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.
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hcheney (talk | contribs) at 18:59, 1 July 2004 (Reverted edits by Hcheney to last version by Cecropia). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Denni has been here since January 3, with 1960+ edits to his name. He has proven an excellent contributor on a variety of subjects, and has contributed some beautiful photographs (take a look at Weather lore). He has the right temperament for admin work -- when I asked him for permission to nominate, his remarks struck me as quite wise. He is open to the possibilities as an admin, and yet wants to be sure it doesn't keep him from contributing: I think he'll find an excellent balance, and urge you to support him. Jwrosenzweig 15:49, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Thank you, Jwrosenzweig, moink, and Woggly. It's a big responsibility with low pay and no respect, but I have done a 24-hour marathon for Misplaced Pages and I hope that shows how dear I hold it. I am bold when appropriate, cautious when necessary, and always ready to discuss things rationally. Mr. Baas and I are currently in mediation, and I trust the outcome will be satisfactory to both of us. (BTW, yes, I am a "he", but I believe I am properly in touch with my feminine side.) Denni
Support, pending links from Kevin Baas. Well spoken recently on foundation-l (even though I disagreed). Taking part in mediation shows that Denni is willing to compromise and build consensus. --"DICK"CHENEY 21:23, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
David Cannon 04:22, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC) I have had the privilege of working with Denni on the Misplaced Pages:Multilingual Statistics page. The quality of his work is excellent, and I know him to be one who is quick to encourage others. I very strongly support his nomination.
Does not work well with others. Violates policy. Obstructs transparency. See his talk page history - he deletes user feedback on his talk page, so that noone else can see it. He is currently undergoing a user dispute mediation for making personal attacks. (see the mediation page) Kevin Baas 16:50, 2004 Jun 24 (UTC)
Please provide links. --"DICK"CHENEY 18:37, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
,
Comments:
I think Kevin is of course well within his rights to object to Denni's nomination, but I want to point out for information's sake that Denni is undergoing mediation with Kevin himself. As someone who's been in arbitration, I know that two parties in a dispute often have exaggerated views of each other's conduct. Furthermore, I hope Kevin will refrain from turning this nomination into an attack on Denni (although of course he should respond to Hcheney's question), especially as mediation is still occurring, and I think it against the spirit of said mediation to publically air grievances in this forum. That's just my perspective. Jwrosenzweig 19:12, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I'm a party to the same mediation process; it was requested by Kevin. I think it would be a dreadful precedent to take any notice of this; could only lead to more people refusing mediation when asked to agree to it. Charles Matthews 20:57, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I am in general agreement. This should definitely not be an area for extensions of character attacks/ad hominen attacks. However, I feel that people should be able to express positive views as much as negative views; criticism as much as praise, and have the right, nay the duty, to provide others with access to information which may benefit their decision. Ofcourse, one shouldn't be coercive about it. A one liner is good, so long as its not mere rhetoric - which is never good. As for Charles' comment about people refusing mediation when asked to agree to it - I highly doubt that it will have a significant effect of this sort on reasonable users. And even if it were too have this effect on unreasonable users, this would be no counterargument, as whatever helps to ensure just and responsive governance is ipso facto justified - and this is the question; what things must be weighted in respect to. Kevin Baas 01:36, 2004 Jun 25 (UTC)
I feel that Kevin shows little understanding here: of mediation and its aims; of the propriety of citing it in terms such as 'undergoing', as if it were a judicial investigation; of the function and etiquette of user talk pages; of the likely effect of his remarks; of the likely behaviour of others on reading them. The matter he brings up would properly be dealt with by a simple link to the relevant subpage of the mediation page. Charles Matthews 07:37, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Hence the simple link to the relevant subpage of the mediation page. Also useful to make a brief statement as to the subject of the mediation, and some objective facts never hurt. This all does not exclude the right to make independant criticisms. Charles, chill out, okay? I didn't post a harangue here. You've already generated more dialogue, primarily of a negative nature, than my relevant, appropriate, and brief criticism. Remember, as we all seem to be in agreement on, this is not a forum for personal attacks. "Kevin shows little understanding." is, by sentence structure, irrefutably a personal attack. Notice the subject of the sentence is me, and "little understanding" is pejorative. Let's just have a vote here, okay? Peace. Kevin Baas 16:12, 2004 Jun 25 (UTC)
I am uncertain when personal attacks got defined as "Voting against inclusion of vanity pages," but, if this is the new definition of personal attacks, I support them wholeheartedly. Snowspinner 22:15, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)
Snowspinner, a personal attack is when a user makes a pejorative remark about another user. A typical format is "x person has x undesirable trait", but it may use different verbs like "shows" or "demonstrates", or it might refer to their faculties such as "x person's thoughts" or "x person's statements", indirectly but indisputably refering to the person (in contrast to arguments or article content). there are many variations of the form, but it's nonetheless pretty simple and easy to pick out. I hope this helps to clarify the meaning of a "personal attack". Kevin Baas 16:39, 2004 Jun 29 (UTC)
I was being facetious. I looked at the VfD you cited as an example of Denni's personal attacks, and there were no personal attacks on it whatsoever - only a vote to delete the page, which I believe was entirely justified. In case I missed something, I went and looked at the other two pages just now. The rest were comments on your behavior - accurate ones at that. In fact, Denni's interactions with you convinced me that he has the temperment and determination to handal vandals and other problem users. Snowspinner 17:45, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)
Firstly, the Vfd page was listed as a primary source under mediation for Charles, not Denni. Denni had made only one comment on that page, which was ad hominem cicumstantial, and a vote for deletion, as you pointed out. I informed him on his talk page that it is not in the best interests of his reputation to make ad hominem circumstial arguments, and he was... well... unreceptive and inhospitable. Perhaps this is the cause of confusion. This thread orignates from the subject of Charles, not Denni. Secondly, I don't appreciate your accusations. Nor do I appreciate your self-righteous interpretations. Trying to talk out problems with someone is not vandalism. Violating wikipedia policies and guidelines constitutes a problem. Refusing to communicate to someone who is trying to point out an injustice constitutes a problem. Attacks on people's character, like you just did in the above paragraph, constitutes a problem. (just after we've discussed the vices of such dialogue here, too!) And finally, I don't appreciate your hostility. Kevin Baas 19:03, 2004 Jun 29 (UTC)
That's blatantly untrue. You listed the VfD as a place where Denni made personal attacks. As for my accusations, I don't expect you to appreciate them. Regardless, this is pretty cut and dry as far as I'm concerned. You made a vanity page. Denni voted to delete it. You made vaguely threatening comments about how something wasn't in his best interest, and he got mad. If you expect me to shed a tear for you here, you're quite mistaken. Your vote against his admin nomination, while within your rights, is petty, childish, and misrepresentative. Snowspinner 20:46, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)
I never said that I did not list VfD as a place where Denni made personal attacks. I said that i did not say that it was a primary source. Nor did I say plural. On that page, Denni made an ad hominem circumstantial argument, which, by definition, is an attack on the person. I am certainly within my rights to point out logical fallacies. If someone is irritated by it, that does not reflect poorly on me. I didn't want to bring this onto the page, because i consider it unethical and none of anyone else's business, but you are forcing me to defend myself, as you apparently consider it their business. On Denni's talk page, in the cited history, mind you, as he attempted to repress my criticism and hide his own remarks, he called me delusional, a five-year-old, irrational, and said that i have a "social quotient of australopithecus africanus". Personally, i found these comments offensive and in blatent violation of wikipedia policy. I'm sorry if you do not see this. I don't know how i can make it anymore clear. I voted against him because i felt that this kind of behavior from an administrator would be counter-productive to the goals of wikipedia. Kevin Baas 21:15, 2004 Jun 29 (UTC)
Well, Kevin, your doesn't work well with others is hogwash; and your circumstantial ad hominem, to translate from semi-Latin to semi-Latin, is suggests you had an agenda. But keep up the good work. Charles Matthews 19:23, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Well denni certainly didn't work well with me, so i don't know where the deprecatory and unsubstantiated comment "hogwash" is coming from. As for "ad hominem circumstantial" (you flipped the order around), i refer you to the article ad hominem, and assure you that i understand and acknowledge everything on that page, including the fact that, by making an ad hominem circumstantial attack, denni was suggesting that i had an agenda. But thanks anyways, and thanks for the encouragement. Kevin Baas 20:55, 2004 Jun 29 (UTC)
Let me be picky then: 'others' implies you know of someone else, not yourself, who has had difficulties 'working' with Denni; even at the level of your pursuing a VfD discussion onto his user talk page. By the way, the page on ad hominem does employ the 'circumstantial ad hominem' phrase, as you can see. As it is, you have 'flipped' the statement. You appear to mean that if anyone suggests you have an agenda, this is CAH; which is therefore AH; which is therefore a personal attack; which is therefore a violation of WP policy. You state your 'interests' on your user page; are you really suggesting that even to bring these up in discussion is a policy violation? Charles Matthews 21:47, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
No, bringing up my interests in a discussion is not a violation of wikipedia policy. It is trivial conversation; "chit-chat". regarding suggseting someone has an agenda - i consider this psychologically manipulative and am always turned off to the person who does it, wherever i see it. to be considered CAH, however, it should be in point of making an argument; the part "x is false because..." is missing from your stated criteria. But if it is missing this part, and is left, instead, in the infinitive form, everything remains but the focal point; it becomes a general attack, and i would say still an attack on the person: it attempts to make what the person says less credible. I see that the page on ad homimem employs both orderings. "ad hominem circumstantial" is used twice, once in the subheading and once in the para underneath the subheading, while "circumstantial ad hominem" is used once in the para underneath the subheading. If the usage on that page is considered authorative, we are both correct in the ordering we employ, and both wrong in accusing the other of having flipped the order. I stand corrected, and am sorry for the mistake. Kevin Baas 22:41, 2004 Jun 29 (UTC)
Oh, and regarding "pursuing a vfd onto his talk page" This is factually incorrect. At no point did i solicit him to change his vote. Nor was the topic pursued. For the most part, it was Denni flinging insults and sarcasm at me, and me telling him that such behavior is inappropriate. Kevin Baas 22:46, 2004 Jun 29 (UTC)
You really like splitting hairs, don't you? Snowspinner 19:06, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)
[[User:VampWillow
VampWillow has been here since March and has about 1600 contributions. Lots of good new articles and edits, a good understanding of NPOV and wikiquette, and an interest in admin-type tasks (marking for deletion, advising new users on style, etc). --ALargeElk | Talk 14:27, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Very happy to accept (if you'll all have me, of course;-) --VampWillow 14:58, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I've been an active member since November 2003, have a couple thousand edits under my belt and have been in the community long enough to understand the integral nature of Wikiquette and the NPOV policy in maintaining credibility and sustainability of this project. Although I turned down a previous suggestion of admin nomination in the past because of time obligations (full time school and full time work), I now have the time - and thorough understanding - of the WP community to be a good admin. Also, since I declined nomination in the past, think it is cheesy for me to ask someone to nominate me now - so I'm sticking my own neck out. Still, if there is a collective "no" to this self-nomination, I understand. I can still do 99% of what I want to do the old-fashioned way and have faith in the current batch of admins. Davodd 22:00, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)
Davodd has made 3,698 edits as of 12 June 2004. --"DICK"CHENEY 22:48, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Support
A worthy candidate who would have had this earlier had he succumbed to peer pressure more readily. ;-) Glad to see him ready to take on the glory and tedium that is being an admin. Jwrosenzweig 22:46, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
David Cannon 20:12, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC) A good candidate. Davodd had the good sense to decline nomination earlier when time constraints would have inhibited (in his eyes) his activity on Misplaced Pages; it's very good of him to offer his services now that he is able. Give it to him!
OldakQuill has in the three months since he came here created, cleaned up, expanded and in other ways tended to a myriad of stubs. He seems to enjoy Misplaced Pages and I can't find any conflicts in his past here. He is a devoted, hard-working Wikipedian with insight into what makes Misplaced Pages work. He has done more than 3200 edits. ✏ Sverdrup 21:52, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I accept this nomination with thanks. --Oldak Quill 22:04, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Cecropia | Talk 23:13, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC) He has done a mountain of work in minutae—redirects and starts, that especially suit him for an admin's duties, IMO. Gladly support.
I have been a Misplaced Pages member since September 2003 and have contributed a little over 1000 edits to the English Misplaced Pages since then, and one or two dozen edits on the Malay Misplaced Pages. I have not been involved in any edit disputes, and I believe I have sufficient understanding of Wikiquette. I am requesting adminship to assist in administering VfD and speedy deleting patent nonsense (I used to follow recent changes a lot but have been unable to do so recently due to lack of time). I understand if I am considered too new to become an admin, especially since this is a self-nomination, and will not mind if you can provide constructive comments on my manner of contributing to Misplaced Pages, regardless of whether you support this nomination. Johnleemk | Talk 12:54, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I too believe in quality over quantity and your contributions definitely have quality. -JCarriker 09:01, Jun 20, 2004 (UTC)
Qualified, has shown a good grasp of policy and etiquette. —No-OneJones 12:42, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Quality over quantity. Calm and well-spoken in exchanges with other editors. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:32, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
While he doesn't quite have a comfortable quantity of edits, I trust him and I hope sysoping him can boost his contribution. ✏ Sverdrup 01:37, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Quality over quantity, indeed. Cribcage 03:33, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
After consideration an review of your edits, I've decided to support. Not that it matters. You have a healthy amount of support already. Quality over quantity, I concede. I just hope you're more active in the future! blankfaze | •• 04:35, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Seems a good contributor, and certainly VfD needs more people willing to maintain it (IMO). Jwrosenzweig 16:09, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
1000 edits? I've only been here since April and I have almost 2000. I'm kind of wary of supporting someone with only 1000 edits if they're self-nominating. The guidelines say 500-1000 edits are necessary before people should consider your nomination seriously. It also says self-nominators should "wait until you exceed the usual guidelines by a good measure. Oppose, for now, but I am open to reconsidering.blankfaze | •• 02:55, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I read the guidelines. However, I believe in quality, not quantity. I agree that most of my edits are inconsequential, but I have contributed to several articles. I helped bring The Beatles up to featured level. I have written non-stub articles on subjects not covered extensively in Misplaced Pages, such as Bandar Utama (if American towns have articles, so can any other nation) and Persekutuan Pengakap Malaysia. I created the boxes for the various Prime Ministers of Malaysia. I helped start Malaysian general election, 2004 and Malaysian general election. I also believe that given how long I've been on Misplaced Pages, I have been able to sufficiently understand the various policies, etc. of Misplaced Pages. I have actually contributed even before September last year, as an anonymous user (I wrote 95% of Education in Malaysia). Johnleemk | Talk 06:20, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
No offense to Johnleemk - but for now, I oppose. I think it is still to soon to judge. Kingturtle 01:57, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
This may sound unusual, but I'm neutral only because of this user's relatively few discussions on his talk page and other talk pages. While this is probably a good sign, I feel it's important to be able to gauge how a prospective admin relates directly to other users, as well as editing articles. BCorr|Брайен 13:35, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Excellent contributor, been here about a year, thousands of edits. - Hephaestos|§ 02:48, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I graciously accept. -JCarriker 02:50, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)
Support
Hephaestos|§ 02:48, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC) (assumed, forgot to vote)
Cecropia | Talk 14:28, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC) I graciously approve. ;-)
Support... even though adminship is just receiving flak and having a whole bunch of red buttons on your console you can't touch. --"DICK"CHENEY 19:48, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
older≠wiser 22:00, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC) Heh, you don't need to be an admin to catch a lot of flak around here.
Jiang 09:57, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC) certainly deserves it
Acegikmo1 11:29, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC). Theresa's questions brought up some of my own concerns and Jay's responses helped to convince me that he'll make a fine admin.
Ilyanep 14:37, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC) One of the few names out of the 100000000000 people void that I recognize.
Oppose
No offense personally to JCarriker. I just want to see more interactions with the community before I support. Kingturtle 02:06, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
None taken. Can you please elaborate on what type of community interactions your mean? It's specific enough to state your concerns, but not enough to let me know what I need to improve on. -JCarriker 08:48, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)
You needn't improve on anything, per se. I'd just like to see more interactions with the community. As time passes, and you continue to work with the community, you will encounter more situations - and that will provide more examples of how you interact and react. Cheers, Kingturtle 19:21, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
comments
I hate to do this, but I feel I must.
I have a few questions for JCarriker. I get the impression he is a sensitive soul and I wonder if he knows the kind of flack he might come in for once he is an admin.
How will you react if you find yourself listed on "review of admin actions"?
What if someone says you are part of an evil cabal?
Or if someone vandalizes you user page or user talk page?
What if another admin undoes something you did, accusing you of not following procedure?
What if someone is very rude and agressive towards you when you were only trying to help them?
I'm not saying any of these things will happen, but they might. (I have had all this and more happen to me, and so have many other admins, but then I am very thick skinned) If they happen to you how will you feel about it?
I am also troubled by your "read this before posting" note on your talk page. It comes across as agressive.
Don't get me wrong. I think you are an excellent contributor of quality work. But I do think you haven't thought this through. You said not very long ago that you felt like a second class citizen here I don't want you to come under fire from some troublemaker accusing you of abuse of admin powers and then feel even worse. Admins need to be tough, very tough sometimes. Are you sure you want to be an admin? theresa knott 15:24, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Please don't hate to do this, you have raised only valid points. I am very sensitive and I'm usuually open and honest with my feelings. I am actually a local political activist so I have actually had perosonal experience with many of the things you mentioned.
1. How will you react if you find yourself listed on "review of admin actions"?
I will be open and honest as I usually am. I've had people I've known my entire life level much more hurtful allegations at me and I'm still active in politics.
2. What if someone says you are part of an evil cabal?
I enjoy evil cabals; especially when their members are of such high quality. I have also supposedly been a puppet for various mythical organizations in Marshall for years, so it wouldn't be the first time.
3. Or if someone vandalizes you user page or user talk page?
I've had some one vandalize my house after a political election, and changing my name from Jay to Gay is a common albeit annoying practice among my rivals. My user page is much more easily redeemed.
4. What if another admin undoes something you did, accusing you of not following procedure?
I'll react as I do now, by asking them why on there talk page before I take any action myself; preferably after reaching consensus. I'm usually a by the book kind of person, my policies should be in accordance with wiki's. I've actually had a page I created deleted, you can find my reaction here: please see: User_talk:Jiang
5. What if someone is very rude and agressive towards you when you were only trying to help them?
I'll ask them to use wikiquette, and reiterate my statement. If that doesn't work I'll ask another party to step in, unless the situtation is too serious.
I am also troubled by your "read this before posting" note on your talk page. It comes across as agressive.
I'm sorry to here that, I certainly don't consider myself aggressive. I added the notice becuase my wikiquette posting seemed to be being ignored. There is also an extensive welcome section. Which parts do you find aggressive? I'm open to suggestions about how to improve it.
You said not very long ago that you felt like a second class citizen here I don't want you to come under fire from some troublemaker accusing you of abuse of admin powers and then feel even worse.
I've already been accused of being a racist on wikipedia, as a white Southerner I can't imagine a more hurtful and crafted attack. One of my primary reasons for feeling like a second class citizen was that after being at wiki for almost a year, I seemed to be a generally ignored figure. I decided that this was due to both the niche like nature of my work and have since started editng pages outside of that niche.
Are you sure you want to be an admin?
Yes, recieving adminship would signal that the community has confidence in me and that means a lot. It also makes it easier for me to combat vandalism when I come across it, something that is much more difficult without admin privelages.
I hope this answers your questions, I am of course still available for more answers and elaborations. I hope you will consider supporting me Theresa, but if you don't I know it's because you have my and wikipedia's best interests at heart.
Thanks for answering my questions. I am very happy with your answers and have added my vote to support. As for the note on you user page, we'd best discuss it there. theresa knott 05:22, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Great contributor - untold thousands of edits either under this name or at previous name Andylehrer since March 10. He was nominated a couple of times a month or two ago, and there seems to have been a general sense that more time was needed. But many people seem to become admins after three months or so, and he's made tons and tons of edits. johnk 21:53, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the nomination. I accept. AndyL 03:08, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Impolite POV warrior. Generally good editor, but thats not what this job entails. Seems to have no grasp of Wikiquette nor wikipedia:civility. Sam 00:49, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Neutral
Comments
I'm inclined to support, given my limited contact with Andy. Sam (or others), if you believe he's been uncivil or impolite, please offer a link or two? The only times I've seen Andy even get upset are in conversations with WHEELER, and while of course it is always better to remain calm, anyone here who's worked with WHEELER knows that frustration is often a product of that interaction. I intend to support in a couple of days, but will wait to see what counter-evidence there may be -- thanks. Jwrosenzweig 16:41, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I was refering mainly to the regularly acidic dialogue on Talk:Nazism and socialism, particularly in the archives. He utilized ad hominem arguments regularly, and pressed a "socialism has never truely existed (except maybe in cuba...)" POV. Sam 17:50, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I don't recall ad hominems, and I certainly don't recall any praise of Castro's Cuba. I do remember some of the "socialism has never truly existed" stuff, but only in talk. I've had some disagreements with him over edits (at the page Sam cites, for instance), but I've always thought he's handled it pretty well. johnk 19:03, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Sam, I've read through the last three archives at the page. I had to go all the way to the end of March to find behavior of Andy's that seemed at all questionable to me, and I would say that, given the context, Andy was behaving essentially like everyone else -- that is, there was a bitt of "point-scoring" and rhetoric flying around, which he took part in for a while. It isn't significant enough to cause me much concern, especially given that, since that time, he has shown a remarkable amount of calm on that page, even during WHEELER's frenzied assertions that Nazism was "LEFT LEFT LEFT!!!" Anyone who can hang on to their senses in that situation has enough patience for me, especially as I see no ad hominem attacks even in Andy's more wild discussions from late March. Andy is welcome to have opinions that I disagree with, as long as he handles himself well, and I believe he has. Jwrosenzweig
A great contributor, has made about 2500 edits, his recent work categorizing World War II is admirable. I feel he needs to be rewarded for all the hard work and dedication.GeneralPatton 23:08, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Thanks Patton, I accept your nomination. Oberiko 10:43, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I'm not sure adminship should be considered a "reward". Acegikmo1 19:30, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I strongly agree with the above statement. →Raul654 18:01, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)
His edits look good. How's his dealing with editing conflict? - David Gerard 19:54, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I've only dealt with a few admittedly. When a conflict does come up I'll ask the other party to talk it over on the discussion page in question. So far I haven't had anything go beyond that as an agreement has, so far, always been reached. Oberiko 21:26, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
It doesn't sound like Oberiko's work is in topics that are particularly controversial. ;-) There's certainly nothing wrong with that. Isomorphic 00:22, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Dave Iberri has been doing a phenomenal amount of maintenance and quality improvement of articles pertaining to medicine and physiology. He is scrupulously adherent to policy and helpful whenever called on. He is the stuff administratorship is made out of. JFW | T@lk 15:55, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
1500 edits, here since January, in case anybody wanted to know
Thank you for the nomination. I humbly accept. --Diberri | Talk 22:14, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)
I'm supporting, even though I'm skeptical of anyone who admires Bill O'Reilly. At least it seems he has a better grasp of "Fair and Balanced" than O'Reilly and hasn't adopted O'Reilly's tactics for squelching dissenting opinions. older≠wiser 18:06, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Shouldn't we judge Dave by his work, rather than by his stated affiliations and views? JFW | T@lk 13:55, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Well, um, that's what I thought I was doing. I am supporting him despite my skepticism. older≠wiser
So why make the point? JFW | T@lk 09:28, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Because O'Reilly is a highly biased, POV-monger, disingenuously advertising his show as a "no-spin zone". I am extremely skeptical of anyone who claims O'Reilly as a role model. Despite my dislike of O'Reilly, I think Diberri has not shown any O'Reilly-like tendencies in editing Misplaced Pages. Are you suggesting that I can't use the comments section to make comments? older≠wiser 15:05, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
For the record, I never claimed that ol' Billy was my role model or that I ever admired him (Bkonrad's words). Indeed, on my user page I merely point out that many of our social/political views are in alignment. If some have misinterpreted that as admiration, then hopefully I've clarified my intent. To be honest, I'd hoped these comments would be more about me as a Misplaced Pages editor and less as a political commentator ;-) That said, this comments section has made for a delightful read :-) --Diberri | Talk 15:41, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)
Diberri, I'm sorry for a lack of precision in paraphrasing what I recalled seeing on your user page. I did not in any way intend the comment to portray you in a negative light. I really was just trying to make a snarky comment about O'Reilly while pointing out that your edits are of better quality than O'Reilly. I hoped that people might find it amusing--sorry if anyone misunderstood. older≠wiser 16:12, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I'm supporting, even though I am sure O'Reilly would hate my pro-choice secularism. There needs to be diversity in the pool of admins. --"DICK"CHENEY 19:51, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
A solid contributor ~ 4000 edits since arriving in January. Always calm when the editing gets hot, he would make a good admin. theresa knott 10:11, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I was going to wait until the end of the month to nominate him, but what the heck. —No-OneJones 03:37, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC) :-D - David Gerard 23:42, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Support. Known him online since before I knew of Misplaced Pages. Smerdis of Tlön 11:50, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I also thought he already was one.... Level-headed, clear, friendly, and helpful -- will make an excellent sysop. -- BCorr|Брайен 11:54, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I would like to apply to be an Administrator again. PMA 17:54, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Support
Snowspinner 18:13, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC) Unless he was forcibly removed as an administrator, or something along those lines, I see no reason why a former administrator shouldn't be allowed to return.
Support (again). -- Cecropia | Talk 19:36, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC) -- add just a comment. When he first looked for reinstatement, I asked whether a vote was really necessary. I still wonder why, since his temporary de-sysoping was voluntary at his request.
Sam 14:30, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC) I'm not really sure this should be necessary tho, he was already voted in
Not necessary at all. Admins in good standing who voluntarilly gave up their status should be able to return without a vote. Oh, and he's a good contributor, by the way. Isomorphic 16:59, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
As there was no reason for him to lose it in the first place, I see no reason he should not have his adminship back. Angela. 17:11, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
What were the circumstances that led to you losing administrator status? - Tεxτurε 18:19, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
This diff from March 23 shows PMA requesting voluntarily to be de-sysopped. As an editor on semi-vacation currently, I understand completely his weariness, and applaud his desire to take up "active duty" once again. Jwrosenzweig 19:19, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I'm nominating Elf. She is a *great* contributor, and I have absolutely no doubts about her ability to use admin powers wisely. She was nominated a little while back, and I (and several others) opposed only on the basis that she was too new and it would set a bad precedent. She's been here since January and has some 3000 contributions to her credit. →Raul654 19:49, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up that I'm listed here. I gladly accept. Maybe easier to say yes after 4 days of wikifree vacation. :-) Elf | Talk 19:52, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I seem to recall supporting her last time. She doesn't seem like she'd abuse her powers, and she's pretty easy to work with. Meelar 19:50, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I seem to be late to the party - an enthusiastic support for Elf, whose positive demeanor and valuable contributions are an excellent model of Wikipedian behavior. Jwrosenzweig 19:59, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Support strongly. Anybody who is so gung-ho about WP that she wrote a song must really care about our project! And the tips she offered on her userpage show that she really knows what she's doing :-) --Menchi 02:57, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Ahhh!!! I just noticed that technically my vote wouldn't count, because ....technically, this election ended yesterday. Oh well, it doesn't seem like she needs another support anyway. 36 votes and zero opposition -- Somebody's really popular!
Jrdioko has welcomed a ton of people, he's made over 2000 edits, and has been here since March 13. I think he'd make a great admin--and also, I'm getting sick of having to deal with the stuff he tags for speedy deletion. Meelar20:26, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
Thanks Meelar for the nomination, I accept. While I usually stick to taking care of smaller tasks on the Misplaced Pages and probably wouldn't end up using all the admin privileges right away, I do think a rollback link for vandalism and the ability to speedily delete speedy delete pages would come in handy. – Jrdioko(Talk) 20:55, May 28, 2004 (UTC)
I don't oppose, but I would rather wait another month before supporting. Two months seems a little early in this case. Angela.22:30, 29 May 2004 (UTC)
Comments
(originally under neutral) anthony(see warning) I can't find any of the speedy deletions being referred to.
I know there was at least one within an hour of this post, and I seem to remember at least one more during the past couple hours. Meelar20:46, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
I believe deleting an article erases everything from its page history and the user contributions of those who made edits to it, so none of the pages I tagged to be deleted should be in my contributions (unless, of course, they was never deleted). – Jrdioko(Talk) 21:00, May 28, 2004 (UTC)
Ah, good point. I was thinking you used Misplaced Pages:Speedy deletions, but if all you did was add the tag that's not going to be anywhere in the history. Looking at meelar's deletions in that time period, they look indisputable, so I'll move my vote to support. anthony(see warning)04:27, 29 May 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the nomination, Merovingian. I accept. Realistically it probably won't change my activities much, as I mostly enjoy formatting and editing articles. But it would be nice to be able to revert faster, and leave a more standard message (so far I've usually just done a quick copy&paste of the date/time/user stamp of the version I'm reverting to), when doing RC patrol. I'd probably only help with the most blatant speedy delete candidates, and leave the more borderline cases to the more experienced admins. Niteowlneils01:21, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
It doesn't really effect how I'd act as an admin, but, just for the record, I have added a first draft trying to explain what I feel should be included, at User:Niteowlneils/WIWONiteowlneils 08:41, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Turtles move very deliberately, I am told, so if Kingturtle approves, he must be here long enough. Besides, he has some gray hair, which indicates wisdom. -- Cecropia | Talk14:19, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
Snowspinner19:30, 30 May 2004 (UTC). I'd like to specifically note that I am not opposed to deletionist admins - I think admins should be a good mix of deletionists and inclusionists.
Around 3000 edits since 05:42, 9 Nov 2003 . Mirv will make an excellent administrator. He helps raise the bar for other contributors and is always level-headed. Earlier today I was surprised to find out that Mirv hadn't become an admin a long time ago; he should've been. 172
Thank you 172, I accept the nomination.
Regarding the questions raised by Snowspinner and UninvitedCompany below: As I explained to RickK when he asked, I agreed strongly with the ideas behind the summary, never mind the harsh language in which they were expressed. In retrospect I ought to have asked that the summary be made less abusive (or done so myself) before giving and maintaining my endorsement, and I apologize for not doing so.
I like the idea of an admin named Multiple Independently targetable Re-entry Vehicle... Not to mention ey are an extremely well qualified user. --"DICK"CHENEY13:13, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
After reviewing the question raised, I still support Mirv. Mirv has a long history of fairness and dedication to the project. Kingturtle23:26, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
VV21:30, 25 May 2004 (UTC)Oppose. No problems with this user early on, and he seemed impartial in my conflict with 172 at FOX News (where 172 was clearly wrong), but the stated issue shows very poor judgement both in (a) calling a user an "ignorant fuck" (his explanation above notwithstanding), and (b) endorsing the sentiment (a case of a wise user handling an ignorant user), which shows either a failure to understand the conflict before commenting or a very shoddy reading of events, neither of which reflects good judgement.
Sam20:52, 26 May 2004 (UTC) based on recent endorsement of personal attack. (would likely support at a later time)
Neutral
#Snowspinner14:26, 25 May 2004 (UTC) Unable to support due to his endorsement of Danny's original statement in the RfC regarding 172 (See ).
Comments
I have indicated my support for Mirv's adminship above. Mirv is a fine, upstanding contributor who has made valuable contributions and who has familiarity with and involvement in admin-related matters. I did note his endorsement of the RfC text noted above, which I consider inappropriate, and all the more so because Mirv did not avail himself of the opportunity to distance himself from the comment when RickK brought it to his attention. However, because this is a relatively minor faux pas in the greater scheme of things, and since it appears to be an isolated event, I still support Mirv for adminship. UninvitedCompany15:43, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
As a note, I invite Mirv to explain the endorsement above either here, in e-mail, or on my talk page - prior to it I would have supported, and so I would welcome some explanation, as I would like to support. For the time being, I'm downgrading my vote to neutral. Snowspinner15:59, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
Overdue for adminship, and the isolated instance of endorsing a statement with abusive language is the only thing I have ever seen Mirv do that I consider inappropriate. I would not deny Mirv adminship on these grounds, any more than I would support de-sysoping Danny for writing the language initially. The statement has since been rewritten, and with that I think we should all be able to put it behind us. --Michael Snow20:27, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
All I can find are people talking about the endorsement. Could someone point me to the specific endorsement in question? Kingturtle03:21, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
Bkonrad has been here since February and made over 3500 edits. I've worked with him on a large number of pages about U.S. history and can say he is level-headed and is an extreme pleasure to work with. Will make an excellent administrator.-- Decumanus | Talk05:08, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
I gladly accept. Thanks. (Moink asked me about a month ago and I had wanted to wait until after I finished moving--but I suppose now is as good a time as a week from now.) older≠wiser15:48, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
I've had some disagreements with him, and the experience was painless. He seems like a good candidate for admiral/emperor/whatever this is for. →Raul654 21:14, May 22, 2004 (UTC)
Older may not equal wiser, but calmer does equal better, at least for sysops, and Bkonrad has shown a level head and good judgment in abundance. --Michael Snow17:42, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
Tom has been here since late February 2004 and made well over 1000 good edits in that time. The primary reason I'm nominating him is however his work initiating and maintaining the article of the week project, with which I think he has demonstrated suitability (and hopefully willingness!) for doing administrative tasks. Fredrik00:35, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
Adds good content, interested in administration (as demonstrated by his thoughtful discussion on how best to implement the AOTW idea,) and generally good guy. Isomorphic01:51, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
Snowspinner14:44, 28 May 2004 (UTC) Under the three months I would usually use, but looking at Tom's track record, I think the case can be made for early acceptance. I certainly don't want to reject this and give him the slightest sense that his contributions are anything less than phenomenal.
Nothing personal here. I simply don't think Tom- has enough experience in the community yet. I will definitely support in a few months, if his track record continues. Kingturtle02:15, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
Tom has done some great work setting up the article of the week, but I'm not convinced he yet has enough experience with other areas of Misplaced Pages. I certainly don't oppose his adminship, but I feel it's slightly too early to support. Angela. 00:52, May 25, 2004 (UTC)
Jerzy has made 5000+ edits since September 2003. In addition to many fine edits, he has in the past been involved with organizing votes for deletion and cleanup and I believe he will put his powers to good use. --Jiang00:36, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
Awaiting acceptance from Jerzy of nomination.
My goodness.
In favor, i will point out that it would save effort by the ever-generous Angela, since i could do my own deletes when they are required for moves.
Potentially on the negative side:
I've got a fairly odd brain, perhaps most relevantly when it comes to making subjective judgements; some might want to think hard enough about this proposal as to consider how well i understand and compensate for those oddities.
I am a confirmedly pseudonymous user, and some may decide that makes me in some senses less accountable than typical hard-core editors who, if i perceive correctly, are almost always more fully public.
I have a few internally imbedded insects, and i might nag the community about them, a little more often as an admin than i presently do (and if i do, then you were warned ). Two policies come to mind in this regard; altho i think they need to be complied with (and altho i correct others' deviations from them), i consider them both bone-headed and look forward to the time when others agree with me:
Day, month, and year of birth and death in the first sentence of a bio.
Applying the casing rules for article titles to titles of sections.
I do not consistently monitor WP:VP, WP:CU, or WP:VfD, tho i regard doing so a "civic responsibility". I'd like to do a lot better at that, but hope only to do a little better, and may do no better.
My understanding of an admin's mandatory responsibilities is "do no harm, or back off when you realize you did". I consider that a shockingly low standard, but that's the extent of the commitment i'd see myself as taking on.
I'm the sort of person who would get this far, without having hired a campaign manager. Hey, there's no WP:Campaign manager page; where do i recruit one?
My sense of humor is nowhere near as clever as i usually imagine it is.
That's what i've got; i accept the nomination; you decide.
Some day, people will give this man awards just to hear his acceptance speeches. Everything I've seen from him is good. Isomorphic01:49, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
At the risk of sounding clichéd, I thought he already was one. - Herbert 01:28, May 22, 2004 (UTC)
Support. Fabulous choice! Moncrief 03:23, May 22, 2004 (UTC)
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason (gotta love the name) has been around since February, is approaching 1,000 edits, and is an active member of the Misplaced Pages community. I think he would make a fine admin. -- Danny
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason (gotta love the name) has been around since February, is approaching 1,000 edits, and is an active member of the Misplaced Pages community. I think he would make a fine admin. -- Danny (taken from nominating statement, 17213:28, 18 May 2004 (UTC))
A user who receives support from Wik, something seen on this page about as frequently as the deity Ævar worships, has probably the most ringing endorsement one could possibly get. In fact, the sense of humor rather makes me wonder what impersonator got a hold of Wik's password. Anyway, I find nothing wrong, and the shortage of substantive edits is compensated for by the work on images. --Michael Snow20:00, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
john21:25, 19 May 2004 (UTC) My god, Wik supports somebody for adminship? And makes a joke? That's enough for me.
Agree with John. :-) Also, no big deal if he hasn't done a lot of content writing, as long as he's trustworthy and wants to pitch in on site maintainance. Isomorphic21:41, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
Although Wik's support shouldn't cause the editor to be "Crucified on a Cross of Wik," I don't see how this encouraged three users to support. Must be a full moon. -- Cecropia | Talk21:56, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
Kingturtle, you should like this one. Lowellian has over 3100 edits, and has been here since late last year. A fine candidate. Meelar23:20, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
Thank you for the nomination, which I accept. --Lowellian 17:07, May 18, 2004 (UTC)
I received some news just today which may affect my summer plans. I may be traveling to a place where my Internet access may at best be limited, so I think it's only fair to let you know that whatever the outcome of this nomination, my summer editing may (depending on the plans, which are not yet finalized) drop off significantly. I expect to be back in full force in September, doing as much editing as I have since last November. --Lowellian 19:21, May 21, 2004 (UTC)
Nunh-huh (contribs) has been making solid contributions since early Feb 2004 and has now made >2000 major edits, mainly on European royalty/nobility and medical issues, as well as participating in project-wide discussions, e.g. on the usefulness of navigational elements. JFW | T@lk09:17, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
I thank you for the nomination (though the process feels a bit like an extended past-life review), and accept it gladly. -- Nunh-huh19:53, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
Appears to be a considerate user. If he keeps on this track, I will support at a future time. But, IMHO, not fully experienced here yet. Kingturtle23:32, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
Comment
His (her?) edits look good, although he is pretty new here. But why doesn't he have an user page? (redirects to the talk page) -- Chris 73 | Talk09:44, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
There's no policy on that. Nunh-huh prefers to be judged by his/her edits, and that's fine. I've seen admins whose user pages do very little to enhance understanding of "the person behind the username" :-) JFW | T@lk11:29, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
It doesnt speak against him. I just would like to know before I vote. Similar questions have come up at other requests for adminship votes, too. -- Chris 73 | Talk11:38, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
Jwrosenzweig15:54, 14 May 2004 (UTC) Wile's done some advanced stuff I barely understand, but the attitude (where I've seen it) has been great, and a nom from Charles Matthews pretty much assures me that Wile knows his/her stuff. :-)
About 600 article name space edits, but high quality math stuff, including major contributions. Also active on VfD -- Chris 73 | Talk01:10, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
Considering that only 3.2% of registered en: users meet Kingturtle's criteria I find eir standard to be absurd and contrary to the spirit of adminship being "no big deal". I added the message to inform other users I oppose blackballing users from adminship because they didn't fix 3,000 spelling errors/redirects/whatever without checking the minor edit box (because now minor edits don't seem to count anymore at RfA). --"DICK"CHENEY06:16, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
What, you mean where he criticized you for reverting a bunch of edits that were written by someone writing in their second language when you could have actually spent time fixing them? How's that bad judgment again? Snowspinner18:46, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
I don't have to fix hopelessly error-ridden material, and if I wanted to, I could as well rewrite it from scratch. If no one else fixes it, the article is better gone entirely. It is not just about his English, the German is just as wrong. Wile E. probably doesn't speak any German and so should have refrained from commenting on this at all. The same goes for you. --Wik 19:28, May 19, 2004 (UTC)
What is there to criticize? Deleting illiterate text is better than to keep it in place. --Wik 19:48, May 19, 2004 (UTC)
And moving it to talk, trying to clean it up, putting the page on cleanup, or any number of other things are better than deleting it. Which is what I took his point there to be. Snowspinner19:52, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
As you acknowledged, I'm not obliged to do that. He can clean it up if he wants. There is still no justification for him to accuse me about "edit warring" just because I twice removed illiterate additions from an article. --Wik 20:21, May 19, 2004 (UTC)
Neutral
I concure. I am not sure how long this user has actually been here, but from looking at their user page, not long. However, I could think of worse nominations. ChrisDJackson
~ 1950 edits, user since March 1. Seems not unreasonable, interested in process (lots of listing at Speedy deletions, Misplaced Pages:Images for deletion, dealing with user page redirects of vandals pretending to be Jimbo, vandalism reversion, replacing stub notices with the proper mediawiki message, various fixes, other useful tasks. - Fennec 01:53, May 6, 2004 (UTC)
I originally accepted at 03:15, 6 May 2004, but I've just now decided to move this nomination thing here myself. It was originally commented out on my talk page by Fennec when he asked me whether I would accept a nomination. Guanaco23:57, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
Sorry not to have noticed this earlier... I've been a trifle more busy than I anticipated of late :D - Fennec 14:35, May 9, 2004 (UTC)
Support:
Fennec 01:53, May 6, 2004 (UTC) -- wouldn't hurt if he used the edit summary box just a little more, though :)
I was struck today by the fabulous work at Penang Hokkien, but also recall his various informative edits. Check his work. -- Kaihsu 20:49, 2004 May 8 (UTC)
With respect -- Misplaced Pages is no bootcamp and not all topics are controversial; those who go for non-controversial articles should not be discriminated. Just curious, how many do you (y'all) think is 'enough'? (I set a soft threshold of 1000.) -- Kaihsu 22:23, 2004 May 8 (UTC)
He's repeatedly stated a 3000 edit minimum, which I think is too high--it would have taken me years to get there if I wasn't currently unemployed (I've been spending 6-10 hrs/day on WP since March). Niteowlneils20:23, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
My wonder is why you bother to go through with voting on this basis, when it's fairly clear that you're the only person who feels this way, and that voting on this basis is never ever going to affect if someone gets Adminship? I mean, I understand your argument (although I respectfully disagree), but what's the point of the forlorn stand on the RfA page? Wouldn't it make more sense to work to get some kind of official standard set? john00:53, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
Actually, that's not true--rather, it will only have an impact on controversial nominations like User:Cecropia. I disagree with it and wish you wouldn't, though you're of course within your rights. Meelar01:52, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
I set the bar high. IMHO, to be an admin one must have a lot of experience using wikipedia and a lot of experience interacting with the community. I support those I feel are ready, and I oppose those I feel are not ready. Maybe gradually, in the long run, others will see why I set the bar high, and join me. Still, with that said, I also take my responsibility as a bureaucrat quite seriously; even if I oppose someone's adminship, if this peer group forms a consensus supporting an individual, I do the "paper work" to make that person an admin. Kingturtle20:33, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughtful considerations. -- Kaihsu 10:49, 2004 May 10 (UTC)
Kingturtle, I just want to say that even though I disagree with your 3000 edit minimum idea, this is meant to be a vote, and of course you should register your objection if that is how you feel. It is by no means a "forlorn stand". Stick to your guns, I say! --Stormie 10:57, May 10, 2004 (UTC)
I don't think this is about voicing one's opinion, regardless how unreasonable or not. It is pointless to object to obviously competent people as admins to just make a point -- which is not even about the person in question really, but a separate "point" that "3000 edits is what I consider good". The issues are different and trying to stick them together confuses the issues and render them all ...pointless. But, it's his vote. He's free to use it as a tool to rub his point in (which caused the above concerns) or abuse it or actually use it. His vote. His choice. But as a community, we have offered some gentle advices, and he can ignore it if he so desires. --Menchi18:15, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
Yeah... of course, many admins don't have 3000 edits (myself included); I had barely 1,000 when I became an admin. ugen64 21:30, May 11, 2004 (UTC)
I only looked at a few edits, but they didn't seem very good. anthony(see warning)
Neutral:
I like what I've seen of Andrew's work and I have absolutely nothing against him personally. However, he's stuck to fairly narrow and uncontroversial topics (not that that's a bad thing) and hasn't interjected much on content disputes or policy issues (not that that's a bad thing either, he doesn't seem to have gotten into disputes, no doubt in part because of his consistenly solid and thoughtful contributions). But I can't support because I don't see that he has the experience implementing Misplaced Pages policy in the cases where admin power is applicable, and, additionally, because I don't believe that we need him as an admin.
He certainly wouldn't do any harm as an admin, and I think that Andrew's continued work should be encouraged and praised -- but that said, I don't believe that we should grant admin status simply because we like someone or because they've done good work or because they've been around for a while. We should elect people admin because we expect that they will use their admin powers to substantively improve the project. I don't see Andrew using admin powers much, and therefore I don't see a need to support him. -- Seth Ilys06:47, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
Well, I disagree with the tenor of that. We need admins (surely). Admin powers should go to solid contributors. Really, it would be a bad idea if anyone who wanted to be an admin thought profile-raising was required. Charles Matthews09:24, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
He has made about 2000 (I believe) edits, many on medicinal topics, and has shown himself to be a conscientious and good contributor. Meelar23:20, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
Jwrosenzweig23:27, 3 May 2004 (UTC) (Man, nominations are coming out of the woodwork -- is this an unusual trend, or just a sign that we're finally recognizing that many, many editors do outstanding work here -- Jfdwolff not least of them! -- and we're too slow to respond?)
Just looking at the number of edits does not do Jfdwolff justice, as he tends to make large edits rather than trivial ones. A solid record of contributions. Andrewa01:38, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
Note: That is about 2/5s the number of edits I think are necessary before considering a candidate. Kingturtle22:05, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
Hmm. So I think Kingturtle sets the threshold at about 3000. According to the list (referred to above), about 166 Wikipedians fulfil your criterion (I have 3544 with rank 133, so I barely made the cut). We have about 224 administrators. Do the maths. (Not a vote) -- Kaihsu 22:36, 2004 May 8 (UTC)
Heavens. 3k edits? I have only 2k5 edits (less, probably), and when made a sysop, 11 months ago, I had... less. Just over 500, I think. Does this mean I should be de-sysop'ed, in your opinion? ;-) -- James F.(talk)00:44, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
Support enthusiastically. Mostly I've see him on VfD voting to keep things I'd rather see deleted. However, a look the links on his user page shows him filling important gaps with good articles, especially on African politcs. Isomorphic05:07, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
Aside from Jfdwolff, he's the only editor I've heard of, currently on this list. I think that counts for a lot. -- user:zanimum
Sysopship doesn't affect your VfD vote. Besides, you know any admins who have gotten in trouble for not deleting something? :) - Fennec 05:10, May 6, 2004 (UTC)
It's a sign of bad judgment. --Wik 18:21, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
Hmm I tend to disagree, but no matter. The important question is IMO do you think he is likely to abuse admin power? In other words, have you ever seen him engage in dodgy behaviour such as deleting other people's comments, being abusive to people he doesn't agree with, getting involved in edit wars, that kind of thing? theresa knott20:16, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
I never saw him being involved in any content dispute, so I can't say that he behaved either good or bad there, except the matter of the inclusion of 9/11 victims, where he accused people who considered those articles unencyclopedic as being "politically motivated", refused to accept the general consensus of not including those articles and instead insisted on having a vote on each of them individually. --Wik 21:52, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
For the record, I have more recently done some editing on the 9/11 wiki myself, and I don't intend to participate any further in those votes, although I do still think they should be put to individual votes. I agree that the consensus on the matter is plain. Everyking21:57, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
Jmabel has been around since October 2003 and has about 3,500 edits. He has done a lot of nice work, including many translations (which anyone who has tried will tell you is no easy task to do well). I think he'd be a good admin. Maximus Rex18:41, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
I'm honored, but I'm not sure I want this. Could someone get in touch with me & clarify for me what it means? I'm pretty much happy with the role I've already carved out here... BTW, Jengod, I'm not a "she", Mabel is my surname. High school was hell on that count... -- Jmabel22:57, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
OK, Jwrosenzweig has convinced me that if I'm assigned this and don't much use it, no one will be bothered. On that basis, sure, if there is consensus. -- Jmabel23:55, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
A qualified contributor who doesn't really want to use admin abilities, especially blocking, is all the easier to support. --Michael Snow17:07, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
Don't know for sure if he fits the basic requirements in terms of contributions, but I really think so. He has been here a long time. Otherwise, I see no evidence he would be a bad sysop :-); I like his contributions; he is timid so won't do self-nomination :-); and finally I love the idea of french people on en: SweetLittleFluffyThing
SamSpade00:57, 3 May 2004 (UTC) Reading antheres nomination, I feel a need to point out that my vote is based only on DM's polite, insightful, educated demeanor, and has no basis in francophilia of any sort ;)
Cyrius has done an enormous amount of Misplaced Pages maintenance as well as being (to my knowledge) trustworthy and reasonable—an expanded user page would help in this regard. He has made ~3,500 edits since 24 December 2003. Chris Roy05:57, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
Wow, thanks, I accept the nomination. -- Cyrius|✎ 14:33, May 2, 2004 (UTC)
He's done plenty of good maintainance work. I strongly support anyone willing to do that stuff on a regular basis. ;-) Isomorphic06:57, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
Support if he writes something more substantial that "Just some guy." on his user page and specifies an email address in his user preferences. Maximus Rex18:03, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
Support. I believe AlainV's careful, detailed, fact-based edits to truly encyclopedic articles are uncommonly valuable. UninvitedCompany15:42, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
Dr Reeve has been around for a few months, and has contributed good articles and some very nice images. I have not checked the number of edits, but the quality may be seen in the exemplar Royal Exchange and Royal Oak (tree). -- Kaihsu 23:06, 2004 May 1 (UTC)
A review shows generally calm and composed behavior while working on the alternative medicine articles. Isomorphic02:20, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
Contributor since December 14, 2003. I'm not concerned with frequency or number of edits: He's been around awhile, and he produces quality work. I support 100%. Cribcage03:02, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages is not an exclusive country club: adminship should be granted based on qualitative performance, not quantitative, IMHO. --"DICK"CHENEY19:05, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
I don't know what 200-300 more edits would tell me that the excellent 500+ haven't already -- there's been plenty of time for Myk to get into trouble if that was coming. Does very solid work, in my experience. Jwrosenzweig16:10, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
His work so far is good enough evidence of qualifications. Let's not set our edit count expectations so high that people have to make Misplaced Pages a full-time job for six months to become admin. --Michael Snow16:48, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
Support. Supersolid, involved contributions. Good choice. jengod 20:07, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
I'd like to nominate User:Chris 73 for adminship. He's been here since October 2003, and is a very effective poster and diligent in protecting Misplaced Pages from vandalism. RickK04:37, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the nomination, RickK! I humbly accept. Being an Admin would greatly help me with fighting vandalism, and I hope to be a good admin. -- Chris 73 | (New) Talk05:16, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
User Chris 73 has alleged Made a number of edits to musician sites, mainly adding a link to and subpages, and removing some probably valid information from the pages.
This is a serious allegation of removing some probably valid information. He should substantiate it.
I do admit (stupidly and I regret) replacing modemacs page after he reversed all the edits that I had taken a long while (and carefully) to add, which are informative and useful, and which are not in violation of any wiki-pedia guidelines that I can discover.
My contributions also cover several topics (as anyone can check).
He is unsuitable for admission until he substantiates his words, and until he stops taking a God-like approach to other caring contributors.
Made a number of edits to musician sites, mainly adding a link to and subpages, and removing some probably valid information from the pages. Now he is vandalizing the page of User:Modemac, who reverted his edits. His contributions:195.188.152.16 -- chris_73 01:38, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
End of Snippet
Adding links is no vandalism. Your actions on the page of User:Modemac was. Back then your actions were vandalism, and you got banned for a short period (not by me, I just alerted others to your actions). I see that you apologized to Modemac, and got a login as User:Olive. I think this is the right thing to do, and is promising for your future contributions. I'll contact you directoy on your talk page soon. -- Chris 73 | (New) Talk14:49, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
Olive concurs and removes objection after reasonable consultation. If Modemac had taken more consultative approach this would not have started.
Please sign your comments (by typing four tildes, like ~~~~). It makes conversations easier to follow. Also, at the risk of sounding impolite: Try using short, complete sentences, and pay attention to your pronouns. I try not to criticize folks' writing, but I've honestly had difficulty understanding this thread. Thanks. Cribcage17:43, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
I'd like to nominate Mark for adminship. In addition to rescuing me from Troll harassment, he's been doing all sorts of good cleanup work, reference desk staffing and vandal-battling since he joined up on Feb. 6. He's got nearly 2000 edits. jengod 23:41, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)
Thank you, I appreciate the nomination, and hope to be a contributor for a long time to come. Mark Richards 00:35, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Support:
jengod
Jwrosenzweig 23:50, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC) I'd been counting down the days to nominate Mark (I like to wait 3 months) and jen beats me! Mark is an excellent candidate, great demeanor and attitude, would make a very good admin.
I would like to nominate Rob Brewer for adminship. Rob has been here since September 2002 and seems to have an excellent understanding of Misplaced Pages and a good approach to any talk page discussions he has been involved in. His contributions to Misplaced Pages include over 3000 edits to the main namespace. Angela. 10:40, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the nomination; I accept. I must admit proclaim that of late most of my edits have been minor, but and I hope to be able to return to making more substantial contributions very soon. --rbrwrˆ 20:22, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
A great user - should've been made admin a while ago. 172 07:08, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the nomination. It is nice to be appreciated, and I accept it with all humility. I hope to continue to deserve your faith in me, and be of good use to the project. Chancemill 12:49, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)
Support. Chancemill has edited some contentious topics and remained calm in his discussion of them. Seems to handle conflict well. Angela 08:16, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I especially regard it important to have admins with knowledge about topics that are not among the most common ones the mainstream user tends to contribute to. To me it seems that Chancemill's interest in Indian and Hindu topics as well as a variety of others are very valuable for wikipedia. Get-back-world-respect 19:18, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Though English is his second language, he is *very* good in English; and also very *helpful* in correcting grammar and polishing articles. Also, very knowledgeable in Tamil, Sanskrit and Hindi. --Rrjanbiah05:24, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
I'd like to nominate myself for adminship. I've made a large number of edits (according to Misplaced Pages:List of Wikipedians by number of edits, 1364 or #340 ; current number is 1621) and written several large and detailed articles almost entirely by myself (see my user page), as well as contributed many images I either created myself or obtained permission for. I recently saved lookahead from being deleted. I haven't been very active in the "politics" of Misplaced Pages, and have never engaged in an edit war beyond a couple exchanges; I always try to respect others' content.
I want to use admin abilities mainly to write and perform SQL queries to locate pages that need correction, to help out with deleting and reverting pages and images, to make corrections on protected and MediaWiki pages, and so on.
Thanks for your support.
Self-nomination was at 20:16, 28 Apr 2004 according to page history.
In my opinion, one should have at least 2 1/2 months here and over 3,000 edits (not including talk pages) in the last six months. I feel this gives enough breadth of a history to judge the person's capabilities and capacities. Kingturtle17:08, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
3,000!?! I expect to hit that number later this month, but only because I am currently unemployed, so I can spend 8-12 hours per DAY on WP. If I was working full time, it would take me many YEARs to reach 3,000 edits. Niteowlneils20:19, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
Goodness, Kingturtle... no one can say you have low standards, I suppose. But have you ever wondered why some people think of the admins as a cabal? :) - Fennec 12:59, May 4, 2004 (UTC) (who has just now only reached edit 2352 or so)
Also, FWIW, there are 216 listed active admins, even tho' as of 4/24 only 166 registered Wikipedians have over 3,000 edits. And, I average 20-30 edits/hr, because I mostly do RC patrol typos and rv's and dab projects--people doing actual content contributions wouldn't come close to that rate. Niteowlneils21:24, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
Well that's harsh. I tend to believe someone should have a pulse, and have made it several months without displaying any severe emotional issues that cause them to make me want to murder them... Snowspinner05:13, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
Has quietly amassed over 4000 edits since September 2003. In that time I have seen nothing but solid contributions from this editor. Has been especially productive in all areas related to Canada. - SimonP 01:18, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)
Catbar has been here since December and has made about 800 edits. Solid contributor who deserves admin status. Meelar 04:48, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I'm pleased to be nominated - thank you, Meelar. I've found it interesting to work on the Misplaced Pages. I hope I can be a worthy admin. Brian Rock 05:32, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)
--HCHENEY 22:28, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC) Moggy made me vote support.
Oppose:
Not enough experience here yet, IMHO. Kingturtle 15:12, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Neutral:
Not enough edits, but I suppose a good worker. --Merovingian ↕ Talk 13:55, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)
Agree with Merovingian -- Graham :) | Talk 22:47, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I don't think that absolute number of edits is good indication of contributor activity in all cases. Some people correct typos and formatting, or don't use the preview button, and rack up a lot of edits while others perform substantial work in only a few edits. A quick look at his user page shows several pages which he has created. Also, although it is easy for experienced users to forget, 800 is still a lot of edits. Maximus Rex 23:15, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
That's why my vote is neutral and not oppose. --Merovingian ↕ Talk 18:24, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)
Yes, but neutral is just a very polite way of saying "oppose" ;-). Maximus Rex 18:30, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Well actually a neutral doesn't hurt. An oppose cancels out four supports. Neutrals are ok. :-) Brian Rock 22:06, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for your support. I wasn't going to toot my own horn, but I am proud of the fact that several of my new articles have been featured on the Main Page: Jake and Hemotoxin are two that I know of. While I've done my share of fixing minor typos, I do prefer more extensive contributions, when I have something to offer. Brian Rock 23:39, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)
I would like to nominate Hcheney for administrator. Not only does he have 1150+ edits since 23 December 2003 and a generally calm and collaborative attitude about his work here, but Hcheney acted very impressively when previously nominated for admin and withdrew his acceptance of the nomination when it became obvious that foul play was occurring (through no fault of Hcheney's). I think that this kind of community-minded behavior is a fine example of what a Misplaced Pages administrator should seek to embody, and I have every confidence that Hcheney will continue to act with this care and integrity in the future. Jwrosenzweig 22:55, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Thank you for the nomination. I ask that the voters please consider my merits and faults as an editor and wikipedian. If any editor has questions or concerns, I would gladly address them either on my talk page or by e-mail. --HCHENEY 00:57, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
moink. Good editor, and actions of others should not be held against him.
Having worked with him, I can say that HCheney is a model contributor. If anyone deserves this, it's him. And I can understand being disillusioned--that was a confusing, frustrating and unpleasant situation for all concerned. However, that was in no way due to HCheney him(?)self. Meelar 00:15, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Support. Having reviewed a random selection of his edits, I found nothing to complain about and much that was good. A thoughtful and responsible editor. Isomorphic 03:37, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Support. I was working on a Perl parser to help me analyze User contribution pages using HCheney's contributions as test input. Then I realized that I'd better vote for him before I finished, because his time is running out. Nice work! -- Brian Rock 01:06, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)
Oppose:
He did not act impressively at all when previously nominated and withdrew his acceptance not "when it became obvious that foul play was occurring" but only in the last moment when it became obvious he would not get a consensus (when the vote stood at 15-9). His "impressive" reaction actually consisted in making a pretense of leaving , which lasted about a week. He also said "The entire RfA process has completely disillusioned me" which is strange - if he wasn't requesting adminship himself, why would he care so much about it? I still suspect that Hcheney and GrazingshipIV are the same person and he cares too much about adminship, much like Alex Plank. --Wik 23:56, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)
Hcheney and GrazingshipIV are not the same person, both the technical and human evidence are quite clear on this. They know each other from high school but now live in different cities. Their IP addresses confirm this story. -- Tim Starling 01:40, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)
I also can confirm that Graz and Hcheney are not the same user. Their IPs are quite different. They know each other outside of wikipedia. They are two different people. Kingturtle 01:44, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
If they know each other from high school, then Hcheney is clearly a liar since he claimed last time that he did not know Grazingship. --Wik 01:45, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)
Note that the technical evidence only confirms that they live in two different cities, not that they knew each other from outside Misplaced Pages. -- Tim Starling 01:50, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)
Vandalized my website (see if you care). Lied or at least was not forthcoming about Grazingshihp last time he was nominated (and Grazingship is in my http logs reading his vandalism right after he created it, clearly they were closer than he is admitting). I'd support given a bit more time, and a bit more explanation as to his previous actions, as he has kept a low profile since withdrawing his nomination, but it's a bit too soon, IMHO. anthony(see warning)
Still not enough experience with the community, IMHO. Kingturtle 15:15, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Enough weirdness with the whole weird thing from before that I think it might be a good idea to hold off for a while. john 00:37, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Comments:
OK, I want to support, but I also want to know what's behind Wik's statement that Hcheney lied about not knowing Grazingship. I remember the original incident but I wasn't paying all that much attention to it. Can anyone remind me, and confirm/deny what Wik says? Isomorphic 02:30, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I'm not sure where the alleged incident was in which Hcheney denied knowing Grazingship. However, is a discussion of the issue of their relationship, begun by Hcheney. moink 03:00, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
That statement could easily be misunderstood to mean that Hcheney denied knowing GrazingshipIV. What it actually says, I believe, is that when Hcheney was contacted by GrazingshipIV, he did not realize that GrazingshipIV was the same person who had introduced him to Misplaced Pages. Keep in mind that when Wik questioned GrazingshipIV as an inexperienced nominator, GrazingshipIV claimed to be a long-time user who had only recently gotten a username. --Michael Snow 03:16, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
If you believe that story that Hcheney presented last time as an obvious last-ditch attempt to secure his nomination, then I would say you've crossed the line from "assuming good faith" into "gullibility". Let's review the facts. Consider this excerpt from the last nomination:
Oppose - nomination by a 13-day-old user is dubious. --Wik 20:22, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)
If it is any consolation I have used Misplaced Pages for years. I would hope you would base your vote on the merit of the candidate rather than myself.-GrazingshipIV 20:36, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)
It just gets more dubious. Used for years and only thought to edit 13 days ago? A likely story. --Wik 20:43, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)
No I got a user name 13 days ago.
Now what does the last line from Grazingship there imply? Apparently he's saying that he edited before but just got a username 13 days previously (as it would indeed be hard to believe that he used Misplaced Pages for years only as a reader, without ever editing). Yet the fact that he made obvious newbie mistakes after "getting his username" strongly suggests that he did not edit before. When I raised this contradiction he said: "When I said I've been using it for years I DID mean as a reader." One wonders then how to explain his statement "No I got a user name 13 days ago" above. In any case he returns to claim that he did use Misplaced Pages for years as a reader without ever thinking to edit. Not only is that unlikely in itself, it raises the question: how did he get to know Hcheney then? If you just read Misplaced Pages, you don't see usernames. Once you read talk pages, page histories, or Recent Changes, you will of course edit yourself too. When I asked him about this contradiction he did not respond. Now why would Grazingship get into all those contradictions to support Hcheney? If they aren't the same person it is crystal clear to me that this was arranged, not just, as Hcheney claims, as an offer from Grazingship which he was not going to comply with, but an agreement by both sides. Had it worked, Hcheney would have nominated Grazingship later. Hcheney's behaviour is strong evidence for this (his story about Grazingship's emails, combined with messages he left on everyone's talk pages asking to reconsider their votes; and comments like "I do not intend to continue with Misplaced Pages having the status of a joke user." showing his fixation with adminship that would not be explicable if he hadn't expected the nomination, as he originally claimed: "I am flattered that I would be nominated so early"). --Wik 14:42, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)
Why do you think it's unlikely that someone would be a long-term reader of Misplaced Pages without editing? Two people I have met by chance in real life have been overwhelmingly impressed when they hear I am an editor for Misplaced Pages. They are both fans who know all about what Misplaced Pages is and how it works, but just never quite get around to editing. One has plans for things that she "really should contribute when she gets the time". The other thinks it's the best site on the net and spends hours reading it, but he's too intimidated by the whole thing to start editing.
As I said before, Graz got to know Hcheney from outside Misplaced Pages (yes, there is such a place). Graz noticed Hcheney's username while reading, and hatched the adminship plan. He was very keen to support Hcheney because he wanted Hcheney to support him in return. However Hcheney refused. I don't see where the mystery is. -- Tim Starling 06:54, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)
I can't make the blind see. But why do you think Hcheney made his statement only in the last moment when his previous nomination was failing? Do you seriously think he received that email from Grazingship just then, and not before? Obviously (considering the campaigning he did on everyone's talk pages, and his complaining about the whole process) it was designed to save the nomination. Why did he suddenly care so much when initially he pretended to be surprised to be nominated "so early"? --Wik 20:21, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)
Cheney has gone around adding social security numbers to a bunch of pages. I guess this is no longer considered a bad thing, as it was when I did it? anthony(see warning)
Can you point me to where he did this? Thanks. moink 00:49, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Those people are all dead. Perhaps putting their social security numbers in was unnecessary, but it's in no way in any violation of policy -- those people are all dead. You can't use their social security numbers, obviously, so there's really nothing wrong with him adding them. Of course, I've never heard of any instance in which anyone added peoples' SSNs into articles, and it's probably unnecessary, but in no way wrong, IMO. ugen64 01:21, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)
Well, I've done it, and I was called a troll for doing so. "I don't rule out a situation where it might possibly be appropriate for some reason. But to put someone's SSN in the first paragraph of an entry about that person? No, there is no reason at all for that, and it does constitute vandalism." --Moncrief anthony(see warning)
Please note that I obtained that information from the Social Security Administration's Master Death Index file. Those Social Security Numbers were a matter of public record and anyone can obtain any SSN that was part of a death benefit claim . If this is considered improper, please feel free to remove them. --HCHENEY 01:17, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Hmmm. I think adding SSNs, both by Hcheney and Anthony, is weird, but not really wrong. I think I'd probably want to remove them when I saw them, but I don't think it's at all vandalism. moink 17:16, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Well, when I did it I was much less familiar with the ins and outs of Misplaced Pages, which perhaps makes it less weird. At the time I was tricked into believing that there was a law against it, but I have since discovered that the law which was cited was never passed. But I'm not sure an SSN is really encyclopedic, in the sense of the word which is used by the vast majority of Wikipedians, so I haven't added it back. A repository for such facts is certainly useful, but I'm not convinced it fits well with Misplaced Pages. Maybe wikimorial, or better yet, wikipeople... anthony(see warning)
I want to nominate XJamRastafire. XJamRastafire has been here for a loooooooong time and made many great contributions to Misplaced Pages. Go to his user page for more details. --Lst27 23:49, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Information: 4,942 edits since February 2002. Jwrosenzweig 23:59, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Support:
Lst27 -- He has worked very hard and made almost 5,000 edits to Misplaced Pages.
To have been here that long, with that many contributions, and yet I've never seen him work tells me two things -- one, we must either have different interests or else his edits are minor, and two, he must not get into trouble. And with that many edits without trouble, I can't see not supporting this candidate. Jwrosenzweig 23:59, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I've certainly seen him around the Wiki. I haven't ever seen him involved in any problems or disputes, so I support. Isomorphic 00:02, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
