Misplaced Pages

:Requests for adminship - Misplaced Pages

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 Orthogonal (talk | contribs) at 16:00, 9 September 2004 (→[] (17/7/5) Ends 07:57, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 16:00, 9 September 2004 by Orthogonal (talk | contribs) (→[] (17/7/5) Ends 07:57, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC))(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) Shortcut
  • ]

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

Rules

Administrator status is granted to known and trusted members of the community who are familiar with Misplaced Pages policies. Administrators have no special authority on Misplaced Pages, but are held to higher standards. Because admins have been confirmed by the community as trusted editors, they are perceived by many, particularly new, users as the official face of Misplaced Pages. Therefore they should take care to be courteous, exercise good judgment and patience in dealing with other users. Nominees should have been on Misplaced Pages long enough for people to see whether they have these qualities before adminship will be granted. Most new administrators have at least three to four months of participation and more than 1000 edits. You can nominate yourself, but the number and quality of your contributions may be scrutinised more closely if you do this so it is advisable to exceed usual expectations before doing so.

If you wish to nominate someone, get their permission and then give reasons on this page as to why they would make a good administrator. Nominations will remain for seven days so the community can vote and comment on the application. Bureaucrats may choose to extend this where the consensus is unclear. Nominations which are clearly not going to gain sufficient support may be removed earlier to prevent the discussion causing ill feelings, which can make it more difficult for the nominee to seek adminship later. However, keep in mind that most editors don't visit Misplaced Pages daily, so a reasonable amount of time should be allowed. Some people believe all nominations should be allowed to run their course, and disagree with having them removed early. If your nomination is rejected, perhaps because you are too new or inexperienced, please wait a reasonable period of time before applying again.

Vote in the appropriate lists and optionally add a short comment. Don't discuss other people's votes in the vote list itself. If you want to comment on other people's votes or comments, please do that in the Comments section below every nomination. Also, when voting, please update the heading of the section that you are voting in. The vote tally format is as follows: (Support/Oppose/Neutral).

Please note that anonymous users cannot be nominated, nominate others, or vote.

Current nominations

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

Current time is 06:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)


Mike Storm (11/10/3) ends 20:33, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Mike Storm has been very helpful on Misplaced Pages. With over 1,000 edits he has created the Substub (although not too popular, IMO, a good idea). Last time (about a month ago), Mike's self-nomination was objected because he was fairly new and only had about 700 edits, and now he's been here longer. I think Mike would make a good sysop. Anyways, I'll stop before I put you to sleep with my babbling. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 20:33, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I gratefully accept, and thank you very much. I counted, and I just broke 1400 edits. By the way - thanks for the "shining beacon of Wikipedianship" compliment. It makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. ] 01:26, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Support

  1. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 20:33, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  2. Good user. I support. --Lst27 20:42, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  3. Good user. RickK 21:00, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
  4. -- orthogonal 21:08, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  5. Everyking 21:14, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  6. Of course! A shining beacon of good Wikipedianship. LUDRAMAN | T 21:23, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  7. ] 21:34, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  8. ] 21:46, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  9. Andre 22:13, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  10. Merovingian✍Talk 23:20, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
  11. Good user. Support. ] 09:33, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Too few edits. blankfaze | (беседа!) 21:08, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    May I ask what your definition of few edits is? Out of curiosity. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 21:42, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    I think that Blankfaze has a personal idea that less than 2000 edits means a user isn't qualified for adminship. Andre 22:13, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    As Andre said, I rarely support anyone with less than 2,000 edits. blankfaze | (беседа!) 22:23, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  2. His initial nomination was soundly rejected not so much for newness and lack of edits, but because people found his conduct during the substub debate abrasive and combative. While I believe he improved as things went along, I remain concerned about making him an admin at this time. (Disclaimer: I oppose the use of a separate substub tag.) --Michael Snow 22:51, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  3. As I said a month ago, abrasive, combative, actively tries to be offended and just generally rude. Mike Storm is so frustrating to try to work with that I simply gave up and declared I wouldn't. -- Cyrius|✎ 23:41, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  4. Good user, but I have strong reservations about his approach to conflict resolution. — Kate Turner | Talk 23:44, 2004 Sep 8 (UTC)
  5. As an opponent to substubs, I looked at his substub debate. I was not impressed. I don't feel the user is proficient at conflict resolution in any degree. I would be lying, too, if I said I didn't think the "become a sysop" semi-mantra on his user page wasn't a bit off-putting. That's not my full reason for opposing (please see my other sentences) but it did influence my decision somewhat, because I don't feel the intentions are quite honorable enough. Mike H 01:36, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
    All right, several people have complained about the so-called "mantra" on my user page, so I deleted it. My intent was simply to say that I'm willing and able to become a sysop. Also, can you please vote according to how you feel I would use my sysop powers (I am not stupid enough to use them to enforce my own opinion on matters of the operation of Misplaced Pages), as opposed to whether or not you support substubs? ] 02:06, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    My vote has nothing to do with whether or not you or I SUPPORT substubs, it's your idea of conflict resolution with others who do not agree with you. That's why I voted against you. Mike H 03:45, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
  6. Lacks a comprehensive understanding of de facto procedure and what I believe to be the requisite level of maturity. Austin Hair 01:44, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
  7. I agree with Kate →Raul654 01:46, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
  8. So do I. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 01:59, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  9. The amount of time that I wasted reading through all the substub garbage has seriously dented my opinion of this chap. Lack of maturity, I'm afraid. ] 03:42, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  10. Needs to wait a couple of years to mature a bit. Dunc_Harris|☺ 09:17, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  11. Concur with Duncharris, Kate and others. Ambi 13:24, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. ] 20:39, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC): Neutral until user accepts/denies nomination.
    I posted a message on his talk page, should be here within a few days. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 20:49, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  2. Norm 21:53, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  3. +sj+ 05:19, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Comments

(If somebody can please post the 'Questions for the nominee' thing here). — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 20:33, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. Have you read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list?
A. Yes.
2. Are you interested in, and do you think you'll have some time to perform, the chores that only sysops have access to do, to help keep Misplaced Pages up to date?
A. Definitely.
3. If you become a sysop, which sysop chore or chores (WP:VFD, recent changes, watching for vandals and vandalism, responding to editor requests for assistance, any other) do you especially think you would be able to help with.
A. Watching for vandalism. I try to watch Special:Newpages like a hawk, focusing especially on articles under 200 bytes, most of which are substubs or vandalism. If I find vandalism, then I add {{delete}}, if I find a legitimate substub, then I add {{substub}} and try to improve the article in any way I can (wikifying, copyediting, formatting, etc).
4. In your opinion, what article have you contributed the most succesfully and helpfully to?
A. While many may not agree with the philosophy of it, I created and helped to expand and improve upon Misplaced Pages:Substub and Template:Substub. Other than that, I usually do small improvements to articles, as I stated on the last question. I also dabble in other areas, like orphaned images, VFD, and the like.
5. In your opinion, what has your best contribution to the running and maintenance of Misplaced Pages been? (i.e., have you reverted a bad stretch of vandalism, done extensive work categorizing articles, helped mediate a dispute?)
A. Probably (once again) substubs. When labelling an article as a substub, it's practically never the only thing that I do to the article, whether it's formatting, copyediting, wikifying, or any other such things.
6. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and will deal with it in the future?
A. I was involved in quite an argument with Duncharris. The argument was not about substubs themselves, but Ducharris' constant rearranging of Misplaced Pages talk:Substub. Our arguments were summarized here. Probably the way I could've (and will in the future) improved the situation is if I could've been a bit politer (but I was not "abrasive" or "combative").

Jayjg (17/7/4) ends 07:20, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC))

Jayjg (contribs) has been with us for a few months and has made about 2000 edits. He has contributed to a large number of articles that are traditionally associated with heated exchanges of words. Jayjg, however, remains cool and factual, maintaining a sensible tone and working towards good articles. He is a respected member of Wikiproject "Judaism", and shows a good understanding of Wiki spirit. He would undoubtedly make a splendid admin. JFW | T@lk 07:20, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I've been trying to read up on what being an admin involves, the various responsibilities etc. There's a reasonably long list; while I appreciate the support given to me so far, I'd like to finish reading all the materials before making a final decision. I should be done by end of day Monday September 6. Thanks again to all. Jayjg 23:47, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I've been through the materials, and it all seems reasonable, so I accept the nomination. Of course, the tide seems to be turning against me right now, so who knows what will happen? Thanks all for voting, for, against, and neutral. Jayjg 19:25, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Support

  1. JFW | T@lk 07:20, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  2. Merovingian✍Talk 09:23, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
  3. —No-One Jones 17:57, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC) While Jayjg hasn't been around for quite as long as I'd like (only since 15 June 2004), his work on a large number of difficult and controversial articles shows impeccable politeness and the will to work for neutrality despite holding a strong POV on certain topics.
  4. Antandrus 18:10, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC) Strongly support him as an admin.
  5. Danny 18:11, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  6. Everyking 19:02, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  7. Lst27 21:31, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  8. 172 22:26, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  9. David Cannon 01:00, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC). I know Jayig and have complete confidence in him.
  10. Andre 15:29, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC) Having a POV is not a problem, it's putting that POV into Misplaced Pages articles. Jayjg seems to be able to control that, from what I saw in his contribs.
  11. Austin Hair 23:38, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC) From what I've seen, Jayjg has done an admirable job of keeping his cool while up against POV warriors. He has my support.
  12. Voting FOR Jayg because Xed is against him. RickK 00:08, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
    • Rick, all due respect, my friend, that is terribly stupid reasoning. blankfaze | (беседа!) 00:51, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  13. I have decided to change my vote because I have noticed how polite and gentlemanly Jayjg is. I don't think I knew enough about him before, but his professional attitude is such a breath of fresh air, I think that he will make a great admin! Pitchka 22:24, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
  14. I'm changing my vote. I stand by my reasoning below (which has more to do with WP procedures than Jayjg personally) but Jayjg's behaviour here has convinced me that he's capable of seperating his personal POVs and admin tasks, so I trust Jayjg. - pir 09:20, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  15. Viajero 16:20, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  16. -- orthogonal 17:52, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC).
  17. After having studied (for some hours) this contributor's edits on articles I have some, fairly limited, knowledge on, but haven't contributed to, nor put on my watchlist; I found one single instance of him stating something to the effect of his POV being NPOV when I thought it wasn't. This is most probably far below average, even for contributors who aren't called confrontational by their opponents. Although this opposition might be a memento, I feel confident in supporting his candidacy. His manifest civilty is a strong additional plus! --Ruhrjung 02:07, 2004 Sep 9 (UTC)
  18. +sj+ 05:19, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Xed 17:38, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  2. I believe him to be biased on several important topics, to the point that I question his ability to remain neutral in disputes and use powers such as protection responsibly and without bias. blankfaze | (беседа!) 18:24, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    Do you never represent a POV anywhere, Blankfaze? JFW | T@lk 19:10, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    On Misplaced Pages, no, not really. I try to be as objective and unbiased as possible. For instance, I have removed vandalisms and POV additions (although I agreed with some of them) from George W. Bush and other articles. Misplaced Pages is supposed to be about informations, not opinions. And I am not certain that this user understands that. blankfaze | (беседа!) 19:37, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    So you wouldn't consider insisting on British spellings over American spellings on the grounds that British English "is correct English" and "the superior and proper form of the language" to be POV? :-O Jayjg 05:51, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    Haha. Well, I don't really "insist". As I said on my talk page, I don't go changing United States Secretary of Defense to United States Secretary of Defence or something of the like. I only correct AE spellings in articles I come across that are not at all related to the US, and on extremely visible pages such as the Main Page, of course! blankfaze | (беседа!) 17:22, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    Jayjg is highly biased towards a POV that I find rather extreme (which in itself is of course completely legitimate). He is very persistent and dedicated to pushing this POV to the exclusion of opposing views. On the other hand he is very professional and polite. The question is whether he will maintain this professional conduct as an admin, or whether he will use the increased powers in the same way he uses his "common" Wikipedian's powers (i.e. to push his POV). It is of course impossible to predict, we are asked to express trust in advance. Normally I would give him the benefit of the doubt. The trouble is that once I have given away my vote here, I clearly have no realistic means to hold him to account in the case where he does abuse his admin powers (and judging by the vote at Misplaced Pages:Administrators/Administrator Accountability Policy) this will remain so. So after debating about his nomination all day for a while, I have decided to vote against change my vote(NB not because of his POV but because with current Misplaced Pages procedures I can't bring myself to take the risk of endorsing him strongly enough). - pir 19:45, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    Thanks for your thoughtful contribution, pir, and your explanation on my Talk: page as well. Jayjg 05:54, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  3. Taco Deposit | Talk-o Deposit 15:31, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Kim Bruning 19:05, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC) Pirs argument is rather strong, so I'm going to be a bit lazy, and just agree with hir. I'll certainly give due consideration in a month or two when Jayjg comes by a second time.  :-)
  5. Noisy 01:31, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC) Normally I wouldn't vote without personal experience of a contributor, but the lack of unanimity in this instance made me look at the contributions list. My opinion – from an admittedly brief perusal of the list – is that Jayjg has too narrow a focus to be a true admin ... (I'd be surprised if his watchlist tops 200) ... and that some usage of the 'Show preview' button would have significantly cut his number of edits. Finally, I've been here about the same time, and I don't recall seeing the name on any of the community pages that I frequent.
    209 actually, when I just checked it. What is a reasonable number for an admin? Jayjg 01:57, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    Gee, is a large watchlist a requirement for adminship? I have all of eight pages on mine, and obviously one of those is my own user page (no prizes for guessing the other seven). --Michael Snow 02:42, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    Agreement. I was just made admin and I've used my watchlist all of three times. Honestly. Mike H 02:44, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
  6. From what I've seen so far, I haven't been too impressed. Would perhaps reconsider at a later date. Ambi 07:00, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  7. If he isn't aware of "how rogue admins are reigned in" then he needs to do more reading before becoming an admin. - Tεxτurε 17:18, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Neutral

  1. Jayjg has made some fine contributions. However, he seems to be a bit confrontational in some of his edits and explanations. I do not think that he is rash; indeed, he has handled volatile articles rather calmly, such as those related to Judaism and Christianity. I'm not against him recieving adminship; I just think that Jayjg should attempt to be a better communicator, especially if he becomes an admin. --Slowking Man 22:51, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Agree with Pir basically. As long as adminship is given out as a life tenure without possibility of recall, I can't support someone with a strong POV like that. Despite all the "janitor" talk, adminship in the present system is a position of considerable power, and power tends to corrupt. But as I have not seen particular misbehaviour on his part so far, I won't oppose; and I would readily support if there was any real, functioning mechanism for de-adminship in place. Gzornenplatz 09:52, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
    • Good points both on the issue of adminship. I don't understand how "rogue" admins are reigned in either, and that is worrying. Jayjg 18:22, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  3. Mike H 19:22, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC) Next time will probably be best.
  4. Ditto Mike H. ] 00:47, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  5. I really like what I've seen of Jayjg. He has seemed to be calm, rational, and persistent in his view without being exclusionary of the views of others. The whole thing with Xed's votes is a bit moot, as Xed surely does seem to be new and a little too motivated. The only reason that I'm not voting for Jayjg is that I want a little more time on the project before the nomination. I.e. barring anything really disturbing happening, I will vote 'yes' on the next nomination, which I hope is made in 8 weeks or so. Geogre 15:24, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Comments

  • Engages in stalking behaivior. Highly biased in issues related to Israel.--Xed 17:38, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • This is based solely on a disagreement on Druze, where this user attempted to push a certain POV. He's only been around for two weeks. Xed, if you think this is stalking, you ain't seen no edit warring yet! Please revise your vote after looking through the edit history of Jew. By Misplaced Pages standards, this is no stalking. JFW | T@lk 19:10, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • If I could add 10 more votes to 'Oppose' I would. As well as stalking me, he accused me of making up this quote by Nixon - "when the president does it that means that it is not illegal". This is not acceptable behaviour for an administrator.--Xed 19:34, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • See also this RFAr. I request Xed's vote is ignored if the tally is borderline (which won't happen anyway). JFW | T@lk
      • I'm to be ignored because I disagree with you? What an unusual system of democracy.--Xed 19:34, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • No, you are to be ignored because you seem to make frivolous or ridiculous (or both) assertions. JFW | T@lk 20:09, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
          • By 'frivolous assertions' I suppose you mean my opposition to harassment via email.--Xed 20:32, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Actually, I've removed your vote because you are presently banned for trolling. It can be reinstated if you behave yourself. JFW | T@lk 22:27, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • vote reinstated by third party - thanks--Xed 22:59, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • My concerns about Xed's vote remain. A single spree of edit wars is a poor reason for voting against adminship. I note that Xed has been unbanned. JFW | T@lk 23:11, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Jayjg has accused me of making up a quote. I have mentioned this many times. you have failed to address this, as well as telling me which way to vote. Additionally you have made patronising comments such as " It can be reinstated if you behave yourself", "revise your vote after looking through the edit history" and "I would urge you to reconsider your vote". --Xed 23:34, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • I have a reputation of being patronising, paternalistic, pedantic and every other word with a P. Making up a quote is an accusation that can be dealt with on the page's (or user's) talk page, and not here. And, see below, I have giving up trying to change your mind. Can I now go back to editing, please? JFW | T@lk 23:57, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Please note: JFW has attempted to delete my opposing vote after I refused to take his advice to change my mind--Xed 23:34, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Rubbish. I deleted your opposing vote because you'd just been banned for trolling. As the decision was made to unblock you, I did not oppose Blankfaze's action to reinstate your vote. I am not trying to force you to change your vote. I am simply very concerned by your general behaviour on Misplaced Pages and I refuse to let this influence this RFA vote. JFW | T@lk 23:53, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • A patent lie. You say above 'request Xed's vote is ignored if the tally is borderline' BEFORE I was temporarily blocked. You wanted it removed from the start--Xed 00:08, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I asked for your vote to be ignored because you were trolling, which later led to your blocking. Will you stop hairsplitting? JFW | T@lk 00:49, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Are Xed and Pitchka sockpuppets? - pir 16:06, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Xed certainly is. JFW | T@lk 21:07, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • (Moved from Texture's vote)
    Do you have any examples of rogue admins being censured in some sort of permanent way? I've never seen or heard of it being done. In fact, as far as I can tell, if one is persistent enough (regardless of whether or not one is an admin), one can never be permanently censured or banned from Misplaced Pages, since inevitably some admin somewhere will un-ban you. Some admins seem to make it a policy of un-banning people. Jayjg 18:59, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    That's an attitude that worries me. You don't seem to have respect for the position. How can you be expected to fulfill the obligations with that opinion of the position you aspire to? in cases where admins have used their power in questionable circumstances they have been taken to account. I haven't heard of any actions that required censure "in some sort of permanent way". Do you have an example in mind that was not reviewed by the community? - Tεxτurε 22:05, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    I highly respect the position, but I am also aware of the issues surrounding it. This does not mean the position itself is bad, but as Pir, Gzornenplatz, and Kim Bruning have pointed out, Misplaced Pages "clearly ha no realistic means to hold to account in the case where abuse admin powers (and judging by the vote at Misplaced Pages:Administrators/Administrator Accountability Policy) this will remain so." The question here is not whether you have heard of any admin actions that required censure in some sort of permanent way, but rather, what is the procedure that would be followed in such a case. Do you have a Misplaced Pages page I can examine which outlines an agreed upon process for such cases? Are Pir, Gzornenplatz, and Kim Bruning wrong? To clarify further, if a legal system had a methodology for appointing judges, but none for removing them when warranted (e.g. for taking bribes, mental illness, etc.), then I would be concerned about that as well. This wouldn't, of course, mean that I disrespect the position of judge itself; rather, when powers are granted, but there is no way of "un-granting" them, then everyone should be concerned. Jayjg 02:12, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    Are you familiar with Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment#Use_of_administrator_privileges? It used to be Misplaced Pages:Requests for review of administrative actions and you can look there for past claims against admins and any actions taken. I don't know of any since it was combined with Requests for comment. - Tεxτurε 02:43, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    Yes, I've seen it. It doesn't answer the question at all, and the issue remains. It is quite clear that there is no procedure for removing admins (if necessary), only a procedure for creating them. Jayjg 03:15, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    Well, sir, we can agree on that. There is no real way to hold admins accountable, short of the snail-speed Arbcom. THAT, sir, is precisely why I'd not want to risk giving you admin powers! blankfaze | (беседа!) 04:01, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    You haven't yet given me an example of what you are worried about. Where has an admin needed deadminship? Give me that one example where misuse of admin abilities has not been addressed. Who is this admin you need removed? What did some admin do that makes you think it is necessary? Rogue admins are reigned in. This has not yet had to involve deadminship. The adminship process is to weed out anyone who would do something so bad as to need removal. I'm glad that it has proven successful. I am having trouble following your complaint or lack of understanding of admin oversight. - Tεxτurε 04:05, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    No-one is aware of how "rogue admins" are reigned in, including you, because there is no process for doing so, and because it apparently has never been done, so there is no precedent either. Jayjg 03:15, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    I have answered you but you have not answered my questions and don't appear to agree that there is oversight of admins. That convinces me more that you should not be an admin. Do you think you will be beyond control when you have adminship? Is that why you want it? - Tεxτurε 04:15, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Texture, I don't think you're being quite fair. As user:Pir notes, Jayjg has shown to be perfectly capable of seperating POV on article material and administrative/community activities. I would frankly find him an unlikely person to be become a rogue admin. He has not requested admin powers - I take responsibility for nominating him, and he has - to be perfectly honest - been more hesitant than anything in accepting the nomination. I think Jayjg is a thorough contributor and will make a thorough admin who will adhere scrupulously to policy. From the above I cannot possibly determine what question you'd like Jayjg to answer! Rogue admins are reined in with RFC/RFM/RFAr, and perhaps with the new accountability policy. What more is there to this question? JFW | T@lk 05:56, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Texture, while perhaps being a tad overagressive, is being plenty fair... Pir (though I think him a good chap) is wrong, flat out WRONG in this case. Not only is Jayjg incapable of separating his POV from his editing, he blatantly puts POV into articles! He's right up there with POV wackos like VV and Rex071404... And, for the record, there is no "new accountability policy"... the proposal failed. blankfaze | (беседа!) 06:07, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Academic Challenger (25/0/3) Ends 22:36, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Academic Challenger has been with us since mid-November 2003 and has done invaluable expansion work on many of Misplaced Pages's articles on political figures across the world. He also is a prolific article creator, and has proved himself to be fair and even-tempered. I know the community can trust him to be a sysop. ] 22:37, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I do accept the nomination. Academic Challenger 23:54, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Support

  1. ] 22:37, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  2. In my experience, an excellent contributor, and one whose edit count is not an accurate indication of the level of contribution to this site. Should be a good admin, if not a proactive one, methinks. Jwrosenzweig 22:44, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  3. Support. --Lst27 22:55, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  4. Agree with Jwrosenzweig. Everyking 22:55, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  5. Anyway, Frazzydee has less than 2000 contributions and has a practically unanimous nomination... ugen64 22:58, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
  6. — Kate Turner | Talk 23:08, 2004 Sep 3 (UTC)
  7. Agree with Jwrosenzweig. If you read through his userpage, you'll discover that he also has contributions as an IP (nearly 200 more). You might also get a good idea of just how impressive an accomplishment his overall edit count really is under the circumstances. --Michael Snow 23:36, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  8. Checked through his edit history; I feel he's a very strong contributor. Potential to be a good admin here. Support. Antandrus 01:18, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  9. -- orthogonal 01:29, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  10. GeneralPatton 01:32, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  11. Jiang 09:48, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  12. Merovingian✍Talk 13:43, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
  13. JCarriker 18:27, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
  14. Andre 06:16, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  15. 172 22:28, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  16. Tireless & trustworthy, imho. —Stormie 00:10, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
  17. ffirehorse 02:09, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  18. Gzornenplatz 09:52, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
  19. Taco Deposit | Talk-o Deposit 15:31, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
  20. Numeric standards considered harmful. - Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 18:52, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  21. —No-One Jones 21:26, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  22. Pitchka 01:56, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
  23. Geogre 03:27, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC) A mender, not a breaker. (I won't say uniter not divider, because that's big trouble.)
  24. Absolutely. +sj+ 05:19, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  25. Of course. Rhymeless 05:36, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Not at this time. Will probably support after 2,000 edits. blankfaze | (беседа!) 22:53, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Check all the pages he's created. Like Jwrosenzweig said, "his edit count is not an accurate indication of the level of contribution." ] 22:59, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Yes, yes, I saw. No matter. This is just my personal feeling here. blankfaze | (беседа!) 23:50, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. I would like to see a bit more community involvement. This may just be me, however. --Slowking Man 23:21, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Who? -- Cyrius|✎ 23:26, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  3. After reviewing his work, and considering his circumstances, I honestly believe him to be a great if not exemplary user, and if not for the user's inexperience in interuser relations in the community, I would be willing to waive my usual minimums and support. However, I'd like to see this user come back after getting more acquainted with user relations and disputes. Will most likely support in the future. blankfaze | (беседа!) 23:47, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Comments

  • User has 1,070 edits, for those curious. blankfaze | (беседа!) 22:53, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • To Slowking Man and others who have doubts about supporting me because I do not have enough community involvement: It is true that I contribute more content than I contribute on talk and community pages, but I read talk and community pages such as VFD and Cleanup very often, and feel that I am very familiar with Misplaced Pages policy. I plan to become more involved in these pages gradually over the next few months, but I only comment unless I feel that I have something valuable to say or have a strong opinion. I do not have time to spend my entire life here, and so far am using most of what time I have to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of political figures. However, I am gradually becoming more involved in the community, and believe that I would make a good admin, although I agree that I will not be one of the most active ones at first. I feel that one thing I could do as an admin would be deleting pages so that they can be merged and moved, particularly for duplicate articles. Academic Challenger 23:54, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Kate (57/5/1) Ends 01:43, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The Lady formerly known as Lysine Ikinsile, now operating under the more prosaic name of Kate Turner, knows very well that adminship is not "an important and ponderous privilege", but simply a technical capability that allows people to do more housekeeping more easily. Having learned my lesson from trying to count up Gtrmp's contributions, I didn't even bother with Kate because I know she has nearly as many edits if not more (despite having been here only since early June, if I recall). She is always courteous and has a talent for looking to find agreement even when people are at loggerheads. I see no reason for the community not to entrust her with the keys to the janitor's closet. --Michael Snow 01:43, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I accept, thank you. For the record, I have 11,940 edits since June 6, but the vast majority are menial cleanup tasks: I'd estimate I have about 1,500–2,000 "normal" edits. — Kate Turner | Talk 01:49, 2004 Sep 3 (UTC)

Support:

  1. Michael Snow 01:43, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  2. Sean Curtin 01:46, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Mike H 01:46, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Antandrus 01:47, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  5. Strong support! ] 01:48, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  6. Can't think of a better admin. — David Remahl 01:51, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  7. RedWolf 01:58, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
  8. My interactions with Kate have been very positive and productive (well, she was productive).-- Finlay McWalter | Talk 02:04, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  9. Guanaco 02:09, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  10. Dysprosia 02:12, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC) Yes! For sure.
  11. Quite the witty gal this one is, and a diligent worker to boot. blankfaze | (беседа!) 02:14, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  12. GeneralPatton 02:29, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  13. —No-One Jones 02:37, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  14. Most definitely. Kate's understanding of the responsibilities of a sysop -- and the limits of sysop power -- are right on target. -- orthogonal 02:53, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  15. David Cannon 03:31, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC) I support you, Kate. It would be nice, though, if I could see your face and not merely the back view:-)
  16. Most certainly. ugen64 03:33, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
  17. Snowspinner 03:34, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC) Duh.
  18. Yes. I feel she would make a good sysop. - Mark 03:35, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  19. One of the most excellent contributors I've seen in a while. Diligent, dedicated, fair, and a whole bunch of other positive adjectives. --Slowking Man 05:05, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
  20. ] 05:08, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC): She's not a sysop already?
  21. PFHLai 05:10, 2004 Sep 3 (UTC)
  22. Danny 05:15, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  23. 172 06:56, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  24. VV 07:04, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  25. Kim Bruning 07:33, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC) NO FAIR! Someone beat me to nominating Kate. :-P
  26. Conti|✉ 11:31, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
  27. ] 15:34, 2004 Sep 3 (UTC)
  28. Dunc_Harris|☺ 17:25, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  29. Few people work as hard as she does; she runs a mailing list and made many thousands of edits to fix external links headers. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 18:02, 2004 Sep 3 (UTC)
  30. Support: Kate has been very helpful in redirecting all the cricket (sport) disambigs to cricket. ] 21:05, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
  31. Strongly support. --Lst27 22:57, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  32. Arwel 23:29, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  33. Very strongly support. A++++ would buy from again!!!elevenone11. CryptoDerk 23:49, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
  34. Wholeheartedly endorse. Austin Hair 00:03, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
  35. Acegikmo1 02:57, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  36. Kate's attention to detail on title conventions (and a more easily spelled username) get my vote. I have seen nothing but good out of her since I've been around. --avnative 07:28, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
  37. squash 08:01, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
  38. Strong support! - Lucky 6.9 08:32, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  39. The Featured Article email custodian. Ancheta Wis 08:40, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  40. David Gerard 12:57, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC) Dammit, and I was threatening to nominate her ... A natural from day one IMO.
  41. Merovingian✍Talk 13:45, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
  42. JCarriker 18:26, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
  43. When I saw "11,496 edits" my mouth dropped to the floor. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 02:12, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  44. Andre 06:16, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  45. I'm pretty sure we disagree in many fundamental ways about the way Misplaced Pages works, but I don't think that's a reason to oppose. Adam Bishop 09:49, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  46. ] ] ] talk:Ævar Arnfjör<eth> Bjarmason|action=edit&section=new}} Bjarmason ] 12:09, 2004 Sep 5 (UTC)
  47. "menial cleanup tasks" are the most important! func(talk) 19:33, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  48. Kate's not a sysop already? Tsk. James F. (talk) 23:31, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  49. ffirehorse 02:07, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  50. Definitely. SWAdair | Talk 08:41, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  51. Taco Deposit | Talk-o Deposit 15:31, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
  52. Of course! - Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 18:20, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  53. Hopping on the bandwagon. :) --Golbez 19:43, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
  54. Wait for me! - Tεxτurε 15:19, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  55. Uhh... oppose, on grounds that she has db access... errr wait. no... make that support, on grounds that she's nice and deals with problems... nicely? Uhh... right. Node 03:25, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  56. Amazed by this user's edits, have seen much of hir work from afar. Easily support. Rhymeless 05:45, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  57. JFW | T@lk 19:23, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC) Would recommend a somewhat more deletionist spirit, though.

Oppose:

  1. — i386 | Talk 17:23, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  2. Ridiculous charade. She's already a developer. Why is there no vote for this? Developer is clearly a more important position than sysop, and there is not even an announcement, it seems to happen behind the scenes. How can you possibly trust someone with developer powers before the person is even here long enough to meet the minimum standards for adminship? Gzornenplatz 17:59, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
  3. ugen624 04:25, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC) - this user has caused me terrible distress, and I have been afflicted with a terrible case of multiple sockpuppet disorder (MSD).
  4. Not enough support votes at this time. Willing to support at 60 support votes. (Feel free to move this vote, if I forget to do it myself, am kidnapped by aliens, or if this sentence is false.) Κσυπ Cyp   23:03, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  5. strongly oppose. ends IRC name with non-alphanumeric. just say "no" to punctuation terrorism. +sj+ 05:19, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Neutral:

  1. Fuzheado | Talk 05:57, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC) - willing to support at 12,000 edits. Just kidding! :)

Comments:

For a while in there, Kate was editing as an IP - has she returned to using her username? Snowspinner 02:06, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

Yes - at least I think (hope) I can manage to avoid the things that annoy me and still edit as a user. I may need to do some anonymous recovery from time to time, though :-) — Kate Turner | Talk 02:10, 2004 Sep 3 (UTC)

How many times will I see my "important and ponderous privilege" line parroted on Rfa? ;) I still stand by it, however. Adminship is the privilege of carrying out the community's wishes; ergo, adminship is important because admins are trusted with the responsibility of performing the duties necessary to implement the community's will, such as bans and deletions. --Slowking Man 05:05, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I had forgotten who wrote the phrase originally, I only remembered that Kate reused it later, in the same fashion I did. It's all in how you look at privileges. In the sense you mean, that adminship privileges are "important and ponderous" and must be handled with great care and good judgment, the same way you would treat a precious vase, the phrase has its merits. I'm afraid we've coopted it for another purpose, which is to remind ourselves that in spite of having a few additional technical facilities at their disposal, admins are not "important and ponderous" people with a privileged position in Misplaced Pages society, but have the same standing as all other members of the community. Ultimately, we're getting at the same thing, which is that admins exist to serve the good of Misplaced Pages as a whole. --Michael Snow 05:56, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Just out of curiousity, how can someone have developer status, (Kate's good work with changing edit attributions), and yet not automatically be an admin? I mean, if you trust someone with the keys to the back door, why is there an issue with whether or not to also give them keys to the front door? func(talk) 17:49, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree, it's silly (and your analogy is dead-on). She could very easily set the admin flag on her account (IE, as a dev, she can promote herself). →Raul654 17:51, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
Well, sysops are not purely janitors: they have to make decisions about when users should be blocked, and other "value judgements" that require various degrees of social interaction and the ability to work well within the community. Developer tasks are generally either trivial from a social point of view - such as changing edits - or not related at all, such as work on the MediaWiki software. As well as simple trust, the RfA procedure therefore verifies the social aspects that are required for adminship, which being trusted as a developer doesn't require. (Of course, if I were to unilaterally set myself as a sysop, I'd imagine I wouldn't be a developer for long in any case...)
To give one example, there's at least one other developer who isn't a sysop on en:, but is given sysop rights by a bureaucrat from time to time in order to do the technical blocking that was required by the old version of the username change procedure. However, the need (and ability) to do this technical task does doesn't qualify the user to, for example, enforce a block from the arbitration committee - because that's entirely a social task.
Of course, this is moot inasmuch as a developer could set hirself as a sysop, but I would like to think that someone trusted with such technical access is able to abide by the (implicit) social contract.
At least, that's how I see it. — Kate Turner | Talk 18:08, 2004 Sep 6 (UTC)


And that makes sense. :) Um, just to be clear: I didn't mention her developer status to in any way call into question her promotion to adminship. She is obviously qualified and trusted, (which is why I voted for her). func(talk) 18:45, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused by the oppose votes on this election...i386/33451's vote does not offer anything in the way of reasoning, and his explanations on my talk page are even more worrisome. JFW's vote is some kind of inside joke and he told Kate on hirs talk page that Kate could remove it if sie wanted. I don't follow why Gzornenplatz' chooses to oppose Kate just because the developer selection procedure is somewhat odd. Finally, Ugen624. Is that a joke of some kind too? They're all naturally entitled to their opinion, but they do confuse me... — David Remahl 09:59, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

    • Ugen624 is almost certainly a joke, given the explanation and that the user page redirects to Ugen64, who voted support. --Michael Snow 17:48, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • It's just a protest against the travesty of voting whether someone can be trusted as a sysop when the person is already a developer, a much more critical position in that regard. And maybe Kate should have mentioned this little detail - I just learned it when Func mentioned it above. Gzornenplatz 10:28, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
    • FWIW, I wasn't a developer at the time the RfA was posted. I didn't mention afterwards because:
      1. I don't want people to vote for me because I'm a developer, or to appear as thought I'm trying to influence the process.
      2. I don't see a connection between "developership" and adminship. I shouldn't be a sysop soley because I'm a developer; conversely, I don't think I should be denied adminship soley because I'm a developer. As I said above, the implications from being a developer and being a sysop are very different,
    • I do not agree that being a developer is a "much more critical position", because I do not have the right to do any standard actions carried out by sysops: I cannot ban vandals, I cannot (un)delete pages, etc. Yes, technically I could, but I'm not going to, because it hasn't (yet) been decided that I should be trusted with the right to do so. The fact that one can be able to do something, but yet not have the right to—and to concede and adhere to this agreement—is the basis on which one can be a developer and not a sysop. — Kate Turner | Talk 10:51, 2004 Sep 8 (UTC)

I'm slightly confuzzed. Is she Kate Turner or is he Edward Brocklesby? XYZ 16:49, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm both (although I don't use my real name online much). — Kate Turner | Talk 16:55, 2004 Sep 8 (UTC)

Gtrmp (31/0/0) Ends 01:23, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The unpronounceable Gtrmp, also known as Sean Curtin, has a whopping total of over 11,000 edits (no typo) since 19 Jan 2004. He has shown that he's familiar with Misplaced Pages policy and communicates in a very reasonable fashion when handling any disagreements. With these qualities, I think he makes an excellent candidate for adminship. --Michael Snow 01:23, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • I accept the nomination. -Sean Curtin 01:45, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

Support:

  1. Why he hasn't been nominated already is beyond my comprehension. --Michael Snow 01:23, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  2. Strong agreement. Mike H 01:27, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Absolutely. —Stormie 01:31, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Antandrus 01:52, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  5. YES! ] 01:56, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  6. GeneralPatton 02:31, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  7. —No-One Jones 02:37, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  8. PFHLai 05:11, 2004 Sep 3 (UTC)
  9. Danny 05:15, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  10. Does plenty of important work with categories, Vfd, and such, as evidenced by his edit history. --Slowking Man 05:17, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
  11. ] 05:21, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC): Not only an impressive amount of contributions, but it seems like he's fairly involved with VfD also- I believe he would surely be a trustworthy asset as a sysop!
  12. 172 07:00, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  13. Of course. Everyking 11:05, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  14. Gzornenplatz 11:31, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
  15. Definitely. Bishonen 16:18, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  16. support. Scottbeck 21:59, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  17. support Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 22:03, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  18. Support. --Lst27 22:57, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  19. — Kate Turner | Talk 23:09, 2004 Sep 3 (UTC)
  20. -- orthogonal 01:28, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  21. Merovingian✍Talk 13:46, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
  22. • Benc • 04:03, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  23. Andre 06:16, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  24. ffirehorse 02:05, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  25. SWAdair | Talk 08:38, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  26. Taco Deposit | Talk-o Deposit 15:31, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
  27. Support! - Lucky 6.9 17:55, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  28. Tεxτurε 17:19, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  29. Support on grounds that he has an unpronouncable name. Node 03:29, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    Sean? — Kate Turner | Talk 03:33, 2004 Sep 9 (UTC)
  30. A thousand times yes... erm, Support. +sj+ 05:19, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  31. Definitely support. ] 09:33, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oppose:

Comments:

Self nominations for adminship

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

Anárion (5/2/3) Ends 07:59, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've been actively editing using this account since april 2004, and have over 1500 non-minor edits as of this date. I feel sysop rights could be helpful for helping on patrol pages like Misplaced Pages:Redirects for deletion, Misplaced Pages:Categories for deletion, and similar pages. My main interest is in fiction and fictional topics, although I do edit "real topics" when I feel I have something to say. Sysop rights will also occasionally help in merging multiple stubby articles into broader articles. I must point out that currently I am involved in a debate on Acronym with User:Nohat, but I feel that the article's talk page is evidence enough that I am doing my best to work towards a concensus there.

Support

  1. —No-One Jones 08:17, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

172 08:29, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC) (At the time of my support vote, I was confusing this user with another user.172 15:27, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC))

  1. — Jor (Talk) 15:29, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  2. -- orthogonal 17:52, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  3. Oppose until I see enough evidence that Anárion is not a sockpuppet of Jor. --Lst27 20:45, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)I move my vote to support.
  4. Jwrosenzweig 19:05, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC) Er....I like Anarion, and would normally have supported, but Jor's vote is odd, considering it's his first edit in a long while (and that Jor's user page seems to imply he's editing under a different name now). I always liked Jor in the contexts we interacted, so this isn't me bashing either Jor or Anarion. I just have to think about this for a while. I've seen enough sockpuppet weird stuff around here that I trust my own judgment to a good extent -- this just doesn't have the feel of that sort of thing. I trust Anarion, and believe that adminship is well deserved. Jwrosenzweig 13:50, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. I'm not convinced. It doesn't help that Jor votes here suddenly, although he hasn't edited articles since April (when his RfA failed, and at the very same time Anárion started editing - Jor's last article edit (apart from three isolated ones in May) took place on April 23, two hours before Anárion's first-ever edit - coincidence?). Also, Jor's user page makes it clear that he is still editing under another name - if that other name isn't Anárion, maybe Jor could tell us what it is. This again is, given the lack of de-sysopping procedures, too much of a risk. It is also interesting that Anárion made about half his edits in the last week only, and they're almost all de-facto minor edits, though not always marked as such. As to Jor, he clearly holds Nazi-sympathetic views like this expressed on Talk:Erika Steinbach: "A peace treaty was made impossible because Poland's allies immediately declared war on Nazi Germany, and it is rather pointless to speculate what might have been had England not taken the invasion of Poland as an excuse to declare war on their economic rival." Gzornenplatz 15:34, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
    I put a note on his talk page shortly after reading your question. If IPs will help convince you, I'll post logged-out here, if Jor will do the same you could compare our IPs. ] 15:38, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    So although he practically hasn't edited for months, he sees your message within hours. Amazing. Gzornenplatz 16:21, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
    Anárion logged out 193.67.113.66 15:40, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    That would prove nothing; IPs are a dime a dozen. I recommend you not bother further with this accusation. It is largely irrelevant anyway whether you are someone's sockpuppet if your contributions speak for themselves, and spilling (virtual) ink on this issue will just cause it to haunt you further. The fact that Jor's adminship failed is not a mark against him, either; many good users don't get consensus for adminship for a while. VV 15:44, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  2. 172 15:27, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. ] 16:25, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  2. Merovingian✍Talk 17:37, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
  3. I too like Anarion, but this Jor business is sort-of dubious. Neutral for now. blankfaze | (беседа!) 21:10, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Comments

  • It seems to have been alleged that Anárion was formerly User:Jor (who was involved in German-nationalist POV-pushing and had a failed request for adminship in April). Is that correct? Gzornenplatz 10:28, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
    I know Jor outside the Misplaced Pages, and was introduced to it by him, but am not the same user. I'll let him answer the nazi accusation himself. ] 10:38, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • The only time I remember seeing this accusation was from Wik, not the most credible source. But Wik might have gotten it from elsewhere. VV 15:33, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • It is credible enough seeing that Anárion started at the time Jor left, and that they both edit the same Tolkienish fantasy stuff (except that Jor in addition made those German-nationalist edits). It is not a far-out speculation that Jor, after seeing he could not get adminship with his history, started under a new identity, carefully avoiding making nationalist edits until getting adminship, which he is now trying again. And if he's made admin, and suddenly starts again with the POV edits, there will be no way to get him de-adminned. (And by the way VV, the main problem with Wik was his edit warring, wasn't it? You seem to have taken that up from him pretty well.) Gzornenplatz 16:21, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
        • Wow, for a second it looked like you might make it an entire paragraph without sniping at me, but my conceptions are back to normal. No, Wik had other problems, not least exemplified by the "hate list" I linked to. VV 16:28, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    I was NOT involved in German-nationalist POV-pushing: I was involved (against my will) in banned user:Gdansk's Stalinist propaganda pushing, and banneduser:Wik's edit wars (the troll hates me, and blindly reverted all my edits). To answer your question: I am not his socksuppet nor he mine. — Jor (Talk) 15:29, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Would Jor or Anárion have anything against a sock-puppet search performed by one of the developers? You both seem eager to clear yourself from the suspicions. — David Remahl 03:42, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    While of course I would oppose it on principle ("assume guilt"?), if "the community" feels the need, I do not object to it. However, I do edit from multiple locations (home and work at the least, occasionally other locations), so there will be multiple IP addresses listed. And I do not doubt our watchlists overlap for a large part: I have included nearly all articles from List of Middle-earth articles to my list. ] 09:48, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ludraman (7/2/0) Ends 18:18, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've been here since November 03 and have circa 830 edits as I write this. I feel I could be useful to Misplaced Pages as a sysop. I admit to not being the most active of Wikipedians, but this is partly due to an (unintentional!) 3 month break. I plan to do more in the future. If anyone has any questions at all, please feel totally free to ask. LUDRAMAN | T 17:19, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Support

  1. Merovingian✍Talk 17:38, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
  2. -- orthogonal 17:52, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  3. Mike H 19:08, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC) This is really going against my established feelings on the edit issue, but I feel that the edit history is sufficient enough to warrant moving up.
  4. Acegikmo1 20:42, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  5. Lst27 20:45, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  6. Gzornenplatz 20:59, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
  7. zoney ▓   ▒ talk 00:03, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  8. Node 03:36, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  9. VV 06:43, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC) Especially to help out someone being unfairly treated by the likes of Blankfaze.

Opppose

  1. I cannot in good faith support anyone who thinks VeryVerily would make a good admin. blankfaze | (беседа!) 21:12, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • See now (I'd still like to hear what VV has to say) LUDRAMAN | T 22:11, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Depending on whether or not your vote stays out of his Support column, I may or may not reconsider my vote here. blankfaze | (беседа!) 22:32, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  2. Maybe later. Ludraman's been away for three months, and is back for just about two weeks now. Why not wait a little longer? Lupo 21:16, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

  • I think ludraman will reconsider his support for VV if he reviews the user's edit history (I'm not all too familiar with it either, but I do know he is not very highly regarded within parts of the community...) — David Remahl 21:20, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • See now (I'd still like to hear what VV has to say) LUDRAMAN | T 22:11, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters, if you would kindly respond:

  1. Have you read the section on Administrators?
  2. Are you interested in, and do you think you'll have some time to perform, the chores that only sysops have access to do, to help keep Misplaced Pages up to date?
  3. If you become a sysop, which sysop chore or chores (WP:VFD, recent changes, watching for vandals and vandalism, responding to editor requests for assistance, any other) do you especially think you would be able to help with.
  4. In your opinion, what article have you contributed the most succesfully and helpfully to?
  5. In your opinion, what has your best contribution to the running and maintenance of Misplaced Pages been? (i.e., have you reverted a bad stretch of vandalism, done extensive work categorizing articles, helped mediate a dispute?)
  6. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and will deal with it in the future?

Answers:

  1. Yes
  2. Yes
  3. Vandalism, recent changes, editor requests, deletions (esp speedy) are all things i plan to do.
  4. I don't do huge amounts to a narrow range of articles, but I felt I made a good contribution to Bunratty Castle, Irish Breakfast and a few others I can't think of offhand. Now that I'm back, though, K'nex and Guinness Peat Aviation are both going to be really good.
  5. I revert vandalism in bursts, and am on the Welcoming and Harmonious Editing committees (come to think of it I do a lot of welcoming). I also catagorised a lot of the Sherlock Holmes story articles.
  6. We had a few debates over Irish Breakfast, mainly User:Jooler, User:Zoney and myself. But we argued them out asd produced a (pretty) fair and balanced end result, improving the article. LUDRAMAN | T 16:08, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

CyborgTosser (17/7/5) Ends 07:57, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have been contributing for about two years now (see both my contributions and contributions for 198.37.26.168 as requests for re-attribution of edits has apparently been ignored for several months) in a wide range of topics, particularly electrical engineering, popular music, movies, and games. While the sheer number of edits may not be all that impressive (650+, or 750+ counting the anonymous edits), many of the edits are IMO very significant, including starting a large number of articles. I believe I contribute to discussions in a helpful way and do not get into disputes with other users. CyborgTosser 07:57, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

User has 769 edits since 15 Sep 2002. The IP contributions have now been reattributed. --Michael Snow 17:07, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Support

  1. Way to go, with a self nomination. I support! — i386 | Talk 17:26, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  2. I've had a good look over your edit history and I'm pretty happy with what I see. The problem is you seem to be the sort of person who quietly gets on with editing articles rather than talking about stuff at the VP, policy pages, contraversial pages with a lot of edit warring. That's nothing wrong with that, IMO some people spend too much time on meta stuff and not enough on writing articles {I'm including myself in this group:-( } - but it does mean that people don't get to know you. Anyway from what I've seen of your edit history, I think you'll probably make a very good admin which is why I'm voting in support. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 22:02, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  3. Theresa says it very well. If people would actually investigate CyborgTosser's contributions, instead of using raw edit volume as a substitute for considering whether he's actually qualified, they would find that he has already shown us that he's perfectly capable of being a good admin. --Michael Snow 22:29, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  4. — Kate Turner | Talk 22:55, 2004 Sep 3 (UTC) (Incidentally, your request for edit attributions probably hasn't been ignored deliberately, but the developers do tend to be quite overworked).
  5. Give him the benefit of the doubt. After all, we have a system for de-sysopping if it turns out he's a power-mad megalomaniac. -- orthogonal 01:27, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Haha, I can't tell if you're joking or not, because... we really don't, other than the ArbCom. blankfaze | (беседа!) 17:41, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • I would never joke about such a serious and solemn honor as sysopery. I consider this a personal attack, and challenge you to a duel with Zell Miller. -- orthogonal 22:23, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  6. ] 01:45, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  7. Austin Hair 11:09, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
  8. I think the risk of abuse is extremely small. Uncertain how great the asset will be, but an inactive admin is not a problem. — David Remahl 11:12, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  9. Support. The first thing I thought upon reading the name was Scorched Earth... Interpreting it as something offensive would lie somewhere between interpreting it as the anagram "rgb c. soy store" suggesting he sells red, green and blue coloured soy beans at a store, and interpreting it as "cy. borg, to s. ser", possibly short for "En cykel på en borg, to svaner ser", or "A bicycle on a castle, two swans see", in my list of possible interpretations. Also, he probably has more edits than when I was made admin... (Can't remember how many I had, though.) Κσυπ Cyp   11:55, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  10. Admins can't do much harm anyway. This should be no big deal. anthony (see warning) 18:26, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  11. ^_^ ugen64 17:17, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
  12. A quick sampling of CyborgTosser's contribs shows that he has done good work, and is more active than most in discussing matters in article talk pages. Good admin material, imho. —Stormie 00:19, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
  13. ] 04:39, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  14. Taco Deposit | Talk-o Deposit 15:31, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
  15. I support. Edit count is not everything with adminship. The main indicator should be edit count or time as a decent contributing editor. Back when this user joined Misplaced Pages there were no major sysop requirements, and it would be likely he could have been made a sysop without a fuss. I was recently made a sysop with only about 1000 edits and had been editing here for a similar amount of time, and had no people opposing my adminship. Why is this user any different? There are users here who have been with Misplaced Pages for about 2 months who have thousands of edits and get granted adminship right away. Can you trust someone to be a good admin after such a short time? I feel not. Trust comes with the passing of time as well as with many good edits. - Mark 09:16, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  16. I support because he's been here a while. So what if he doesn't have 1 billion edits? At least he has more than 500...Node 03:40, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  17. Support - good, varied history of constructive edits. Warofdreams 12:20, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  18. VV 15:52, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC) Unfortunately, it doesn't look like he is going to get consensus. Agree with quality/quantity comments above.


Oppose

  1. Oppose for now, if you provide evidence of where you have made thewse contributions I may change my mind. As it is the 750-800 edits you have made are good, but not enough I feel. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 17:04, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  2. Sorry, but I don't feel you have enough edits yet, especially for a self-nomination. --Slowking Man 19:39, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
  3. No way. No way. No way. No way. Get more edits. Not sure what your username is about, but it kind-of rubs me the wrong way for some reason. Anyhow, I rarely support anyone with less than 2,000 edits. MUCH LESS 679! Plus, for a self-nomination?! No way. blankfaze | (беседа!) 22:49, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  4. A good user, will support at 1200+ edits. --Merovingian✍Talk 13:50, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
  5. I will also support later, but not now. Mike H 19:21, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
  6. I, too, will support this guy when he has more experience. Andre 15:38, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  7. ] 20:38, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC): Sorry- might also support later.

Neutral

  1. Johnleemk | Talk 16:54, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  2. Moved my vote to neutral. Still a little uneasy. Pending a review of user's contribs by me. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 21:18, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  3. Not active enough. --Lst27 22:52, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  4. As tempted as I am to vote support to counter blankfaze's vote, we just haven't seen enough of this user, particularly considering its a self-nomination. Ambi 09:39, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  5. Unsure as to how familliar he is with policies and guidelines due mainly in part to percieved lack of edits. May look through edits later and change my vote, but for now... -- Grunt 🇪🇺 21:10, 2004 Sep 6 (UTC)


Comments

I am perturbed as to the lack of discussion on your user talk page. I won't object, though — however, would you mind linking us to some discussions in which you've participated before? Johnleemk | Talk 16:54, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Most of my discussions have been on article talk pages; I have added links to discussions on my user talk page.CyborgTosser 19:34, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

While quality is better than quantity, the user still has only 769 edits. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 22:37, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, and on many occasions in the past we've accepted new admins with a comparable number of edits. One relatively recent example is Robin Patterson. --Michael Snow 22:41, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Fine...since I'm slightly clueless on this -- I'm trying to move my vote to neutral. Edit conflict :( — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 22:46, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I don't oppose his nomination solely because of his number of edits. However, that figure combined with the fact that this is the first time I've ever known of him and the fact that he largely sticks to one category of articles gives me the impression of him not being especially involved in the Misplaced Pages community, which is a bad thing for an admin, in my opinion. Again, none of those factors in and of themselves are bad things, but combined, they make me uneasy. --Slowking Man 23:03, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
I'm not trying to say that you can't consider his edit count, or that you're not entitled to oppose the nomination if you have concerns. I'm just trying to counteract the impression that he's unqualified by definition based on the number of edits, when historically that's not true at all. It's worth noting that users who focus on adding larger chunks of text rack up the edits a lot slower than people who do lots of housekeeping edits, but I don't think the difference means the latter person is more qualified for adminship. --Michael Snow 23:20, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It would be a very good idea to change your username. People might get the wrong idea (I was quite shocked when I saw it!). Markalexander100 10:48, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Did you take offense because you're from some unfortunate country where masturbation is illegal? "Tosser" in UK is slang for "masturbator", but since it seems almost all men and at least a large plurality women regularly "toss one off", I'm a bit at loss what "wrong idea" people might get. I think recent advances in science have ruled out any worries they might have that the nominee is at risk of going blind, or insane, or developing hirsute palms. I'd say more, but I have a bishop I need to flog. -- orthogonal 16:00, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I have no idea if our American friends have any idea what you are talking about. Just in case they don't. Let me explain. In the UK a 'tosser' is a derogatory word for {someone who masterbates). You tosser! would be a personal attack here. A similar word is wanker. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 11:06, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
We sort of have wanker, but tosser is a new one for me. (Since it only offends the limeys, do we really need to be concerned...? (joke)) AdmN 11:27, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Ah, so that's what it means! I was puzzled by blankfaze's being rubbed the wrong way by the name. *adds the word to his vocabulary of slangs for unclean things* Johnleemk | Talk 11:59, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Somehow, I get the impression that people are extremely creative, when it comes to getting offended... Κσυπ Cyp   11:55, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Just to note, CyborgTosser explains the name on his user page. And from what I gather, he's from the US and may not be aware of the implications of the word in the UK. --Michael Snow 16:57, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
You're right, I'm from the US, and was unaware of the implications of the word "tosser" in UK slang. I was only aware it was used as an insult, and in any case I came up with the nickname before I had ever heard it used. Now I'm somewhat torn. I don't like to go out of my way to avoid offending others, especially when so many people go out of their way to be offended; on the other hand, if an entire country would really find my name obscene, I don't suppose that is the best way to represent Misplaced Pages. Let me think this one over... CyborgTosser 22:53, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
For the record, I'm from the UK and interpreted your name in the UK sense - but I thought it was more amusing than "offensive". Possibly some people who find things offensive need to lighten up a little. :-) — Kate Turner | Talk 23:19, 2004 Sep 4 (UTC)
To clarify, I agree with everything Kate said. I find it amusing rather than offensive myself, but it is the first thing anyone from Britain would think of. Markalexander100 03:11, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
A tossed salad in the U.K. must be terribly unpalatable... (joke). func(talk) 23:06, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

For the record, I don't subscribe to the notion that self-nominations should somehow meet a higher criterion simply because an editor is actively pursuing his own nomination. False modesty has never impressed me, and if an editor is plainly unqualified, this will be apparent regardless—let's not kid ourselves in attributing some form of contrived superiority to those editors who have buddies to nominate them, but rather apply the same, relevant standard across the board. Austin Hair 11:40, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC) P.S.: Change the nickname.

I agree with you completely. - Mark 09:18, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters, if you would kindly respond:

  1. Have you read the section on Administrators?
  2. Are you interested in, and do you think you'll have some time to perform, the chores that only sysops have access to do, to help keep Misplaced Pages up to date?
  3. If you become a sysop, which sysop chore or chores (WP:VFD, recent changes, watching for vandals and vandalism, responding to editor requests for assistance, any other) do you especially think you would be able to help with.
  4. In your opinion, what article have you contributed the most succesfully and helpfully to?
  5. In your opinion, what has your best contribution to the running and maintenance of Misplaced Pages been? (i.e., have you reverted a bad stretch of vandalism, done extensive work categorizing articles, helped mediate a dispute?)
  6. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and will deal with it in the future?

Candidate answers

  1. Yes
  2. Some time, yes. I don't think I will spend a lot more time looking for such things to do, but I already spend a lot of time on Misplaced Pages and I when I come across an opportunity I will do what I can.
  3. Mostly request for assistance and VFD. I revert vandalism when I see it, but I don't spend a lot of time looking at recent changes.
  4. My user page lists the articles I feel I have contributed significantly to (either started the article or added at least a couple of paragraphs) but I particularly proud of System analysis and Theory of criminal justice.
  5. I have started doing some categorization recently (but not really extensive).
  6. I have been in disagreement with other users on a couple occasions (best example Talk:Causes of sexual orientation) but I don't let it become an edit war. If I make a comment on a talk page and other users disagree, I usually step back and let someone else (hopefully someone more impartial) make the necessary edits to the article.

CyborgTosser 19:34, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Requests for bureaucratship

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

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

Other requests