issue here. Shell 13:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)changed to support
Neutral per CrazyRussian. While everyone deserves a chance to redeem himself, admins must be held to very high standards of civility and never use their sysop powers as part of a dispute. Eluchil40417:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Neutral. I would support Carnildo if he would simply and plainly admit he made a mistake, and state he won't use his renewed administrative powers to wheel war again. If Carnildo makes a public apology, and I forget to change this to support, the closing 'crat can count this as one. On another topic, I'm shocked to see so many opposes merely because some users (apparently) don't understand image policy. Picaroon9288|taco00:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Neutral. I place a high value on civil behaviour. I don't want to see an insincere apology from Carnildo, and the question I posted (Q4) really is optional. However, I don't have a real basis to vote support, because I can't see a strong reason to assume admin powers would not be misused in future. I've voted support in cases where civility was in question, because I believed the candidate when he stated he'd not make the same mistake again; I don't have that confidence here. I also value usefulness to the community, and it seems clear Carnildo would make very good use of admin powers in his work with images. I would like to support on those grounds but don't have the confidence in his behaviour to do so. Mike Christie(talk)03:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Neutral pending an answer to Mike Christie's Question #4 above, or some statement from Carnildo on the issues surrounding the whole block / wheelwar / desysop affair. I believe that people should have a second chance, provided that second chance is deserved. In the absence of comment from Carnildo I have no basis upon which to judge whether it's deserved or not in this case. --Cactus.man✍07:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Neutral per Lar and Aeropagiotica, among others. Hopefully the closing 'crat will have the sense to disregard whines about OrphanBot, since those who do the whining generally show no willingness to pay for our legal bills if the IP lawyers descend. Just zis Guy you know?11:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Neutral per Lar and Aero, agree with Guy's comments about Orphanbot. It would be helpful if Carnildo had shown some measure of remorse about the past incidents. JoshuaZ21:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Neutral - But if he cracks into peer pressure and launches a "public apology", I'm switching to oppose. It's not like it'd make any difference, and I'm sick of Misplaced Pages's panderings to public showings of remorse and The Prisoner style public confessions. What happened, happened. - Hahnchen02:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
An HONEST apology would be completely different. But I don't believe Carnildo is capable of it. Anyway, be fair to him. If we did get an honest apology things would change. But I doubt we will, because he is not sorry. Juppiter05:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I have no idea why so many oppose voters are obsessing over the lack of an apology. Get over it, move on, it's is incredibly petty to ask for an apology. I don't understand this constant pandering over public apologies on Misplaced Pages. For example, in this RFA, the incident which lead to the original desysopping happening just days before. Yet people were still supporting due to a "heartfelt apology", whilst ignoring that the incident had only just happened. - Hahnchen18:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Neutral Switching to neutral. While an apology would have been better to help smooth out the hurt feelings caused by the issue, so much good work can outweigh even an egregious mistake. We are an encyclopedia first and foremost. Sorry to those still angry over the issue though. - Taxman02:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Neutral— Einstein’s quote, “It gives me great pleasure indeed to see the stubbornness of an incorrigible nonconformist warmly acclaimed,” came to mind as I read this. It is true that nonconformity often comes with great creativity; I applaud the independent spirit that does not "knuckle under" to publicly apologize. Never-the-less, "Misplaced Pages is first and foremost an online encyclopedia and, as a means to that end, an online community of people interested to build a high-quality encyclopedia in a spirit of mutual respect." The powers of the Misplaced Pages Administrator to delete, resurrect, ban, reauthorize and make things invisible to the average user requires as a minimum standard, mutual respect. I can understand a number of Wikipedian’s feel that contrition for actions outside of the community norm is the relatively small price required to restore this mutual respect. This discussion documents that we haven’t reached that minimum standard. It saddens me to see such a longstanding and solid contributor unapproved; but the best indicator of future performance is still past performance—and although I will not oppose, I also can not support. Williamborg (Bill)21:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successfulrequest for adminship. Please do not modify it.
Winhunter (talk·contribs) – It has been two months since my last RFA, I have tried my very best to improve in concerns raised by various Wikipedians in my last RFA.
I am a active member of the RC patrol, with the main focus on vandalism fighting. This is one of my main reasons of wishing to obtain the sysop tools so that vandalism can be more effectively dealt with. I am a member of the Untagged images wikiproject, familiar with the image tagging and the deletion criterias. Finally, I am the operator of a AWB unicodifying WinBot (talk·contribs). --WinHunter23:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
A: First, Giving out blocks in a timely manner to persistent vandals, including the ones I come across, the ones I see (requested by other users) in the IRC channel and WP:AIV. I know the frustration of dealing with persistent vandals when they keep vandalising after the last warning, especially for non-sysop Wikipedians, so I will try to make that period as short as possible for everyone. Second, Image related backlogs (e.g. WP:IFD and Category:Images with no copyright tag), I will verify the validity of the deletion requests and delete when confirmed.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Misplaced Pages, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A:Hong Kong: Since I have close ties with Hong Kong, I am trying to make the information about Hong Kong as accurate as possible. I also tried to make the contents "right", which in one instance when I reviewed the image in the article, I was shocked to see that many did not have either source or copyright information. Reluctantly I tagged them with the corresponding tag to reflect such status. The high standard of the article it is currently in makes me especially pleased.
Nationality Law of the People's Republic of China: I was shocked to learn that a country where approximately a quarter of the world's population live does not have an article about its nationality law. Not long after I discovered that I created this article, filling up the vacuum. Making the information on Misplaced Pages more complete this way makes me particularly pleased.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: As with most Wikipedians, I have had conflicts over editing in the past. In those instances I tried my very best to assume good faith and tried to use talk to resolve the various conflicts. When talk fails I turn to follow the steps listed in WP:DR with hope to resolve the conflict in the earliest possible stage.
A: I want to be an admin so that I can serve the Misplaced Pages community better. There are certain limitations when serving without the sysop tools and I wish to serve beyond those limitations. --WinHunter05:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Apart from what's in answer 1, are there any other sysop chors you'd like to take part in? If yes, do you believe you have enough experience in that area? (provide difs is possible). If not, do you intend to get slowly involved in other adminship chors? If so which one and why?
A: I am currently considering helping out deleting expired prods and Category:Orphaned fairuse images, which are currently being tagged as backlog items. Also, I am likely to monitor Category:Candidates for speedy deletion and helping out on deleting the confirmed ones, especially images, while leaving any of which I have doubts to other admins. Though I have to point out that it is unlikely I'll start doing everything listed here at the beginning of my adminship because I'd like to make sure I am familiar enough with the policies and procedures of one task till I move on to the other. --WinHunter09:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
A: The image tag seems to be correct, though I would recommend the uploader to follow the style listed in Help:Image page#Fair use rationale to list the fair use rationals for that image, so that it would be more easy to read for both other editors and the orphanbot. --WinHunter12:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Support. Your last RfA was almost a success (nearly 68% support), and it seems you made a good deal of improvements (like using edit summaries, RC patrol, etc.) I think you are qualified now. -- Nishkid64 Contribs23:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Support. I think Winhunter has shown himself to be a valuable contributor who is prepared to act on advice and criticism regarding his editing, this is a very good sign in an admin candidate. In my opinion, he is ready for the extra buttons. Rje00:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Support His never-say-die attitude is commendable. Since his last RfA, he made a great deal of effort to improve his edits and has acted on advice and criticisms in a very positive manner. He is now ready to be given the mop. The level of his maturity is also praiseworthy as well. --Siva197901:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Support— Winhunter 2 obviously wants to be an Admin; look at the improvements in use of edit summaries for recent edits (100%) & project edits. Multilingual. Multicultural. Competent editor. Give him the tool belt. Williamborg (Bill)03:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Support. I supported this nominee last time around and see no reason to resile from that position. The user has maintained his standards and dealt with the only real objection from last time (being lack of use of edit summaries), so hand over the mop! Agent 8607:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Weakish Support due to concerns raised below; namely issues with poor question answers. However, obviously strong vandalfighter. —Xyrael / 09:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Support. I think that you have done enough edits over a wide enough range of time that you deserve to be an administrator. -- Casmith 78911:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Weak support need more admins dealing with the huge image backlog, I also trust the user won't misuse AWB to inflate their edit count anymore. =) --Andeh18:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Support An admittedly cursory glance at RCPatrol edits and talk page revealed no problems. Will support in the absence of meatier ratonale not to. :) Dlohcierekim19:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Thought a bit on Miborovsky's 1FA Positive Exception #3 above. Seems to me that Misplaced Pages is growing faster than linearly (see graph by User:Petros471 to right). And the number of featured articles grows rather linearly, albeit irregularly. It does make sense that we need more people focused on quality. So we need to be looking for administrators that are both brilliant editors who spend all their time focused on great articles and also are willing to do what needs to be done in keeping the engine rooms working properly. I like to goal, but college professors who enjoy cleaning up may be hard to come by. By Miborovsky's 1FA Positive Exception #3 criterion we've found one, and a Chinese scholar at that! Williamborg (Bill)05:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC) (& yes, I used small type because this is a side opinion to this specific nomination)
Support, Met him in IRC and have run across him many times since im my vandal fighting. He will make a good admin Betacommand18:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Last-minute support. Thousands of AWB edits (repetitive and boring task) show dedication to the project. Meets my 2K edit and civility requirements. Multilingual, too? Nice. Firsfron of Ronchester20:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose
Neutral
Neutral, totally unaware of basic AWB rules and bot policy.. Hasn't been very long since last RfA, Q3 doesn't point to any example conflicts. But then again, they are a furious vandal fighter. I'm also a bit confused why the user has a notice on their userpage stating they're busy in real life after when they've nominated themselves for adminship.--Andeh01:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I have to admit that there was a time where I was not aware of the bot policy, though I have learned much ever since I started running WinBot. As for the busy notice, I was busy a while ago and I forgot to remove it.
Neutral for now Weakish answers coupled with an unreadable edit history due to the candidate making thousands of AWB edits disallow me from making a reasoned opinion of the candidate at this time. hoopydink03:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Neutral Failure to make a rational discussion in Talk:Hong_Kong#Merge_with_Hong_Kong.2C_China. Winhunter did not seem to take regard into what Instantnood was saying and quickly deemed Instantnood's comments as "nonsense", while Instantood's first comments sounded logical, reasonable and perfectly polite to me. A very well contributor, but lacks the ability and observation an admin needs IMHO. Aran|heru|nar13:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I have to admit I wasn't in my best mood when I said the word "nonsense". Though given Instantnood's history (block log, ArbCom case) of enforcing his own view, which I encountered before, I said the words I said. I am not saying I was right in any way but I hope you'd understand why I said such thing. --WinHunter14:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Netural. In response to question 4, in whitch way will adminship help you serve the Misplaced Pages community? Also, I feel sysop candidates should try to balance vandalism fighting with article expansion. It's nice that your trying to keep nonsense off Misplaced Pages, but it would also be good if you add content to some articles once in a while. -- Selmo22:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successfulrequest for adminship. Please do not modify it.
I've been editing Misplaced Pages since October 2003, but I haven't considered myself a real Wikipedian until this year. It is with some irony that one of my oft-quoted lines on Misplaced Pages:Articles for Deletion is "you are only notable when others are writing about you, not when you decide to write about yourself". However, over the last fortnight whenever I've been on #wikipedia or #vandalism-en-wp requesting urgent assistance to clear a backlog on WP:AIV, people have continually asked me why I wasn't an administrator yet. So here I am humbly asking for a bigger mop and bucket because I feel that I am ready to take on more responsibilities around here.
Deep down I believe that information wants to be free and I feel that it's my duty to make sure that this place doesn't fall apart while this great project tries to document everything worth writing about known to humanity. It's a sad indictment on human nature whenever people try and sabotage this noble endeavour by vandalising it and trying to hijack it for use as billboard and soapbox. Nevertheless, "many hands make light work" and I would like to contribute my dedication to the administration here. -- Netsnipe 14:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
A: The chores that I would be helping out with most would be keeping the WP:AIV backlog to a minimum while I'm on duty. I'm already quite experienced at Misplaced Pages:Articles for Deletion so taking on speedy deletions as well wouldn't be much of a challenge. However, I believe that my biggest impact is being able to intervene rapidly whenever Misplaced Pages:Long term abuse incidents flare up. I'm currently helping to track three cases (WP:BOBBY, WP:TOJO, and WP:UNID) as well as providing the occasional comment at the Administrators' noticeboard. I hope that by being an administrator, I can start rolling back large-scale vandalism and spamming earlier without having to wait for a WP:AIV backlog to be cleared first.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Misplaced Pages, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: My major contributions to Misplaced Pages have been behind the scenes including Misplaced Pages:Articles for Deletion where I put in a substantial effort into researching the subject before nominating as well as ferreting out related vanity articles. I received most praise for nominating the string of V. Alexander Stefan articles for deletion. I also create or update templates whenever I notice editors repeating the same task over and over again needlessly (e.g. creating Template:spa and Template:cv-r) or update them to provide more helpful information to users (e.g. adding a link to the blacklist submission page on Template:spam4).
While on recent changes patrol, I also fact check sources provided in contentious contributions to ensure that they are indeed Misplaced Pages:Reliable Sources. For example, upon noticing an edit accusing John Dugard of being an anti-semite by Zeq (talk • contribs) I discovered that the source he was providing was a partisan newsletter selectively citing from official United Nations' reports. In attempt to further expand the article recently, I've also uncovered a potentially fake source (statement proved genuine by email). Other examples of my source checking include uncovering the use of biased sources in articles such as IG Farben Building and the Korean War.
I do realise and recognise that my major shortcoming is that as an encyclopedia, I haven't been writing as much new material as I should be, since fighting link spammers and verifying sources is very time consuming. In the past I have only contributed when I've seen a major omission (eg Roman Catholic Church. United Nations Security Council veto power) but I hope that since I've joined Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Australia, I can make more contributions along the lines of Australian constitutional crisis of 1975. At the moment I am also cleaning up the biography of former Nigerian military ruler Ibrahim Babangida which had recently been trampled over by edit warring since he announced a bid for a presidential election next year.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Yes. See User_talk:66.133.207.244 for one notable conflict I had where my conduct was recognised with a barnstar. When dealing with conflicts I always keep the Golden Rule in mind. Being hostile always has the potential of turning a new editor into a vandal and a small conflict into a "revert-war of attrition". I always try to picture in my mind how they see their side of the argument and when responding I try and provide a 3rd party reliable source that shows them the potential flaws in their argument or I suggest a way in which they could rewrite their contribution from a neutral point of view.
I also recognise that all people including myself have inherent biases and whenever I feel that I am coming across a brick wall I will ask others to take a look and see if they can provide a third opinion.
As for stress, I have enough to deal with in real life to get stressed on Misplaced Pages! = P But anyway, I can always de-stress by just hanging out with the community on #wikipedia IRC and on Misplaced Pages:Esperanza and maybe, just maybe start working on that great Featured Article one day.
A: A satirical userbox as fully explained and linked to at User_talk:Netsnipe/User_Bureaucratic_F**k. Part of being Australian is being able to laugh at one's own expense. If people believe that having this userbox around would be a bad reflection of me being an administrator I will be more than willing to delete it. Currently, I have 10 positive comments for it and 2 against. -- Netsnipe 22:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
A: I wasn't a Wikipedian yet as I wasn't yet aware of the machinery and community beneath the surface that I could have been a part of. Everything really kicked off the moment I encountered my first case of vandalism and I realised that for far too long I had been a "reader" of Misplaced Pages and not a "contributor". Had I discovered the Misplaced Pages:* space earlier, that Wikibreak would have been much shorter. -- Netsnipe 20:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Could you point me to some of your AfD nominations and any AfD discussions you've been involved in, created AfDs should still be on your watchlist. Thanks.
A: Here's ten of them spread out throughout my editing history
A: I take the time to be helpful to anyone who needs it or asks for it. I watch {helpme}. I welcome new users whenever I see red talk links on my watchlist and comment on how they might improve their first article to avoid speedy deletion or an AFD if my initial investigations show some notability. Explain how WP:NPOV and WP:V works and why it's core to Misplaced Pages if they ignore the initial template warnings. I also post {AFDWarningNew} notices for all my AFDs because I believe in due process and the right to defend one's own work (if not patent nonsense) and I help people to rewrite borderline cases. To be a good editor isn't just about being a WikiLawyer who can quote all the rules inside-out and intimidate newbies by appearing elitist, but it is by being able to impart those same lessons one has learnt about being a good editor onto others. -- Netsnipe ► 05:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Weak Support. Very good vandal fighter. I'm a bit worried about your inexperience, being that you made your last 4,300 edits+ within the last 2.5 months. --Nishkid6416:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Support. "...it's my duty to make sure that this place doesn't fall apart while this great project tries to document everything worth writing about known to humanity." Well said. Dar-Ape19:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Support. I've actually been coming across your work for the last week or so in the vandal fighting arena . . . And it looks like you could use a mop. --heah20:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Weak Support A good vandal fighter but the low article talk edits is a bit of a concern. Anyway, I feel that Misplaced Pages will benefit greatly by giving this user the mop. --Siva197921:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Support per (aeropagitica) I would probably prefer all references to ED were removed due to their hostility towards other editors, and I think it wise if (when) promoted that you remove this. However, Netsnipe has shown he is experienced enough with the tools, and another admin from this part of the world has got to be a good thing. - GIen22:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Support— Overall sound record. Already working long term abuse. No indication of any inclination to take the powers for deletion to an extreme. Has a sense of humor, which is good in an admin; I grant you that Bureaucratic F**k is hardly great humor, but certainly not a reason to turn down an admin candidate if there is no evidence it underlies deeper problems. And I’m particularly heartened that CrazyRussian only provided a Weak Oppose for inexperience and failure to use the preview button (flaws from which I still suffer as well); that’s almost praise. Give him the tool belt (no, it isn’t a mop or we’d award it with less pain) and let Netsnipe do some good. Williamborg (Bill)22:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Strong support - it's so great when I see a report on WP:AIV from Netsnipe because when I see the report, I can trust that the user has been warned and almost always deserves a block. Meets my standards. —Mets501 (talk) 23:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Support Netsnipe has had his share of confrontations etc. and has retained a positive attitude. I smell a rouge admin (just kidding, loved the userbox though) :-) The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 00:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Strong support - He is more than fair, repsonsible, infinity resourceful, fantastically energetic, and always actively follows through with help - not just a cursory reply message. His Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/V._Alexander_Stefan opened my eyes to the ways Misplaced Pages can be abused. Per the above comment, his research is always thorough and his conclusions sound; he always refers to relevant policy/guidlelines. He is resilient, never seems to take things personally, and flexible (demonstrated in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/MTD Studios, and I love his note that "notice of this AFD has been emailed to <marketing at sinisterfilms.com>"). There are many good editors, there is only one Netsipe. Mattisse(talk)00:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC) Changed vote after further experience with Netsnipe, now that he has dropped all committments to work on this application and did not follow through with me, when I really needed it as he had promised. He knows how to get what he wants in a seemly open manner. But now I see this is manipulative. Very questionable how he will behave in the long haul. He is moving too fast and is too anxious to get what he wants quickly. I change my vote.
Support, significant volume of anti-vandal work. AFD contributions are normally well thought out and solid. Should be trusted with the tools. Kuru02:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Support, a vandal fighter. I also will address concerns from others: For, "Of your articles or contributions to Misplaced Pages, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why," I think he should have included the userbox in Question 4. For his not using the preview button, Misplaced Pages:Avoid using preview button. Anomo 02:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC) Changing my vote to Weak Support per Cyde's comments. Anomo02:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Support I would've liked to see more article writing from the candidate, but it seems as if the candidate will use the extra buttons primarily to work on vandalism prevention and maintenance. I feel confident in the candidate's abilities in that respect and believe that he/she is to be trusted and is very well-intentioned, which are two of the most important characteristics I look for in a candidate. hoopydink03:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Support - I'm always seeing this user in and around XfDs. I'm consistently impressed. Per investigation of the situation in oppose number two, I see no evidence whatsoever of an "edit war". Srose(talk)16:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Strong support - I have awarded this editor a barnstar for identifying possible wikistalking against me. As of this writing the investigation remains underway, but one offending account has already been indefinite blocked as a sockpuppet/vandal. Not only did Netsnipe spot that my post to Misplaced Pages talk:Long term abuse was removed twice, but followed up to report that (his?) initial notice on my user talk page had also been deleted. This is exactly the kind of diligence that foils persistent troublemakers. Durova17:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Weak support, on this rare occasion of a newish user, and the users nice gift they sent me voluntarily.--Andeh17:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Just so that no one gets the wrong idea, Andeh asked for someone to clean up some linkspam on #wikipedia and I volunteered. -- Netsnipe 18:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Support I think that you have been here for a long enough amount of time with many edits and I particularly liked your response to Q7. -- Casmith 78911:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Support Netsnipe looks like a decent editor that could be trusted with admin tools. Good interaction with others, and nice response to optional question # 7. Doing a little research before speedy deletions, hasty moves, etc shows quality contributions to Wiki. JungleCattalk/contrib16:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Support. Examples I've seen tell me Netsnipe won't block new users for mistakes. Seems cool headed and unlikely to bite new users or delete poorly crafted new articles. Could someone provide me examples of the alledged edit warring? :) Dlohcierekim18:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Support I can trust him with the mop, and candidate seems dedicated to helping out other users, although I would like to see a higher proportion of experience in the mainspace.-- danntmC03:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Support The conflict handling I have seen him do (at AN/I, for example) seems vey level-headed and correct. A good contributor who looks like he would make a good admin. Fram14:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Support. I really, really hate to use such a cliched line, but when I first saw Netsnipe I thought he was an admin. -- Steel17:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Support, good editor, I grant that the low mainspace editcount is strange but the answer to Question #7 is good --- Deville (Talk) 05:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Support. I like the golden rule attitude (although the link should be disambiguated - hint hint ;-) --Ligulem09:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC) (No thanks on my talk for voting please, this is a waste of time and resources. Thanks! )
Support. First encountered this user today; appears very tactful and grasps wiki policy firmly. A fine candidate. — Dan | talk21:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Support per comments and answers to questions. Good user, can use the buttons, no significant issues. Concur that "that userbox" would best be dropped. Newyorkbrad02:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
It's not that often that I don't use the preview button on (main) articles (I'm guilty of forgetting to subst from time to time). It only tends to happen in cases where I've noticed that I've been the only person on recent changes duty for at least 15-20 minutes and I'm in a rush to get back to Lupin's live feed or chase down a multi-article spammer. I tend to do my patrolling during the time when English speaking people on both sides of the Pacific are asleep. Could also you please cite an example where my inexperience would affect my abilities if given administrative access? -- Netsnipe 22:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Nah, minor nitpick, that's why I didn't include it in the oppose rationale. The fear with relative inexperience would be inadvertent misuse of the tools. - CrazyRussiantalk/email02:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Oppose seems like a nice guy, but needs more mainspace editing experience. Part of knowing what to delete and what to keep is learned from contributing articles. -- Samirधर्म23:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I have no problem with Netsnipe’s signature. I myself have experimented with my sig to get it to where it stands out, easy to spot etc. The Wiki guideline says: "it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense". I really don’t see any issue there. JungleCattalk/contrib03:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Are there any particular areas where you see my inexperience showing in my conduct during the last month or so? -- Netsnipe 20:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Neutral seems like a good user, but since this is going to pass anyway I have to register my objection to that garish-website-from-1997 signature. Opabinia regalis23:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm leaving this comment here but would request that, should anything completely unexpected happen while I'm not watching and this becomes a close call, I should be "counted" as a support. Opabinia regalis05:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Neutral: I support the user, but I have to be neutral on RFA due to time. Because he is heavily involved with the dark side, he comes into contact with our nastier folks. So far, his temperament has been very good and shown excellent character, and that's why I'm on "neutral" instead of my usual "oppose" on folks with such a short time on project. In time, I would be a support voice. Geogre15:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Requests for bureaucratship (RfB) is the process by which the Misplaced Pages community decides who will become bureaucrats. Bureaucrats can make other users administrators or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here, and remove administrator rights in limited circumstances. They can also grant or remove bot status on an account.
The process for bureaucrats is similar to that for adminship above; however the expectation for promotion to bureaucratship is significantly higher than for admin, requiring a clearer consensus. In general, the threshold for consensus is somewhere around 85%. Bureaucrats are expected to determine consensus in difficult cases and be ready to explain their decisions.
Create a new RfB page as you would for an RfA, and insert
{{subst:RfB|User=Username|Description=Your description of the candidate. ~~~~}}
At minimum, study what is expected of a bureaucrat by reading discussions at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship including the recent archives, before seeking this position.
While canvassing for support is often viewed negatively by the community, some users find it helpful to place the neutrally worded {{RfX-notice|b}} on their userpages – this is generally not seen as canvassing. Like requests for adminship, requests for bureaucratship are advertised on the watchlist and on Template:Centralized discussion.
Please add new requests at the top of the section immediately below this line.
Current nominations for bureaucratship
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for bureaucratship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
Introduction: For those who are not aware, I've been around since September of 2002. I ran/run the infamous rambot (see the FAQ) which was responsible for adding (and currently maintaining) approximate 37,000 articles on Misplaced Pages on U.S. cities and counties. I've been heavily involved on Misplaced Pages off and on since that time.
As a User I have one of the largest edit counts on all of the Wikipedias, partially due to the rambot. It's hard to estimate the total, but it's a lot. I'm interested in all sorts of things and have worked on a number of areas: geographic articles (U.S. cities and states), botanical articles (plants and fish mostly), and lately Lancaster County covered bridges. I'm also heavily active on the commons uploading almost 300 photographs (See Photographs by Derek Ramsey) as well as image categorization.
As an Administrator I'm generally a very conservative administrator. While I've done a share of vandal blocking, deleting pages, etc, I tend to do it on a fairly limited basis, often for managing my own pages so I don't have to bother other administrators. I'm sure my record will speak for itself, so I won't say any more about that here. I don't get involved in many disputes involving administrators, so I don't think I have a tarnished record at all on that front.
As a Bureaucrat There is always talk about having too many bureaucrats, so let me start by answering the "Why should I be one?" question. First of all, unlike many other requests, my main request is to facilitate bot management. I don't think this is a conflict of interest, since this wouldn't affect my treatment of the rambot. My desire is to be on the approval group that manages bots and to add bot flags when the approval process is completed, to speed things up. Currently this does occur to a reasonable degree, but my experience with bots should help increase the speed of the entire process. As part of being a bureaucrat, I'd be more than willing to help out with the other parts of being one, just so long as it is understood what my main focus is for being one. If this is not sufficient reason for most people, I'll withdraw my request. Consider the recent problem at Misplaced Pages talk:Bots/Requests for approval#Trial Period. While not technically the job of bureaucrat to approve bots, the whole thing could be done in one streamlined step rather than waiting hours or days until someone notices. Now since someone is bound to bring it up, I have no problem spending extra time on WP:RFA than I do now so I can participate in that task. However, I tend to agree that a Bureaucrat should remain impartial. If that means not voting because I might be involved in the promotion, then so be it. I desire what is best for the community, and hopefully most everything about my time here on Misplaced Pages should show that.
Details: There is a lot on the history of the rambot, but when it was first created, there was no bot flag and the bot filled up the recent changes. This caused immediate controversy. We worked around it (by going slow) until a technical solution was implemented some time later. The second (of many) controversies was over the fact that when I started adding articles there were a total of ~60,000 articles. I added 37,000, so the "Random Page" feature usually went to a mechanically generated page. It became a useless feature for most persons. Next, many persons thought the rambot articles shouldn't exist. However, to my knowledge, none have ever been deleted, but many have blossomed into great articles. There were many issues including lack of notability of small cities, the format of the articles, naming conventions, and discussions over using the various racial links. Despite many objections among many individuals, I helped work on numerous compromises until consensus was reached. In order to maintain good faith, I also wrote the Misplaced Pages:Bots policy article, which later became offical policy. This is part of the reason for being a bureaucrat dedicated to enabling bots.
I've also been involved in some other controversy on which I was on the wrong side of. I've taken a rule in licensing issues, pushing the multi-licensing campaign from meta to the english Misplaced Pages. It was for the most part a very successful campaign, although at times even Jimbo was afraid of my intentions (which were later clarified and resolved, especially when we met at a NYC meetup). However, one problem with the whole thing dealt with spam. I had posted large numbers of licensing requests to hundreds of talk pages. At the time, such a use was a grey area, but the bot was temporarily banned during the ensueing controversy. Although the blocking was questionable, I preferred to discuss it rather than demand it get unblocked. As a result, I got involved heavily in the formation of guideline Misplaced Pages:Spam. While not official, it's important to note the guideline of "Don't use a bot. If you're not willing to spend the time personally sending the messages, don't force us to spend the time reading it (or throwing it away)." that got generated at that time. I became to realize the error of the method of doing what I did and never did it again. If I ever theoretically wanted to do it again, I'd seek solid permission first.
I've highlighted the controversies to show my behavior during the tough times. During other times I've been very productive, and my edits should speak for themselves. I'd be happy to answer any other questions.
Edit: I've also recently led one side of the controversy at Planet and talk:Planet over the demotion of Pluto. Despite many heated moments, a suitable compromise was reached after a few days of discussion.
Edit:It's become increasingly clear that as an admin, I don't use those powers very often. While I've always considered that to be self restraint, I don't think that impresses many of those visiting. In fact, it is probably so infrequent that I don't think I'll get much support here. It is apparently not sufficient to merely not abuse one's powers and to only use it in the course of one's normal editing when the powers are merited. I've always felt that I'd rather help be the solution than cause problems by making requests when they were needed (such as blocks or deletions). This was the reason for this request, because I wanted to fill what I thought was a gap to help make things more efficient. When I became an admin, I did a lot of vandalism patrol and I blocked a number of vandals (not sure where the logs of those are, since they are not in the current log. The same can be said about the "move" log, I know I've done more than that!). I was always frustrated with having to request an admin to intervene every time a block became necessary. Being an admin fixed that. I also thought I deleted more articles, but apparently not (only 12!). I understand the desire for a bureaucrat to have lots and lots of admin experience to prove to the community that he is suited for being a bureaucrat. I was under the misunderstanding that my other types of edits and especially my conduct as a normal user would be my strength instead. I was apparently mistaken. At this point, I think I'll just wait a little to withdraw my request until I can get a little more constructive criticism. That can't hurt. I will add this: the work I do is very time consuming. Running a bot, for instance, takes a lot of work. I'm still not done with the 29 articles on covered bridges I was working on. I don't have the time to dedicate to, say, vandalism patrol, while getting anything else done. So I try to take areas that I do work on and overlap responsibility. My admin actions demonstrate that. — Ram-Man21:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Edit:I'm getting a bit of support now, so we'll see what happens. Oh, and just for kicks yesterday I did some administrative backlog work and deleted ~700 speedy-delete-ready images. So now I have a deletion history longer than "12" :) — Ram-Man15:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Strong support. Ram-Man is sensible, as his self-nom shows. The request is a sensible one: provide the user with the tools so he can streamline Bot-creation process. If he's willing help out with AFDs RFAs, more power to him: extra hands can always be used. This user's thousands of contributions to WP (he is far too modest: he is listed as the 12th highest editor to Misplaced Pages and RamBot is listed even higher) show strong dedication; a leave of absense is no bar to becoming a 'crat, nor should it be. User appears to have no civility issues, and by far surpasses my minimum requirements for number of edits and friendliness. Firsfron of Ronchester22:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
About edit count: Many of the Ram-Man edit counts are actually from before the rambot account was created, so they represent bot entries. Of course before I used a bot I was doing the exact same thing manually. I had a text file with hundreds of entries, and I was cut and pasting into articles. I did that for *every* U.S. county article that didn't already exist. That's over 3,000 articles. The remaining 37,000 city articles were automated. The reason the edit count page lists bots separately is because people wanted to rank human edits against human edits. Not really possible with my account. But I've estimated that in total I've probably done at least somewhere around 8,000 - 10,000 edits, but that's just a guess on my part. Of course I've never believed it was the edit count that mattered. It was things like participating in discussions, policy formation, good article writing, etc. — Ram-Man
Support. i'm not sure why it is a problem to have a b'crat who is going to dedicate himself to one area of the b'cracy. How would that be harmful to the encyclopedia? --heah05:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Support - a long time user with a very specific goals as an burecrat. Also lack of recent involvment in RFA is not the same thing as ignorrence, and his nomination says he plans on helping to approve bots instead anyhow... --T-rex14:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Support. I'll go ahead and support, with the understanding that his primary competency will be bot management. I don't agree with the view that administrators, bureaucrats, or checkusers for that matter need to be involved in all aspects of their positions. The cardinal example is Lord Emsworth who, to my knowledge, never blocked anybody or deleted anything. His adminship was awarded in recognition of his brilliant accomplishments as an article writer and policy-maker. I wonder if he'd be opposed these days because he didn't use VandalProof or some other vandal-fighting gimmick. If there's a need for more help at bot approval then we've someone with the necessary experience offering to help. That seems fine to me. Mackensen(talk)14:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Support Wants to help with bots. He has the experience. I see no problems here. Furthermore, insisting that all the crats meet some sort of magic involved in RfAs standard is a bit odd since he doesn't want to use the crat tool to work on RfAs anyways. JoshuaZ 14:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC) Moving to neutral. JoshuaZ21:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
No, I didn't ignore that at all, I suspect that actually you have ignored the fact that he has almost no recent experience with the WP:BOTS page, surely that is critical to the rationale of wanting to help out there. Martin15:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
See some of my comments below. There really hasn't been any recent policy discussion at Bots, because it is a pretty good policy! It isn't the policy that needs work, it is the approval process. (Although I made some changes to the policy today). There *was* a recent reorganization of the approval process, but again this was done by someone on the approval group. My hands are really tied in this, as I am not on the approval group. All I can do is make a few comments here and there. If I pass this vote, I'll have enough consensus to appoint myself to the approval group (so far no one has objected!). It's frustrating because I'd LIKE to do more, but I don't want to do things that may be taken to be in bad faith (such as unilaterally appointing myself without ANY discussion) — Ram-Man15:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
You don't have to be a b-crat to be on the bot approval group, I don't think anyone would oppose you being on it, I'm not sure if there are any particular criteria, though I guess being an admin and having experience making bot software is desirable, which suits you of course. The inital people in the group were just the ones most busy do bot-stuff at the time. Martin15:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I understand the informality of the whole thing, and if I started approving bots and taking an active role, there is a good chance no one would complain or even notice (the latter being part of the problem!). But I'd rather establish explicit consensus, rather than implicit. I don't want to look bad or cause trouble, you have to understand. Obviously the bureaucrat request is not necessary for that task, but is supplemental, and in my opinion quite helpful. — Ram-Man15:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Support - more bot approval people are really needed. This user seems very trustworthy, and after 4 years and all those edits, if he doesn't understand much policy I don't know who would. —Mets501 (talk) 15:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Support He has been honest and demonstrated his need for the tools. Absolute numbers of bureaucrats don't matter to me. This used is showing that he/she has a niche which can be nicely filled by promotion! InvictaHOG16:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Support. I waited over 9 hours for my RfA to be officially closed by a crat. We can't have too many, and Ram-Man seems like an excellent choice. It goes without saying that we need more crats monitoring the bot situation. alphaChimp16:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Support (switched from oppose). The reason for my change of heart is this. This user is a great Wikipedian and his hard toil deserves some recognition. And I am of the opinion that you cannot have too many bureaucrats who were excellent admins. Morover, he will be dealing with bots, not RfAs. A trustworthy and dedicated user. The added responsibilities given to him would only benefit this project. I am also urging this user not to withdraw this nomination yet. --Siva197918:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Automatically generated Support per the above and candidate's solid policy contributions and dedicated record. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Support. Good rationale in his nom; clear reason for giving him the bit; and no reason that I can see to worry about misuse or mistakes. His lack of recent experience with the bot approval process doesn't worry me; someone who wrote the original policy, as I gather he did, and who has as much experience as Ram-Man at running a bot, is sufficiently qualified. Finally, I can see no problem with a bureaucrat who specializes in one area. Mike Christie(talk)00:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Support good nomination with clear reasons for his interest in the position. Obviously has the skills and knowledge to work in the areas he wants to work in, and specialization is good. I'm not actually too big a fan of the Rambot concept, but that's no criticism of its owner. Opabinia regalis05:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Weak support per above. Weak because of the lack of recent participation in RfA and consensus activities, but I'm sure that the user will make good decisions on consensus regardless. Good candidate! DarthVader12:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Support We certainly could use a b'crat experienced in bots to manage the bot flags. As long as Ram-Man is careful around consensus discussions, I don't see a problem.-- danntmC23:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Support seems to have a grasp on what percentage is needed to promote to adminship, unlike most of our current bureaucrats. Grue 15:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Support I liked the response to optional Q7 below. Very honest, detailed answer. I feel he would be a good b’crat if he keeps this positive attitude, enthusiasm, and integrity. So, here is my trust. JungleCattalk/contrib17:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Support - Well-reasoned and honest self-nom statement and excellent contributions suggest only one possible vote. FCYTravis18:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Support. You argue cogently and clearly for the need, and your expertise, for another bureaucrat. You will not abuse the position. So how could I do anything other than support? Batmanand | Talk19:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Support. Ram-man's long history of participation in the project and understanding of the things that make us successful and unique are almost without peer. The Uninvited Co., Inc.20:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Support cannot find a reason why not. —Jared Hunt September 5, 2006, 21:09 (UTC)
Support I don't think there is any downside to giving bureaucratship to this user, however there could be some upsides. This user signed up to Misplaced Pages 4 years ago and has seen its progress and how the progress came to be. I don't know why I wouldn't support. Nobleeagle (Talk)07:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Support by what Nobleeagle, RyanGerbil and others have said. His experience is both needed now and will be needed with the continued growth of Misplaced Pages and the use of bots. I'd also trust him with RfAs; he doesn't seem too interested in Renames but Redux has been handling that well. I'll go for another 'crat. Teke01:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Support - It's great that Ram-Man wants to help out with the bots, especially since he knows what it's about — he's been there, and done that. I see no reason why we shouldn't let him; this would be like allowing Albert Einstein to teach quantum physics. He is definitely the kind of experienced person who should be a bureaucrat. —this is messedrocker(talk)06:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Some of the comments here are already out of date. Since this has started, I've participated in various RFAs, including the more controversial than normal Carnildo case. -- RM12:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Support. Misplaced Pages runs on volunteers, just because he doesn't have as much time to edit as people like me, who edit 14 hours a day, doesn't mean that he doesn't have sufficient knowledge of Misplaced Pages policy and process to be a crat. Yes, active bureaucrats are good, but there's no requirement to be active, and a semi-active crat is helpful too. --Rory09614:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Great editor, no doubt about it, but I think bureaucratship is for people who are active in the project side of thing, for example, looking at his last 500 wikipedia space edits, the last one was on 23-10-2002, I compared that to a few other randomly selected admins, and their's was generally July/August this year. Also, his admin log is very short as well, I would a b-crat to have lots of experience in blocks/deletion etc. Anyway, to summarise, great editor, bureaucratship not suitable in my opinion. Martin20:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I've been heavily active using my User:RM account, so don't forget that one. I use them both from different physical locations for security reasons. I hope that isn't held against me! I was on a long wikivacation for the better part of this year due to health issues I'd care not discuss here. But since I've returned, I think the amount of editing speaks for itself. Also consider the amount of photographs added for addition here. Edit: Sorry, I missed the point of your comment. See my comments below regarding project space edits. I suppose I have a problem dedicating so much (read: all) of my time on the project side of things, because I actually like contributing. I was unaware that I had to spend such a large percentage of my time doing admin activities to qualify for bureaucratship. If that is the case, I should just withdraw now. Afterall, the admin responsibilities don't generally have anything to do with the responsibilities of a bureaucrat. From a project perspective, I'd just like to get more be increasingly more involved in the whole bot process, and a bureaucrat is part of that process. — Ram-Man21:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
(neutral) Leaning to opposeOppose. You don't seem to my memory to have been involved in RfA to any significant extent in the year or so that I've been around. Current knowledge and a current feel for things and how they change is essential. I'd appreciate some persuasion on this point. I know you say your main focus would be bots, but RfA/B promises don't usually last all that long. Moreover, from my limited interaction at the (somewhat deficient) RFBots page, you don't seem to be 'around' there much, either... -Splash - tk20:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I suppose that's because I was "gone" for a while and only recently became heavily active again. (For a while I did little editing, but still patrolled from time to time. I just couldn't totally leave) Like I mentioned in my comments, I do patrol the page periodically, although I don't always vote. My voting has been sporadic, to be sure, but I like to stay informed of the latest goings-ons, which is exactly the reason I read RfA. Now perhaps before your memory, I posted to this page some unknown number of times. I'd have to look at the history, which I didn't even attempt to do. I'm not sure how to be otherwise persuasive. Perhaps I shall give this some thought and add more later, and maybe other questions will bring out what you want to know. — Ram-Man20:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
My concern is not so much the sporadicity, as the non-existence. I can't find a single !vote here at RfA in the past year or more, and your activity on WP:BOTS (whatever!) began a few hours ago. I imagine you did post here before, but 'crats really need to be very current. I'm afraid that coupled with inactivity as an admin, inactivity in the key areas of project space (and project space in general) is too much of a disqualification for me. Your reading of the situation in your answers does seem about right, but it really needs to have had time to 'seep in' through extended participation in the relevant happenings. E.g. in 4-6 months or something. -Splash - tk20:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Naturally I imagined you'd feel that way. Still if I might make one last attempt. I've had plenty of past experience, which is suppose doesn't matter in this case. For what its worth, I have a lot of project level articles in my watchlist, which I patrol for changes all the time (Like Bots, Spam, and the Geographic project articles). I suppose perhaps I'm not involved in the right projects, whatever those might be. I try follow major controversies, such as Angela leaving the board and the ensueing difficultly with whether or not such articles should be deleted. In addition, I dove right into a discussion over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_U.S._states affecting all 50 states when I had something important to add. But of course nothing can change the fact that I was on wikivacation (partially for health reasons), and if you simply require more time because of that, well then no argument will change that. Again, my philosophy as an admin is rather conservative in nature. There are a lot of admins and I don't want to overuse my abilities. As for the timing, the responsibilities of an admin have not changed. So when I have acted as one should not be as important as perhaps the other concerns. I mostly use the "delete page" ability over anything else. — Ram-Man20:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I may have made some stupid blunder, but your deletion log says you have only ever deleted 12 articles? Martin21:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I know I'm conservative, but I didn't think it was that low. Perhaps I'm more inactive in deletions than I thought. Such is life I suppose. I can tell this isn't going to last long! — Ram-Man21:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Oppose per Splash. I have nothing but great respect for all Ram-Man has done, but some experience with recent RfA is absolutely necessary for a b'crat. Added to this, I really thought Ram-Man was retired from the project for a year or two. I remember seeing his name on the Inactive Admin list up until recently. Xoloz17:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I've already addressed the issue of being away, but it is true that for some reason I was put on an inactive list or two. Perhaps I'm still on some list I don't know about (can't manage everything!). I've never been totally inactive, always an edit here and there. But not retired for sure! I do have a habit of disappearing for a while though. Unlike a lot of people, I don't actually LIVE on wikipedia (I just rent). — Ram-Man18:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Weak Oppose Experience with RfAs are essential here. Try again in about six months with lots of experience in RfA pages and I will definitely give you my support. But other than this, there are no major concerns here and I am confident that Ram-Man would be a great bureaucrat in the future. --Siva197918:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Oppose per Siva Needs to put those admin powers to greater use before becoming a 'crat. The mess at fairuse images, IfD, etc needs work. :) Dlohcierekim05:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. Good user, long established history, but I feel the approach is backwards in this case. If you want to be helpful in encouraging the creation, approval, and oversight of new bots, then go be helpful. You seem to have almost no recent involvement in the bot process. Even your alter-ego, rambot has not made any substantive edits in nearly two years. I don't think we should be in the business of giving out privledges on the basis of work that someone wants to do, unless they have shown themselves to be actively engaged in the related areas that don't require privledges. Get engaged in the bot community again, and I'll reconsider in the future, but it is too soon for this, in my opinion. As an aside, if one of the active members of the current approvals groups would like to run on the same rationale, I am likely to support that. Dragons flight21:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm unlikely to sway you, but by the time this vote is over, I'm sure that I will be reintegrated sufficiently, as I am already working towards. Most of the lack of reintegration is due to the slowness of the process itself. The reasons the rambot was not running were numerous:
It is a *lot* of work to run the bot. The last time I was planning to run the bot I was awaiting approval for a couple tasks, which never happened. Also, because of the server load imposed by so many edits, I tend to batch as many tasks as possible. There simply weren't enough major tasks to justify the load. But that can't be said anymore. I have plenty of outstanding tasks, and it's time to restart the process. But it can take days just to set up the bot, and then it has to be run manually for a while and with constant supervision. 40,000 articles is a lot and it will usually take at least a week. I have to find time in my schedule to fit such a task in. That means figuring out where it fits into real life. In addition to all of this, I have to have a working copy of MySQL and hard drive room for all the data that is used in maintaining these things. I've only recently upgraded my ailing computer (corresponding with an increase in activity here as well), but have not yet had the chance to complete installation of my local tools, although that shouldn't take as long as the other issues. One doesn't just run the rambot every day. I mean, as soon as the 2010 census results are released, I'm scheduled to run another update.
The rambot is currently broken. I've posted a message on the Village pump (technical) about this issue, which has yet to be resolved. Until that is resolved, I will probably wait, to be safe.
While the rambot is "approved" in the sense that it was approved two years ago, as a matter of good faith, I want to get it officially approved again before running it. The approvals group has so far had nothing to say on the issue. So again, wait wait wait.
I also was gone on wikivacation for a while for a number of reason
Of course I've also mentioned that I can only help others fully if on the approval group, which I'm not. It's going to take some time to work that out (more waiting). But in the meantime, I am quite active. Take a look at my recent posts there, and I think you'll find that I'm being as constructive and useful as I can, given the circumstances. The reason, as I understand, that User:Titoxd changed his vote to support was because he read my recent work and comments regarding WP:RFBOT. -- RM21:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose per Splash. We already have a lot of BCrats that either never or very rarely do much. I fear that might be the case here. Also, I can't remember any recent RfA participation by this user.Voice-of-All01:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Just to clarify: You're not opposing because *other* bureaucrats don't do much are you? That would seem to indicate the need for *more*, not less. And the RfA issue has been discussed heavily. The basic premiss here is that there isn't a problem with a "specialist bureaucrat", in this case focusing on bot management. — Ram-Man02:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
My problem is that I am not convinced that your activity will have the kind of intensity and consistency I am looking for (like Taxman, Essjay). 5 bureaucrats could easily handle all such tasks, it really only takes a few active ones. The problem is that while you have made many contributions here, you have only a handfull of RfA involvement, little recent bot request activity, and I am not convinced that you will necessary bump one of those up and keep it that way rather then add to the large list of inactive BCrats in short time. The main things I want to see in future BCrats is thoughfulness, more descretion (like Danny), activity, and preferably IRC involvment and well-roundedness to the new tasks (only three).Voice-of-All02:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Ironically, User:Essjay has been inactive for the most part for most of August. And it does seem that Taxman is doing a great job at handling admin promotions. I think that I've demonstrated much thoughfulness, descretion, and activity. If you've looked over my activities, this should be quite clear. But my activities, admin or otherwise, are usually NOT in the AfD area, although I don't see how it's difficult to vote. I've done so today, and there wasn't anything special to it. I don't use the IRC. I prefer to do all Misplaced Pages activity here and nowhere else. IRC should hardly be a requirement of service. And I can't affect the behavior of other bureaucrats, so I can't really address that issue. I can only speak for myself. I have a question, should bureaucrats be active in all of the administrator tasks too? Who decides which tasks a bureacrat or administrator should do? It is hardly reasonable to expect either party to do everything. There is plenty of work to go around. — Ram-Man03:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
There are only three new tools that crats get, sysoping and bot flagging being the most important. I'd like for a "crats" to have activity in both of those, and enough work with renaming between the crats that it gets done reliably. Essjay is known to leave for several days and then come back as normal, so that doesn't bother me, as I expect him to be back in "full force". As for IRC, its not an absolute requirement, its a preference, a consideration. Its much easier to communicate with such users. As for experience and commitment, my reasons for opposing are pretty much the same as Dragon's Flight. I'd rather have a user more involved in RfA and recent bot approval get the position, rather that one who promoses to become active there.Voice-of-All04:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Reluctant oppose. Ram-Man is a great user, and I'd love to be able to support him. However, I don't feel comfortable giving the power of closing RFAs to a user who doesn't participate in RFAs, doesn't close AFDs or anything else where consensus has to be determined, and basically is just not active as an admin. If he were asking only to approve bots I might have a different opinion but, for now, I think I'd be happiest if he joined the bot approval committee, increased his adminship duties, and came back to RFB in 6 months. --kingboyk09:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate your comments, and this seems to be where most of the opposition is coming from. I will most certainly try to take a more active role in the bot approval process. As for AfD, obviously I'll have to do that if I want this oppose votes to go away ;-) I should note that I've been involved in building and determining consensus on numerous policy issues, but you probably know that. Honestly though, if it were technically possible to only have permission to set bot flags, I would do that. Also, if I am appointed bureaucrat (this has been pretty close, so we'll see), I can easily choose to not use those powers under the condition that I gain more experience with RfAs and AfDs first. Of course I think half of the oppose group opposes because they don't want me to use promotion power (not enough experience) and the other half opposes because they do want me to use it but think I won't (enough experience, not enough time and/or desire). -- RM18:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I guess i just fail to see how making RM a crat could harm the encyclopedia. The worst possible outcome of making RM a crat is the encyclopedia isn't improved. Odds are, it will help in the day-to-day functioning of the encyclopedia, with no bad outcome foreseeable. The only risk is that this encyclopedia doesn't improve, which, imho, is not something that outweighs the possible benefits. --heah19:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I think I have a partial answer to that question. What some people are afraid of is that I would close a RfA and make a bad decision on consensus because of lack of experience in that area. And frankly, if I were to just jump in and do that immediately after being appointed without first taking an active role in the process, than their concerns would likely be justified. They don't want mistakes, and I appreciate their concerns. But I also agree with you, otherwise I wouldn't have put the request in. It is at least partially a matter of trust. -- RM19:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose I vaccilated on this one for the longest time, but in the end there were too many question marks for a bureaucartship request. The support voters provide lots of good testimony why your dedicated work merits reward, but the rewards we hand out here are barnstars, not promotion. The oppose side wins on substance, namely that if you want bureaucratship because there is a backlog in bureaucrat-only work, the path to get there is to do the ancillary work first. I don't see any roadblocks to you becoming member of the bot approval group, but I don't see the current need to become bureaucrat. ~ trialsanderrors08:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Weak Oppose Agree with the consensus of the other members who oppose.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncrown23334 (talk • contribs)
Neutral
Neutral. Subject to input from the "bot-user community," the candidate appears qualified for the 'bot portion of the Bureaucrat position, but is admittedly not experienced in the RfA and other aspects. The project has made a decision that an administrator candidate should be qualified to perform all administrator tasks ranging from XfD's to vandalism rollbacks to dealing with user-conduct issues, and that knowledge prerequisite to some but not all of these functions is insufficient (even if the result is that we occasionally fail to promote someone who would be a good "specialist" admin). Whether the same principle should be applied to 'crats is unclear to me as is whether there has ever been a good discussion of the issue. One thing is clear though: this nomination is being totally overlooked by being at the bottom of the RfA page in a section to which few users scroll down (presumably many people just look for the new RfA's at the top). Newyorkbrad 21:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC) Switched to support, see aboveNewyorkbrad17:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I've never found any discussion on whether someone needed to qualify for all of the tasks, which is why I mentioned only one task in particular. If it were possible to ONLY assign that ability, that would be ideal, which of course is the main issue here. I most certainly won't win this vote, but it should be a good learning experience, and maybe this very issue will be determined more clearly. — Ram-Man00:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Neutral (See above), leaning towards support. While you are certainly qualified to handle bot requests, I'd say that you unfortunately did things in the wrong order. Instead of requesting the bureaucrat bit to go into WP:RFBOT to do things, I would say that you should spend a bit of time there, then come here to request the added privileges, as you should get the hang of things around there a little. Titoxd04:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I am doing both simultaneously. The problem is that no one in the approvals group is monitoring the bot page, so by spending time there, I am effectively doing nothing. Either that or I could just approve myself, and although being bold is important, I'd rather do things "officially" so no one questions me. But more people are slowly realizing the problems. At the moment, there is nothing that I can offically do at RFBOT. It's just frustrating when the people "in charge" are not paying attention. It isn't a problem with them personally, but it just indicates the need for more people involved in the process. If I were a bureaucrat running on these current terms, then I would have enough consensus (here) to self-appoint myself to the bot approvals group. My hands are otherwise tied here. — Ram-Man12:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure that you need to be a bureaucrat to get into the bot approvals group, as there are several users there (xaosflux and Rob Church, off the top of my head) that are not bureaucrats (or even necessarily admins). I do agree that the procedure to get into that group is not easy to find, and I'm unsure it is even documented. However, if a bureaucrat or two stop paying attention to bot requests for whatever reason (real life happens), it would cause a bit of trouble, so I'm considering my stand here. Titoxd15:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
No doubt about it: You don't have to be a bureaucrat to help with bots. And we have Essjay, one great bureaucrat helping, but he isn't always around. I'm just volunteering to join those ranks. -- RM
Indeed. My comment was more specific, though: you don't need to be a member of Special:Listusers/bureaucrat to be a member of the bot approvals group. At the same time, the procedure to become a member of that group is not found anywhere. Lately, there haven't been many bots approved, as Essjay has been a bit inactive as of late (he said he won't have as much time this semester, due to his work), so even if you become a member of the approvals group, you still need a bureaucrat to press the Special:Makebot button—that's currently a single point of failure, and redundancy always is good. Additionally, since bot flag granting is easily reversible now, there is less of a risk these days than before, in case you do mess up something. The only thing I needed for support was an assurance of having an idea how WP:RFBOT works currently, and you seem to have it now. So, I'm switching to support. Titoxd19:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I understood what you were saying. Being a member of the approvals group is a separate thing from being able to push a button to make a bot (i.e. bureaucrat). I desire both functions, since they are complementary. -- RM20:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Neutral per the above concerns regarding your past involvement in consensus-based activities. I see nothing wrong with what you've done, and I realise that your proposed activity would indeed be valuable, but I'd be far more comfortable if you'd had more experience in AfDs and RfAs previously. This RfB currently looks like it will succeed, and I will consider changing my !vote closer to the ending date, but please make an effort to increase your involvement in those areas in the future. Daveydweeb (/patch) 01:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
It looks like it *might* succeed anyway. It's right on the line. In any case, increasing my involvement in AfDs and RfAs is quite a reasonable request. I'll see what I can do in the meantime! -- RM01:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Right on which line? Are you familiar with where the thresholds are for an RfB? Hey, wait, this is important. Do you know how RfB works, since you'd have the ability to act on its outcomes? -Splash - tk13:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
When the standard for bureaucrat nomination was voted on, the ~80-85% group succeeded. However, I would hardly have called it a consensus. Most people at least wanted MORE than was required by an administrator. So while I may *technically* be above 80% in this vote from time to time, no one has ever been promoted (in my memory) with less than 85%, and the wide majority have greater than 90%. So while the 80%-85% group may have "won" the vote narrowly, the > 85% seems to be the defacto standard. Some people don't want to promote a bureaucrat with less than 85% (or even less than 90%, although that has happened). I got blasted above because I used the term "vote" to describe these types of elections, and I wanted to clarify that it's about consensus, not the amount of votes. -- RM02:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I wanted to add a couple thoughts. First of all, having limited experience with RfA, I would not even consider attempting to close a RfB for quite some time. I'm pretty sure that most people here do not even want me to close an RfA for quite some time, if at all. There are relatively very few RfB and of those even less that get anywhere near success. As a result there is little need for me to get involved in such things anytime in the near future, and I think everyone can agree on that. For anyone who has read any of the comments during this RfB, there are no surprises here. This whole request hinges on the question: "Can a bureaucrat specialize?" There are many who are comfortable with this, and many who are not. This is uncharted territory, but I suppose eventually the issue had to be addressed. But I admit that I don't know if I have enough experience to properly close an RfB. If I was *asked* to, then I probably would, but probably not otherwise until I gain more experience. This is what I've gathered from this discussion what the community would desire anyway (either way, if appointed bureaucrat or not) (re: RfA and AfD experience). -- RM22:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments
Can you explain why you didn't properly transclude your nomination ? This suggests you might not be familiar with how this page works, a necessary pre-requisite for being a bureaucrat. Petros47120:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I apologize for that, but after writing up the page, it was the last thing on my mind. It did occur to me, but it was fixed so quickly that I didn't even have a chance. It was a careless mistake. But I do understand transclusion and its use in votes like this. I just used it over at Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval a short while ago. — Ram-Man20:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Ah kinda sad... here we see all too graphically the Misplaced Pages of 2004 getting mugged by Misplaced Pages 2006. Ram-Man, RfB has become such a daunting passage that only a handful of current editors could ever hope to navigate it... you almost got opposed just because you didnd't transclude the nom properly, for example. It's a different beast here nowadays. The community seems to require near-perfection to promote a new b'crat... sad but true. --W.marsh03:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
And it's positively going to get worse I'm sure. You have to go through a lot of bureaucracy to become a bureacrat! It is so strange. I wasn't here at the very beginning of the project, but the ~40,000 articles that existed when I started seems like nothing now. I probably got voted into admin by less than 20 votes. Still, eventually the community will realise there is a need for more and they will make more. The other bureaucrat that does bot work heavily is Essjay, who does both bot approvals and sets bot flags. But there is currently a backlog. I can't get put on the bot approval board OR become a bureaucrat to assign bot flags because even Essjay isn't around to help out with this one. So we (myself and at least two bots waiting for official approval) just sit and wait. I was hoping that this discussion might help bring out some people to help, but since this is at the bottom of the page, few people even notice it anyway. — Ram-Man03:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment. Well I won't vote oppose because you're clearly a trusted and dedicated Wikipedian. But you're asking to be a bureaucrat primarily to promote bots. The actual amount of work needed there is extremely small, as in a little over 4 months, only a little less than 50 bot promotions have been done. In this case the actual promotion of the bot once it's been approved is a trivial task. Where the work is really needed is on the approvals side, either in giving the approval or investigating the bot proposal to see if it is sound. What I really would have liked to have seen was more participation in the requests for bot process before you made this nomination. You've mentioned you don't see what you could have done, but deciding if the bot request is valid and noting that until people became aware of your skill in that area would be a great start. You could have also found out how to join the approvals group before nominating here. All that said again, you're a trusted, long time Wikipedian and that's probably more important. - Taxman03:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps I was a little more dramatic than I should have been. Since I wrote those comments, I've been helping to get some bots approved by going through the initial approval process and helping to determine whether or not the request is acceptable. I can't officially approve any of them, but it helps. As for approvals group. There *is* no established policy for adding members, so we're having an interim election at the moment. It ends on Sept. 9. After adding new members, we'll clear any backlog and work from there. The backlog will likely include making a couple bot flags. But I believe that most of my supporters would be confortable with me closing some AfDs or RfAs, and chances are that I probably will to help out as best I can. But I surely wouldn't rush into it to clear any backlog, but ease into the role carefully. -- RM13:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
1. Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?
A. I've read over the debates and discussions over promotions. The criteria as currently understood is that anything less than 75% will probably not be promoted, anything 85% or more will probably be promoted, and anything in between will probably involve much additional discussion, particularly amongst bureaucrats who will make the final decision. Of course the whole thing is not supposed to be a democracy but a matter of consensus, so no matter the vote count, there will always be some level of subjectiveness. Plus new issues and facts can arrive about a candidate in the middle of voting, requiring special intervention.
2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?
A. Potential criticism is no reason to not make a decision about something, only an indication to tread lightly, which is what I would try to do. In the nature of full disclosure, usage of the rambot in the past has caused all sorts of criticism, debate, and policy formation (See: Misplaced Pages:Bots, Misplaced Pages:Spam, and a number of geographic Misplaced Pages:Wikiprojects). Some was justified, most wasn't, but all was dealt with in a civil fashion. My personal policy tends to be to not decide anything unilaterally where there is controversy. I would require confirmation by at least another bureaucrat before making any controversial decision.
3. Wikipedians expect Bureaucrats to adhere to high standards of fairness, knowledge of policy and the ability to engage others in the community. Why do you feel you meet those standards?
A. I've been around for a long time (September, 2002), so I tend to understand a lot of policy, although one can't hope to be aware of every fine, sometimes contradictory, detail. I've engaged members of the community in discussions too many times to count. And I'd be shocked if I wasn't considered fair.
4. If you become a bureaucrat, will you pledge not to discuss promotion or non-promotion of potential admins on any other forum during the course of nominations and especially when making a decision? And to discuss issues of promotion or non-promotion only with other bureaucrats, in their talk, where such discussion would be transparent?
A. Of course. I never use any other forum anyway, so this isn't even an issue. I don't discuss Misplaced Pages issues in email and I don't use IRC (though I did for a short time in the past).
5. Do you have the time and do you have the desire to visit WP:RFA on a regular basis to see to the promotion or delisting of candidates in a timely manner?
A. Since the creation of the page, I've often stopped by to at least see who was being promoted or depromoted. Sometimes I do this to keep a pulse on the Misplaced Pages community. I don't always vote, especially on persons who have 75 support votes and 0 oppose votes.
6.. If you become a bureaucrat, how will you keep your feet still on the ground with us mortals?
A I missed this question at the bottom of the page when it was posted! I'm not sure I exactly understand the nature of this question. Are you asking whether or not I will let power go to my head? I don't even want all the powers associated with being a bureaucrat, although if I have them all I will probably use them from time to time to help the community. Are you asking whether or not I will think I am better than "normal" people? Hardly. As far as I know, I've only ever helped write one featured article (Schizophrenia). Lord Emsworth has 58. I've never received a barnstar, although the rambot has one. My point is that there are plenty of non-bureaucrats who deserve a lot more praise. But praise isn't the point. Finally, I'll keep my feet on the ground by working on normal articles. Policy and administrative activities are great, but they don't add or update articles. — Ram-Man15:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
7. (Optional question). Are there any recent promotion decisions you would have made differently? If so, what are your main differences of emphasis? Stephen B Streater15:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
A I'm a strong believer in consensus and will tend to defer to the majority. As such, even if I voted on the losing side, I would support a controversial promotion decision. As far as I'm concerned, any serious decision making problem would need to result in potential demotion. To get to the point of being able to make a promotion, controversial or not, implies a level of community consensus that I have no intention of subverting. As has been stated on this page already, my influence on the promotion aspect is somewhat limited, so I really can't add any more. See some of that discussion above. Update: The recent controversy surrounding Carnildo has put this very question to the test. At first I was inclined to trust the bureaucrat, and in fact am still leaning that direction, despite voting opposite of the decision. Nevertheless, my opinion could change with futher discussion, especially since I'm not sure that this was consensus (see my "definition" of consensus below). — Ram-Man17:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
A2 I think that this question deals with consensus, and although I suspect some will not read what is down here at the bottom of the page, but I'd like to give a complicated example of determining consensus, since that seems to be where the problem is. Splash asked me about the standards for promotion to a bureaucrat. I'll recite the standard vote. Let's go over the results. The "80-85%" group had the plurality of the vote. The majority (if you want to call it that) went to the "75-85%" group, followed by the "80-90%" group in second. (Oh, and the "75-95%" also had a majority). Now, it is true that most people wanted an increase in some fashion or another, there was no real agreement. And in terms of a controversial decision, I don't believe that someone who wants "80-85%" necessarily would be happy with a standard of "85-90%", otherwise they might have voted for that one! So even to say that there was a consensus of an increase in standard is deceptive, I think. And yet, the 80-85% group was accepted, not as I believe on the basis of consensus, but on a misunderstanding of consensus. The lack of consensus should have followed tradition and kept the status quo at "75-80%" (even though I would have personally voted for the "80-85%" group). Now that was a while ago and the consensus view has likely changed significantly such that the previous vote would not be repeated. So there you go, I'm going out on a limb here to say that I disagree with that decision on consensus. I believe that any other conclusion in that case results in a compromise not consensus, an important distinction. Now astute among us will realize that the wide majority wanted an increase of some sort and the assumption was made that an increase of 5% would be acceptable for someone who wanted a 10%, 15%, or a unanimous standard increase. And it is this assumption that justified the change. However, whether or not this assumption is true was not made clear. Perhaps those people who wanted the higher standard would have voted for "all or nothing", in hopes that discussion would ensue and more people would be brought over to that side of the table. In at least one case, one of the voters mentioned a "minimum requirement level", which wouldn't have accepted the 80-85% group. Such users would not have theoretically been happy with the permanence of the new standard. -- RM13:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Another issue troubles me about the whole thing is how can consensus be different for admins and bureaucrats? Isn't full consensus required for both? It seems illogical to me to say that the definition of consensus is dependent on what is being determined (I don't have time to see if I can find a logical fallacy that fits, perhaps someone else knows off-hand). It seems more of a practical determination based on the number of votes, rather than the amount of consensus. A lot of my supporters and opposers are concerned that I do not understand consensus enough to close a vote, but I think that consensus is very nuanced and I don't know if anyone here understands consensus. I think if anything I understand the intricacies of trying to determine consensus. It isn't always easy, and it's very subjective at times. Voting and compromise are about trying to come up with an adequate solution that perhaps most people can agree with. Consensus is about trying to make EVERYONE happy, if possible. The latter is much more difficult. -- RM14:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
A summary of rejected proposals for de-adminship processes, as well as a list of past cases of de-adminship, may be found at Misplaced Pages:Requests for de-adminship
Historically, there has not been the same obligation on supporters to explain their reasons for supporting (assumed to be "per nom" or a confirmation that the candidate is regarded as fully qualified) as there has been on opposers.
work 20:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
