Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:46, 3 October 2005

Policies on civility and personal attacks apply here. Editors may not make accusations about personal behavior without evidence. Uninvolved administrators and bureaucrats are encouraged to enforce conduct policies and guidelines, including—when necessary—with blocks.

• WP:RFA
• WP:RFX

Requests for adminship (RfA) is the process by which the Misplaced Pages community decides who will become administrators (also known as admins), who are users with access to additional technical features that aid in maintenance. Users can either submit their own requests for adminship (self-nomination) or may be nominated by other users. Please be familiar with the administrators' reading list, how-to guide, and guide to requests for adminship before submitting your request. Also, consider asking the community about your chances of passing an RfA.

This page also hosts requests for bureaucratship (RfB), where new bureaucrats are selected.

If you are new to participating in a request for adminship, or are not sure how to gauge the candidate, then kindly go through this mini guide for RfA voters before you participate.

One trial run of an experimental process of administrator elections took place in October 2024.

About administrators

The additional features granted to administrators are considered to require a high level of trust from the community. While administrative actions are publicly logged and can be reverted by other administrators just as other edits can be, the actions of administrators involve features that can affect the entire site. Among other functions, administrators are responsible for blocking users from editing, controlling page protection, and deleting pages. However, they are not the final arbiters in content disputes and do not have special powers to decide on content matters, except to enforce community consensus and Arbitration Commitee decisions by protecting or deleting pages and applying sanctions to users.

About RfA

The community grants administrator access to trusted users, so nominees should have been on Misplaced Pages long enough for people to determine whether they are trustworthy. Administrators are held to high standards of conduct because other editors often turn to them for help and advice, and because they have access to tools that can have a negative impact on users or content if carelessly applied.

Nomination standards

The only formal prerequisite for adminship is having an extended confirmed account on Misplaced Pages (500 edits and 30 days of experience). However, the community usually looks for candidates with much more experience and those without are generally unlikely to succeed at gaining adminship. The community looks for a variety of factors in candidates and discussion can be intense. To get an insight of what the community is looking for, you could review some successful and some unsuccessful RfAs, or start an RfA candidate poll.

If you are unsure about nominating yourself or another user for adminship, you may first wish to consult a few editors you respect to get an idea of what the community might think of your request. There is also a list of editors willing to consider nominating you. Editors interested in becoming administrators might explore adoption by a more experienced user to gain experience. They may also add themselves to Category:Misplaced Pages administrator hopefuls; a list of names and some additional information are automatically maintained at Misplaced Pages:List of administrator hopefuls. The RfA guide and the miniguide might be helpful, while Advice for RfA candidates will let you evaluate whether or not you are ready to be an admin.

Nominations

To nominate either yourself or another user for adminship, follow these instructions. If you wish to nominate someone else, check with them before making the nomination page. Nominations may only be added by the candidate or after the candidate has signed the acceptance of the nomination.

Notice of RfA

Some candidates display the {{RfX-notice}} on their userpages. Also, per community consensus, RfAs are to be advertised on MediaWiki:Watchlist-messages and Template:Centralized discussion. The watchlist notice will only be visible to you if your user interface language is set to (plain) en.

Expressing opinions

All Wikipedians—including those without an account or not logged in ("anons")—are welcome to comment and ask questions in an RfA. Numerated (#) "votes" in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections may only be placed by editors with an extended confirmed account. Other comments are welcomed in the general comments section at the bottom of the page, and comments by editors who are not extended confirmed may be moved to this section if mistakenly placed elsewhere.

If you are relatively new to contributing to Misplaced Pages, or if you have not yet participated on many RfAs, please consider first reading "Advice for RfA voters".

There is a limit of two questions per editor, with relevant follow-ups permitted. The two-question limit cannot be circumvented by asking questions that require multiple answers (e.g. asking the candidate what they would do in each of five scenarios). The candidate may respond to the comments of others. Certain comments may be discounted if there are suspicions of fraud; these may be the contributions of very new editors, sockpuppets, or meatpuppets. Please explain your opinion by including a short explanation of your reasoning. Your input (positive or negative) will carry more weight if supported by evidence.

To add a comment, click the "Voice your opinion" link for the candidate. Always be respectful towards others in your comments. Constructive criticism will help the candidate make proper adjustments and possibly fare better in a future RfA attempt. Note that bureaucrats have been authorized by the community to clerk at RfA, so they may appropriately deal with comments and !votes which they deem to be inappropriate. You may wish to review arguments to avoid in adminship discussions. Irrelevant questions may be removed or ignored, so please stay on topic.

The RfA process attracts many Wikipedians and some may routinely oppose many or most requests; other editors routinely support many or most requests. Although the community currently endorses the right of every Wikipedian with an account to participate, one-sided approaches to RfA voting have been labeled as "trolling" by some. Before commenting or responding to comments (especially to Oppose comments with uncommon rationales or which feel like baiting) consider whether others are likely to treat it as influential, and whether RfA is an appropriate forum for your point. Try hard not to fan the fire. Remember, the bureaucrats who close discussions have considerable experience and give more weight to constructive comments than unproductive ones.

Discussion, decision, and closing procedures

Most nominations will remain active for a minimum of seven days from the time the nomination is posted on this page, during which users give their opinions, ask questions, and make comments. This discussion process is not a vote (it is sometimes referred to as a !vote, using the computer science negation symbol). At the end of the discussion period, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether there is a consensus for promotion. Consensus at RfA is not determined by surpassing a numerical threshold, but by the strength of rationales presented. In practice, most RfAs above 75% support pass.

In December 2015 the community determined that in general, RfAs that finish between 65 and 75% support are subject to the discretion of bureaucrats (so, therefore, almost all RfAs below 65% will fail). However, a request for adminship is first and foremost a consensus-building process. In calculating an RfA's percentage, only numbered Support and Oppose comments are considered. Neutral comments are ignored for calculating an RfA's percentage, but they (and other relevant information) are considered for determining consensus by the closing bureaucrat.

In nominations where consensus is unclear, detailed explanations behind Support or Oppose comments will have more impact than positions with no explanations or simple comments such as "yep" and "no way". A nomination may be closed as successful only by bureaucrats. In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats may extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination to make consensus clearer. They may also close nominations early if success is unlikely and leaving the application open has no likely benefit, and the candidate may withdraw their application at any time for any reason.

If uncontroversial, any user in good standing can close a request that has no chance of passing in accordance with WP:SNOW or WP:NOTNOW. Do not close any requests that you have taken part in, or those that have even a slim chance of passing, unless you are the candidate and you are withdrawing your application. In the case of vandalism, improper formatting, or a declined or withdrawn nomination, non-bureaucrats may also delist a nomination. A list of procedures to close an RfA may be found at WP:Bureaucrats. If your nomination fails, then please wait for a reasonable period of time before renominating yourself or accepting another nomination. Some candidates have tried again and succeeded within three months, but many editors prefer to wait considerably longer before reapplying.

Monitors

• WP:MONITOR

In the 2024 RfA review, the community authorized designated administrators and bureaucrats to act as monitors to moderate discussion at RfA. The monitors can either self-select when an RfA starts, or can be chosen ahead of time by the candidate privately. Monitors may not be involved with the candidate, may not nominate the candidate, may not !vote in the RfA, and may not close the RfA, although if the monitor is a bureaucrat they may participate in the RfA's bureaucrat discussion. In addition to normal moderation tools, monitors may remove !votes from the tally or from the discussion entirely at their discretion when the !vote contains significant policy violations that must be struck or otherwise redacted and provides no rational basis for its position – or when the comment itself is a blockable offense. The text of the !vote can still be struck and/or redacted as normal. Monitors are encouraged to review the RfA regularly. Admins and bureaucrats who are not monitors may still enforce user conduct policies and guidelines at RfA as normal.

Current nominations

Add new requests at the top of this section

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

Please remember to update the vote-tallies in the headers when voting

Current time is 01:54, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Fastfission

Final (84/0/1) ended 10 October 2005 02:20 (UTC)

Fastfission (talk · contribs) – I would like to nominate Fastfission for adminship. He has been a registered user here since February 2004, and has racked up almost 8500 edits since then. He is a dedicated editor who has contributed to a wide range of articles. FF has been active throughout the project. He is also a major voice in the effort to bring Misplaced Pages into compliance with regards to copyright issues. I have no doubt that Fastfission would make a superb admin. Guettarda 01:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination, thank you. --Fastfission 02:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. EXTREME PRE-NOMINATION SUPPORT!!! Ryan Norton 01:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
2. No fair, you're not allowed to vote before the nominator! Guettarda 02:20, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

   Ironically enough the candidate accepted before you voted. Guess you were just slow. :) Dmcdevit·t 04:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

3. Support, excellent user whom I think could make good use of the admin tools. JYolkowski // talk 02:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Support --Duk 02:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Support. Why can't I remember where I know this candidate from.... I'm sure it will come to me. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Tentacle'd Hentai Support. Meets my standards. --Maru (talk) 02:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
   • Read that comment out loud as one continuous sentence. I dare you to. :D Unfocused 17:05, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
     • "Tentacle hentai support meets my standards." Sounds uncomfortable, but I'm not the one being supported. :) --Maru (talk) 19:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
7. Support! Kirill Lokshin 02:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
8. Support. Would definitely meet my standards, if I had any. -- BD2412 02:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
9. Support. Dragons flight 02:51, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
10. Support--Cyberjunkie | Talk 03:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
11. Support CambridgeBayWeather 03:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
12. RFA cliché no. 1! Dmcdevit·t 04:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
13. Extreme Mexican Support! Excellent user. Titoxd 05:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
14. —Charles P. (Mirv) 05:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
15. EXTREME "LOOK MOM, I'M ON THE BANDWAGON!" SUPPORT --Merovingian (t) (c) 06:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
16. Witty Support Comment #41124591247192471274912749182741659812649124012372x10^E  ALKIVAR™ 07:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
17. what dmcdevit said. Thryduulf 08:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
18. Support good editor. Martin 08:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
19. absolutely ;) Dunc|☺ 09:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
20. Of course! Shimgray | talk | 09:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
21. Support – Brilliant graphics designer! =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
22. Support. Fastfission clearly has a head for the way of the Wiki. -- Solipsist 12:37, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
23. Support. Awesome. Proto t c 15:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
24. FireFox 16:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
25. Support; I'll avoid the usual cliché and just mention that he not only meets my standards, he's made them into Pb and stable isotopes long ago. Antandrus (talk) 16:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
26. Support. Committed to clear copyvio backlogs? Here is my vote! ≈ jossi fresco ≈ 19:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
27. Furry Alien Support orange fur, mind you. Alf 19:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
28. Extreme Death phoenix Support. {{cliché}}. User has shown a willingness to take on maintenance tasks. --Deathphoenix 20:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
29. →Journalist >>talk<< 20:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
30. Support --JAranda | yeah 20:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
31. Support' -Greg Asche (talk) 20:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
32. Support Private Butcher 20:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
33. Support, great contributor. --fvw* 21:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
34. Extreme Maddox anti-extreme support. Hall Monitor 21:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
35. Support - CheekyMonkey 21:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
36. Support. My interations with Fastfission on various newkulur type articles lead me to believe Ff has a friendly, collegial style and a commitment to collective authoring. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
37. Support. His work on copyright issues alone justifies giving him the extra tools. Owen× ☎ 21:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
38. Support Astrotrain 22:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
39. Support Marskell 22:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
40. Support. His well-reasoned and intelligent contributions to the mailing list and his work on copyright issues are enough for me to consider him trustworthy; if I had any further doubts I suppose I could look inside his head. :-) Definitely. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
41. Support. Absolutely; agree with Kat. SlimVirgin 23:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
42. Support. Friday (talk) 23:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
43. Support. El_C 23:45, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
44. Support more admins willing to deal with copyright issues are severly needed.--nixie 23:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
45. Support. Knows his stuff. nobs 01:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
46. Support, of course. -- Essjay · Talk 03:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
47. It's clear this guy will become an admin anyway, but I'll add my support vote anyway.  Denelson83  04:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
48. Support Why not? Bratsche 04:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
49. Support Had good, if minor dealings, with this ed., and I've come across many high-quality contributions that he's made. (Not to say, what the previous 48 people've said.) Alai 05:53, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
50. I thought he was one already. David Gerard 14:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
51. Support: --Bhadani 14:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
52. Support, thought he was one. Ral315 W_S 17:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
53. Strong Support. Normally don't chime in unless it's on the fence, but sometimes I'm impressed enough by a users work that I feel the need to come out and comment. --Gmaxwell 18:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
54. Support. FeloniousMonk 19:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
55. Support. Best candidate in a while. —Lowellian (reply) 19:50, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
56. Bandwagon. Andre (talk) 21:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
57. Support A voice of reason and a joy forever. Septentrionalis 22:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
58. Of course.—encephalon 04:08, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
59. 'Support Monkey see, monkey do.Molotov (talk) 05:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
60. EXTREME umm... SOMETHING SUPPORT. Don't let him get away. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 10:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
61. Cool. --JuntungWu 11:17, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
62. Support not because he needs the votes at this point in time... Unfocused 17:05, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
63. Support Waiting for Maru to give better odds ;-) Karmafist 02:01, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

    • Hah. You won't find anyone giving better odds than me! This week only, 1-4 against! Come and place your wagers! --Maru (talk) 03:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

64. Support. --bainer (talk) 05:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
65. --Boothy443 | comhrá 06:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
66. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
67. Support. Jayjg 21:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
68. Support - Had good interaction with the user on Japanese atomic program, initial content disagreement was solved quickly and to the satisfaction of both sides. I think he (she?) will make a good admin! -- Chris 73 Talk 21:58, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
69. Support wow, that's alot of edits, congratulations. Gets my support... Gryffindor 23:01, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
70. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 23:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
71. Support - Strong contributor, FF would be a serious admin. Sunray 06:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
72. CORRUPT JACOB ZUMA SUPPORT There you go, I voted using an adjective for support. Banes 09:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
73. Strong support. Will make an excellent admin. Carbonite | Talk 13:00, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
74. support. You're hired :)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 17:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
75. Support - go fastfission, go! --Celestianpower 20:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
76. Support Since you have spearheaded Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Fair use, you might as well have the ability to delete those "orphaned fair use images", right? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
77. Support. An excellent editor who will make a fine admin. -Willmcw 04:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
78. Support. I thought I voted already? --HappyCamper 15:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
79. Support Another on the band-wagon. Dlyons493 Talk 17:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
80. Support for above reasons, and especially being helpful to others not versed in copyright. I'm sure admin powers will allow him to clean-up a lot. --rob 20:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
81. Extreme support!. Long, long overdue. sɪzlæk 12:10, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
82. Support. --Briangotts (talk) 16:14, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
83. Support, count me in! Shauri smile! 19:55, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
84. Support. --Ancheta Wis 20:28, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

1. Neutral. Have never seen this user despite his edit count. PedanticallySpeaking 17:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

• Are you sure? I happen to have evidence implying otherwise. ;-) --Fastfission 19:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

My memory is faulty. Still neutral, however. PedanticallySpeaking 19:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

There must be another reason then, what is it may I ask? --Celestianpower 20:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• Func got 112 support votes; can FF beat it? Where're the bookies? What's the spread?  :) - Guettarda 16:43, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm offering 1-8 against, today only! Hurry up, pull out yer wiki-money, wiki-wiki! --Maru (talk) 17:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

A. Along with the standard speeding up of normal maintenance tasks (reverting vandalism, RC patrol, etc.), the prime thing I plan on doing which specifically requires administrator status is clearing up the various backlogs on the project, especially those relating to the deleting of copyright violations (the backlog at WP:PUI and WP:CP stand out to me at the moment). This is the sort of thing that I would enjoy doing and think I would likely be good at, being reasonably confident with making sense of copyright issues (at least being aware of what the salient points are, if not the fine points of every circumstance, about which I am learning more every day).

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

A. Oh, I don't know, there are many I've been happy with. I did a lot of work on the Robert Oppenheimer article when I first came here, and I suppose first love always sticks in the memory strongest. There's a list of things which I've felt I've made "significant" contributions to at User:Fastfission/Significant contributions and another list of some of the articles I've created at User:Fastfission/Created (and for the more visually inclined a list of images I've made or scanned at User:Fastfission/Images), and I'm reasonably happy with most of those (some are still incomplete, mind you). In general it must be said that I'm most happy with writing out long passages of texts and facts and having other editors more gifted in the art of language pare them down. I derive a good deal of pleasure from working on Misplaced Pages, primarily of course because it is a great idea (and a great way to combat much of the disinformation present on the internet), but also because it gives me practice in composition and writing on topics which I know fairly well. Recently I started Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Fair use which, love it or hate it, has at least gotten some movement on some real systemic problems with the way "fair use" copyright issues are handled on Misplaced Pages — I'm very pleased with being a part of this. (Also, my brain is coincidentally the picture of the day at the moment I am writing this, which is sort of neat.)

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

A. I edit a lot of topics which attract POV-pushers and cranks (I have often been stuck between two strongly POVed groups, trying to nudge out a NPOV centrist position, receiving the ire of both), so I've of course gotten a bit stressed out and irritated over time. When I get too irritated I usually just don't edit the article for a week or so, and then come back and see what needs to still be done. That usually does the trick. I'm not really that worried about the state of an article at any given time, and feel that if something doesn't really get "fixed" for a few weeks or even a month it is probably not that big a deal (and as an aside, if another editor besides me doesn't notice it and fix it, it's probably even less of a deal than I think it is). So anyway, that's how I usually do things — I think life's too short to argue at length with wackos over the internet, and I especially dislike it if it hinders more important work I can do here. For more complicated issues I've appealed to other thoughtful editors and admins, who have been incredibly helpful in this regard.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

RoySmith

Final (27/6/0) ended 16:37 October 9, 2005 (UTC) (UTC)

RoySmith (talk · contribs) – I've been editing for almost a year with 1600 edits . I've been quite active on Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Disambiguation, and spend a lot of time reverting vandalism to pages I watch. It's for this latter task that I seek adminship; to make it easier to revert pages using the fancy admin revert tool. I see that some people seem to be hung up on proper use of edit summaries. I use them most of the time, often don't bother on talk pages, occasionally forget, and once in a while produce bizarrely incorrect ones when Safari surprises me with an auto-fill on the text box that I didn't expect. Such is life. RoySmith 16:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Support

1. Only just, FireFox 17:06, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Support Ryan Norton 21:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Support. Looks good. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 22:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Support. Always uses edit summaries, almost daily edits, although participation to AfD has been low lately. Deserves the tools. feydey 23:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Support been here for a long time and wasn't involved in anything bad.  Grue  05:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Support. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 05:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
7. Merovingian (t) (c) 06:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
8. Support. This edit count inflation is getting out of control. 1600 edits is "way too low of an edit count for an admin"? It wasn't too long ago that 1000 was the magic number, then it seemed to rise to 1500. Is it at 2000 now? Not everyone has the time to make 10+ edits a day. Carbonite | Talk 19:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

   comment since your directly quoting me... 1000 has never been my standard, hell I know SOCKPUPPETS with more than 1000 edits. The fact of the matter is 1600 total edits is not enough to spot tendancies of a person. Hell we've seen users with many more than 1600 edits flaunt the rules (e.g. everyking, ed poor, rickk just to name a couple) at this point I dont think there is enough history to see if said person has the temperment for admin powers. My standard is not just editcountitis, but involves a measure of time as well. I personally prefer AT LEAST 2500 edits, but more importantly at LEAST 1 full year of editing. I think that this is typically adequate to gauge someones tendancies and agressiveness. However those with low yearly edit counts are also infrequent enough contributors as to not give enough material to base a decision upon. thats my $0.02 worth anyway  ALKIVAR™ 03:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

   A study done over this past summer showed that admin nominees with more than 1000 edits but less than 2000 edits were successful nominations 48% of the time. 2001 edits to 3000 the figure was 83%, a 35% increase. Indeed, the bar does seem to be 2000 at which voters seem to think a nominee is suddenly imbued with the qualities that would make a good admin. --Durin 20:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

   Thanks, Durin! Very informative, if a bit disturbing. Maybe edit count standards are somehow linked to fuel prices. Not sure how else to explain 1600 edits being considered a rather small number. Carbonite | Talk 21:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

9. SupportTintin 21:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
10. Support. El_C 23:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
11. Support--Exir Kamalabadi 03:51, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
12. Support And those with editcountitis can eat my sock. Bratsche 04:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
13. Support, damn the editcountitis. Ral315 W_S 17:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
14. Support. I'd rather have a thousand good occasional admins than a single busy poor admin. Unfocused 19:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
15. →Journalist >>talk<< 22:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
16. Support. A fine editor with plenty of edits to prove it. Also, I strongly support the position of others about editcountitis, it may not be fatal but sure can make some for some distorted appraisals. Virtually all of the opposition has to do with edit count and nothing to do with his quality of contribution (except for one who didn't like his comment about edit counts below!). - --hydnjo talk 17:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
17. Support. I had fewer edits and a lower rate of edits per day when I became an admin, and find that opposition based on edit count alone to be unreasonable where an editor with 1600 edits is concerned. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:04, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
18. Support The editcountitis below is getting ridiculous. Borisblue 01:16, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
19. Support CambridgeBayWeather 01:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
20. Support Good response below --Rogerd 02:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
21. Support. I'm not worried about the edit count. Like Roy, I believe the correct measure is the total value of his contributions, not the sheer number of individual edits. I was more worried about his self-proclaimed deletionism, but I couldn't find a single case where I disagreed with him on his AfD vote (and I did look!). I am not a deletionist myself, but I do trust this man with the "Delete" button. Owen× ☎ 22:58, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
22. Support - Has shown his mettle in admin-type functions. Doesn't seem to suffer from editcountitis! Sunray 06:48, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
23. Support. RoySmith hasn't done anything silly, as far as I can see, and has shown interest in the maintenance side. I'm slightly disappointed with the amount of material he added to the encyclopaedia (at least in the block of edits that I checked), but we need different kinds of editors and also different kind of admins. On the statistics: he's been here for almost a year and took about 4 months for the last 1000 edits; nothing to alarm me. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
24. Andre (talk) 04:59, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
25. Support. Responsible contributor. --HappyCamper 15:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
26. Support level-headed interaction with other users. Edit count largely irrelevant and I empathise with Safari surprises me with an auto-fill on the text box! Dlyons493 Talk 17:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
27. Support as a fellow Mac-user. Nicholas 11:38, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose been here too long to only have 1600 edits. Should be very active on[REDACTED] to be an admin. I can't support. Private Butcher 16:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

   He's been editing almost every other day since June, though. --Blackcap | talk 18:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

2. Oppose way too low of an edit count for an admin. Anyone spending "a lot of time reverting vandalism" as user states should have a much larger edit count.  ALKIVAR™ 07:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Oppose. As the nominee said, 1600 edits/year. It's a rather small number. Deryck C. 16:37, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Oppose for reasons stated above. PedanticallySpeaking 17:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Oppose for the way he responded to Durin below. Jobe6 20:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
6. --Boothy443 | comhrá 06:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

• A chart showing this user's edits along with a total number of edits line and average edits per day line is available here: Image:RoySmith-edits.png. I offer this not as a more refined version of editcountitis, but as just one tool to help evaluate an admin nominee with a somewhat low edit count on Misplaced Pages. --Durin 13:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Uses edit summaries 81% of the time, 86.6% of the time over the last 500 edits. Average edits per day is 5.3, 7.7 over the last 90 days. --Durin 13:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• I don't know if it's appropriate (or even wise) for me to comment on my own case, but I'll be bold and do so anyway. I'm honestly a little surprised at how much weight is being given to how many edits I've made. The numbers are what the numbers are, and there seem to be plenty of good tools to slice and dice the stats and make pretty pictures out of them. Make what you will of the numbers, but I can't help wonder if this is the right way to judge a candidate. Does anybody care how many briefs Harriet Miers has written, or do they care what she wrote in them? Do people marvel at how many at-bats Hank Aaron had, or do they celebrate how many home runs he hit? If I had made 10 meaningless edits per day for the past year, my edit count would be up over 3000 by now; would that make me a better candidate? I would feel much more comfortable about the process if somebody were to say, "I watched Roy's actions during XXX and based on that I have my doubts about his judgement, character, wisdom, temperment, intelligence, whatever". At least that would be a reasonable objection. Likewise, I'd be much happier to read somebody say about me, "I really liked the way he handled XYZ", than, "Roy's got a awesome edit count". --RoySmith 21:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• RoySmith, the creation of the charts and the statistics on your average edits and use of edit summaries is intended to get peopel to stop depending upon simple edit counts as a means of judging the worthiness of a nominee. I wholeheartedly agree that edit counts are a very, very poor way of trying to objectively measure a candidate. Indeed, objective measures are difficult at best. Having the chart and some figures on your use of edit summaries and your activity level gives us additional tools to evaluate you; it is not intended to be the only tool. Anyone doing so is making a very poor choice. Please see User:Durin/Admin nominee charts. Thank you, --Durin 22:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

A. As stated above, I do a lot of vandalism fixing, and cleanup of dab pages.

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

A. Created {{Disambig-cleanup}} and the associated Category:Disambiguation pages in need of cleanup. I'm proud of this for two reasons; first because I think it was a useful tool for the project, and second because in creating them, I had to learn a few bits of wiki-technology to get it to work right.

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

A. Absolutely. One of my earliest conflicts was with User:Supercool Dude (who I believe is the same person as User:24.44.23.111) regarding many edits he was making to City Island (New York) and a number of other related articles. They weren't quite vandalism, but the quality of writing (structure, diction, grammar, spelling, conformance to the MoS, etc) was quite low, and included many statements which were both difficult (if not impossible) to believe and not supported by references. He also had a possessive attitude about what he wrote, insisting that they were his articles. It was a challenge to both improve the articles and avoid getting embroiled in conflict, but I believe I was (for the most part) successful at both.

BTW, are the recent edits to Sextant by User:201.145.99.216 a covert test of my ability to deal with wiki-stress? If so, how am I doing? :-) --RoySmith 22:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

DragonflySixtyseven

Final (51/2/0) ended 16:20 October 9, 2005 (UTC)

DragonflySixtyseven (talk · contribs) – About time DragonflySixtyseven was an admin. He/she has been here for over a year, and is very active in spotting Candidates for Speedy Deletion. I collaborated with him/her during the Red Link Recovery project. He/she has 5145 edits. And I would like to know whether he/she is a man or a woman. — JIP | Talk 16:20, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

• For the record... (hold on while I check...) I'm male, and have always been so. DS 16:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

oh... uh... is this thing on? tap tap tap Um... Yes. I accept the nomination. Th-thank you. I'll, um, I'll work on my answers over the next day or so. DS 23:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nominator. — JIP | Talk 16:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Support Private Butcher 16:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Strong support FireFox 17:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Strong support for an excellent editor - but this will be the last nom under the old rules! (see Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship) -- BD2412 18:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
5. EXTREME REDWOLF24 SUPPORT. The best Dragon Fly I know. Redwolf24 (talk) 19:13, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Extreme Miami Style Support I thought he was a admin already Great User --JAranda | yeah 19:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
7. Support. Robert 21:06, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
8. EXTREME DRAGONFLY SUPPORT!!! Ryan Norton 21:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
9. Furry Alien Support based on what I've seen from this editor about the place (many times), will make good admin. Alf 21:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
10. Bart133 (t) 22:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
11. Support KHM03 22:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
12. Support Interactions with this user have been positive. —Lowellian (reply) 23:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
13. Merovingian (t) (c) 06:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
14. Support helped me out with a query in AfD with speed and precision. Mallocks 14:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
15. Support, edit history looks impressive. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
16. Support. Anyone who drops you a (sincere) thank-you note for reverting their work when they're wrong has the temperment to be a fair and diplomatic admin. kwami 22:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
17. Support. For sure. SlimVirgin 23:25, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
18. Support. Friday (talk) 23:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
19. Support. El_C 23:45, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
20. Support CambridgeBayWeather 00:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
21. Support even though Dragonfly is absolutely disorganized (yeah i'm one to talk LOL)  ALKIVAR™ 03:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
22. Strong Support I've seen quite a lot of good work from this user. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:08, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
23. Support: He would be a ‘nicely perfect’ administrator. --Bhadani 14:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
24. Support. Ral315 W_S 17:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
25. Support, Hes got a fair ,if heavy, hand, and a sharp mind, what more cfould you ask for?Gimmiet 17:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
26. Support. Reasonable and knowledgeable. (And frankly if disorganization is a disqualification for adminship, I ought to be desysopped on the spot!) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
27. That's hot. Mike H (Talking is hot) 18:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
28. Should've been one a while ago. ~~ N (t/c) 18:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
29. Support. Good, intelligent editor. --Blackcap | talk 18:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
30. Cool. --JuntungWu 11:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
31. Disorganized support. Silly admins. Let them get too organized, and next thing you know, they'll be forming a cabal. Unfocused 17:12, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
32. Witty Support. I second the comments of Mindspillage. Bratsche 20:45, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
33. Support, if only to prevent him adding to the questions section :o) --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 22:02, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
34. What Mark Gallagher said ;) encephalon 03:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
35. S'port absolutely --Doc (?) 10:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
36. Support. Mmmm, that disorganised thing....., you know. Couldn't be humour, could it? Filiocht | The kettle's on 14:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
37. Support from college freshman. - Darwinek 20:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
38. Support. Good stuff. -Splash 01:03, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
39. Support. Carbonite | Talk 13:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
40. Support. Could you help me close AFDs and clear out CAT:CSD? Sometimes there is a backlog. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
41. Support - a clearly unnecessary vote but just to express my views. Dlyons493 Talk 13:58, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
42. →Journalist >>talk<< 18:39, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
43. Support. Contributions and answers below indicate thoughtfulness and a broad range of interests. Chick Bowen 18:45, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
44. Support. Just noticed his RFA or would have acted sooner =) But he's pretty knowlegable and an all around nice guy (at least on IRC). Glad to support. Sasquatcht|c 19:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
45. Support cool guy —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 21:30, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
46. Support. No probs with this nomination. Physchim62 21:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
47. Support --Publunch 23:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
48. Support I would welcome his cool head on my team any day. Zach (Sound Off) 23:45, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
49. Support only recently came into contact with this user however he appears to be a level headed user who contributes quite a bit to the wiki as a whole. Jtkiefer ----- 04:34, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
50. Support Woohoo! I'm 50! He's always on IRC, and has seemed very adminlike from on there. I look forward to working with him. Karmafist 13:24, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
51. Support — Pladask 13:28, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. As Alkivar says, seems disorganized--look at the replies to the standard questions for another example. PedanticallySpeaking 17:08, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
2. --Boothy443 | comhrá 07:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral until user posts answers. This user seems very disorganized, even needed two posts to accept! ALKIVAR™ 07:25, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments

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

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

A. As an admin.... well, there's closing AFDs, and blipping speedies, of course. Deleting garbage images. Possibly issuing vandal-blocks, although I'd want to consult with other admins at first to make sure of my judgment. Blocking inappropriate usernames. The occasional request for undeletion, which is usually a matter for VfU, but on rare occasions something that can be obvious. 23:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

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

A. deep breath

What am I particularly proud of? Well, despite not having known much about the struggle for Indian independence,I'm rather pleased with the work I did on Senapati Bapat and Govind Ballabh Pant (which I wrote practically from scratch) and Sardul Singh Caveeshar (and thank you, Bhadani, for an important bit of information). NPOVing Did Six Million Really Die? was quite satisfactory, as was, surprisingly enough, Millie Tant. Jhereg is good, I think, as is Hollywood accounting.

I like my "why we might think you're a sockpuppet so please don't get offended" speech.

There's an interesting little story behind how I came to create the entry for George Robert Vincent, which is on the article's talk page.

Dusky seaside sparrow makes me sad, but I'm proud of it. Musth makes me nervous, but I'm proud of it too. And I've been meaning to incorporate the content of Talk:Metastability in molecules into the article once I get around to creating some proper images. I added some amusing details to Graham Chapman, and I need to go back to Parinya Kiatbusaba and finish rewriting the last few paragraphs. Din-i-Illahi. Birbal. Earth X. De zaak alzheimer.

I'm always quite pleased when I save a valid article from getting deleted, as with Oliver Coipel, Sasha Spesivtsev, Liberty Belle, salary-celery merger, Joseph Ivor Linton. I also enjoy the opportunity to consult with primary sources, such as writing to Norman Spinrad to get details about whether The Iron Dream was banned in Germany, or asking Tobias Wolff if anyone had ever named an asteroid for him.

I resolved a dispute about Stepanakert. A substantial portion of anglerfish is from me, as is almost all of honey guide. Bread and circuses was scarcely more than a dicdef before I got to it. EBaum's World was missing some important information which was rather difficult to convey in a properly neutral fashion, but I think I did a reasonable job. Would you believe that, before I got to it, the article on the sport of bunnock didn't explain what bunnock is? I added the explanation to ].

At this point, I've still got over a year's worth of edits to pick through in a search for "favorites", but I think that's enough. DS 19:59, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

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

A. Hm. Let's see, let's see. Edit wars. Hmm. I'm going to assume that anti-vandalism skirmishes, such as on John Byrne, don't count. Hmm. I'm going to have to read through my entire edit history to refresh my memory.

(three hours on Memory Lane later) Well, um, I was in a brief disagreement over the Mister Dressup article - I added a piece of trivia about a parody; User:Thivierr felt it was inappropriate there, and should be in the Radio Free Vestibule article instead; we exchanged... two messages on the topic, and currently I don't think the datum is in either article, because I conceded the point and felt it wasn't worth getting agitated about.

And... okay, the Einar H. Kvaran article, it was created by an anonymous user, I removed a large amount of genealogical information, and then I got a rather distraught note from User:Carptrash. Apparently, he had spent several weeks convincing an octogenarian neighbor of the value of WP, and I had "butchered" the article, thus scaring away the octogenarian, and didn't I know that genealogical information is very important in Icelandic culture, have I never read the Sagas?, and so he had reverted my changes. I spent a while reading up on Icelandic culture, conceded that genealogy is more important in Icelandic culture than I had realized, and then carefully edited the article again, leaving in the information about Einar H. Kvaran's parents, but deleting the information about his sons and nephews (other than their existence) because Misplaced Pages is not the Sagas, and the article is about Einar, not his sons and nephews. The article summary said "We don't need EVERY detail about his family tree, okay?", and I left an apology for the page creator (which he doesn't seem to have read; sigh). I thought everything was settled, but yesterday I found out that Carptrash had perceived this as an edit war, and had left messages for various Icelandic Wikipedians, asking that they come to his support in this.

Anything else... there were some minor disputes in the Static Shock page, where I twice asked User:Mare-Silverus to stop inserting his own thoughts as to what some of the characters were references to; I resolved this by, quite simply, contacting Static creator Dwayne McDuffie and asking him if Mare's interpretations were correct (answer: no).

There was a very slight dispute at Holy Prepuce - I deleted the reference to Catherine of Siena, it was restored, I deleted it again and left my reasons on the talk page - which was resolved after User:Muriel Gottrop made a helpful suggestion.

Annnnnnnnd.... that's it.

These don't typically cause me stress. If anything on WP causes me stress, it's vandals (well, and edit conflicts, and server problems).

I try to mediate conflicts, to come up with a mutually agreeable solution. Some individuals are resistant to that, and become more and more agitated; for such cases, if they don't storm off in a huff, and instead choose to wreak havoc, the regrettable solution is to issue a temporary block. That's a last resort, of course, following a proper RfC.

If something on WP annoys me, I get up, walk around, read a novel, eat an apple, call my girlfriend, play with the neighbor's dog... if it's something that requires my attention, I take the time to construct a proper response.

DS 22:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Quale

Closed (6/2/6) ending 23:16 October 8, 2005 (UTC)

Quale (talk · contribs) – I believe that this user would make a good admin. He has been here since March 2005, and has amassed over 4200 edits, 2868 in article namespace, 1019 in Misplaced Pages namespace. Reviewing his edits, Ive noticed that he is always courteous, he is an active participant on AFDs, and he actively uses edit summaries. I believe he deserves the mop! →Journalist >>talk<< 23:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: respectfully decline

While I appreciate the nomination, I wish to decline it. The work I enjoy doing most on Misplaced Pages doesn't doesn't require adminship. I rarely make edits to articles on particularly controversial topics, and I think being an effective adminstrator might require greater involvement in the sorts of things that I have mostly avoided so far. Recently in performing cleanup I've worked on articles far afield from the chess articles that had been most of my edits before, and my view of Misplaced Pages is still changing a bit. I apologize to anyone put off by my delayed response. It wasn't intended as a sign of disrespect—I was caught unprepared and just wasn't sure whether accepting the nomination would be good for me and for Misplaced Pages. I'm sure declining will be fine for both. Thanks to all. Quale 04:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Support

Support as nominator. →Journalist >>talk<< 23:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

1. Merovingian (t) (c) 05:24, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Support, I saw some of the edits. --MissingLinks 07:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
3. FireFox 11:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Support Has enough edits, has been here long enough. Private Butcher 16:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

   Support. Resistance is futile; you will be administrated. -- BD2412 18:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

5. An ideal admin. Andre (talk) 21:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Sounds good to me. I think a user's contribs speak broader than his answers to the standard questions here, and should note that Uncle G got a plethora of support votes before answering them, and have seen no reason to regret adminning him. Radiant_>|< 22:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Far too many Misplaced Pages namespace edits, too early. I suggest a long period of article editing to improve this editor's editing experience and broaden his perspectives. --Tony Sidaway 18:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Oppose. Over the past two days, despite being active here (over 150 edits since his nomination!), this user has ignored this RfA, even after repeated notices on his Talk page. If he's not interested—that's fine, but the civil thing to do is let us know, one way or the other. Would people seeking his help as an admin also expect to be ignored this way? Note that only 1.5% of his edits are in the User_talk namespace. Owen× ☎ 22:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral for now and until I see his answers to the questions below. I would also want to what happened that with 4,000+ edits you only have 115 on Talk namespace. That is a concern as it shows little engagement with other editors. ≈ jossi ≈ 00:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
2. I have had excellent experiences working with Quale. I will be delighted to support when I see his acceptance. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Neutral until user accepts nomination and answers the questions. I can't support anyone who hasn't, unless I've nominated them myself. — JIP | Talk 16:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Neutral I don't remember seeing this editor about the place, so will wait for answers.Alf 21:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Neutral until nomination is accepted and questions are answered. Will probably switch to support. Deryck C. 16:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Shifting into Neutral - user has not accepted the nom despite several nudges on his talk page by various editors, leading me to suspect he'd rather be left alone. -- BD2412 20:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• Honestly, it seems as if this editor does not want to become an admin. He hasen't contacted me regarding his answer, and he shows no interest whatsoever. By studying his contributions, youll know that he has made edits since Ive contacted him, so Im sure that he has gotten the messages I left him. In fact, he has even spoken to other editors who left messages after I did. Im sorry, I no longer wish to support. →Journalist >>talk<< 22:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Has he anywhere informally said yes? Journalist? Moral of the story don't nominate without making sure. Maybe he just goes about his business and doesn't want to be bothered with this sort of thing—not a fault. Marskell 23:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, User:Flcelloguy told me that he spoke to another user about it (after a bit of coaxing, it seems), saying that he hadnt decided yet, but I still find it a bit odd that he ignored me. See here. Dont worry about me, Ive learned my lesson. Next time, Ill make absolutely sure. :)→Journalist >>talk<< 00:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Journalist, you did nothing wrong. There's no harm in nominating someone who isn't interested; this is why we have the "Candidate, please indicate acceptance" bit. You've done everything possible to get Quale to respond to this nomination. Owen× ☎ 01:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

A.

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

A.

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

A.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Mairi

Final (35/2/1) ended 05:10 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Mairi (talk · contribs) – Mairi is closing in rapidly on 3000 edits (see here) in just over a year as a Wikipedian. A very conscientious and busy worker at the Stub-sorting WikiProject, Mairi has also done a reasonable amount of vandal-reverting and other tasks that rollback would be very useful for. Edit history is in a useful cross-section of namespaces, and a glance at Mairi’s talk page gives a good indication of positive interactions with other wikipedians. Hand Mairi a mop, folks! Grutness...wha? 05:10, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you for the nomination. I accept. -Mairi 06:00, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. As nominator, of course! - Grutness...wha? 05:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Grutness is among those whom I trust, and I've seen this editor around. Redwolf24 (talk) 05:19, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Support --Alynna 05:28, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Support wikifies too. Ryan Norton 05:35, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Support --Rschen7754 05:43, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Support --Rogerd 07:10, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
7. Support CambridgeBayWeather 07:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
8. Support. sɪzlæk 09:47, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
9. Support, though you could use a bit more usertalk namespace edits. →Journalist >>talk<< 16:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
10. Firm stub-sorting mafia support. Alai 17:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
11. Support. Stub-sorters are valuable people and need all the tools they can get. The Singing Badger 17:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
12. Support, by all means Lectonar 18:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
13. Support Private Butcher 21:56, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
14. Support! Good editor. --WikiFanatic
15. Support Trust Grutness on this, contribs look great. Rx StrangeLove 23:21, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
16. Support, I trust the nominator. Mairi does great work on stub-sorting. Robert 01:20, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
17. Merovingian (t) (c) 05:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
18. Support: very good works. --MissingLinks 07:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
19. FireFox 12:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
20. Support Stewart Adcock 14:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
21. Support. Mairi was the one to first {{welcome}} me. She seems great. Quicksandish τκ 21:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
22. Support Mr Muscle Mairi loves the jobs you hate, hand her the mop. Alf 22:00, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
23. Support, very active at WP:WSS. Surprised she's not in Category:User gd, though, given her name! ;-) --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 05:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
24. Support, can't think of anything sexual to write here. — JIP | Talk 09:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
25. Support. Mairi has promised that she will interact more, so I take that in good faith. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ 19:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
26. Support. In response to SPUI, some roads are notable. ;-) -- BD2412 20:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
27. Support, but you could use more 'usertalk' edits. →Journalist >>talk<< 20:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

    You'd already supported with a similar comment up at #9... --Mairi 21:25, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

28. Support. El_C 23:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
29. Support, speedy delete all nominations that simply say "nn $crufttype-cruft". --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 17:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
30. Cool. --JuntungWu 11:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
31. Hand over the mop! -- Shauri smile! 14:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
32. Support. Not all admins have to be vandal-fighters. Mairi knows what she's good at, and we will all benefit from letting her delete redundant stubs and categories. Owen× ☎ 14:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
33. Support - Great contributor. Should be handed the mop. Sunray 07:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
34. Support. Carbonite | Talk 13:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
35. Support Keep up the good stub work. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:53, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose for lack of involvement with others. PedanticallySpeaking 17:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
2. --Boothy443 | comhrá 07:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Delete nn roadcruft --SPUI (talk) 21:58, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

   Are you sure you're voting in the right place? — JIP | Talk 09:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

2. 'Neutral'. Same concern as with User:Quale above. +3,000 edits and only 64 on Talk? I would want to see more exchanges with other editors. If he promises more involvement with other editors, I will support. ≈ jossi ≈ 00:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll promise to make an effort to interact more with other editors (on Talk as well as other namespaces). I also think my contributions on WP:WSS/P, WP:WSS/D and WP:SFD show some interaction with others. And it's 'she', by the way ;) --Mairi 01:48, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Note that I deliberately avoided using he/she issue in my nomination :) Grutness...wha?

I was pleased with that :) --Mairi 21:25, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments

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

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

A. One of the main things I'd like to do is help with the continual backlong at WP:SFD. I periodically go thru Short Pages, for which the ability to delete pages would be quite useful. Rollback would be convenient for the occasional vandal-reverting. The ability to resolve copy-paste moves would also be useful, as I come across those fairly often, particularly with newer articles.

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

A. While I'm pleased with my varied contributions to WP:WSS, I don't think there's any one thing in particular there that I'm especially proud of. Except for perhaps my almost-daily checks of Recent Changes for new stub templates, to try to bring some order to the multiplication of stub categories. The article I'm most pleased with my contributions to is Minifigures, although it's still very much a work in progress. I think I've made significant contributions to Gallery of flags by design, along with numerous other editors. I'm also pleased with my translation of Jaime Nunó from the Spanish Misplaced Pages article.

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

A. I haven't been in any significant conflicts, or any that have caused me stress. A few editors have been unhappy when I've nominated newly-created stub templates for deletion, but I've dealt with that by calmly explaining my reasoning and what standard policy is, and pointing them towards the deletion discussion so they can voice their opinion (in the case of those who didn't know where SfD was). For future conflicts I'd try to behave similarly, listen to the views of other editors and try to achieve consensus before taking any drastic actions.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Brian Kendig

Final (35/3/1) ended 04:00 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Brian_Kendig (talk · contribs · count) Today I was looking through the microsoft history for references for a particular section, and I came across these beutiful NPOVing edits . That edit is from LAST YEAR btw, and the user has been here for over A YEAR AND HALF! User has over 2000 article space edits, 1000 distinct pages and has around 2715 total!!! Ryan Norton 03:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept! And I am extremely flattered by the attention. :) Thank you very much, and I'll do my best to do right by the trust you've placed in me. - Brian Kendig 14:10, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. EXTREME NOMINATOR SUPPORT!!!! Ryan Norton 03:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Enthusiastic support for a "worker bee" who goes about improving this project in his unassuming way, not to gather applause but to add significant substance. Please forgive the cliche... but I thought he...etc. I believe that Brian will be an exemplary addition to our dedicated admin staff. --hydnjo talk 05:29, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Support Brian and all the rest of the WikiGnomes. They could use some more recognition around here. sɪzlæk 09:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Support. Hooray for well-mannered and articulate editors who just get on with it. The Singing Badger 18:08, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Support. Fully deserves the mop and the flamethrower. Titoxd 18:32, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Support CambridgeBayWeather 19:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
7. Pcb21| Pete 19:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
8. →Journalist >>talk<< 21:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
9. Yes, please. Lupin|talk|popups 02:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
10. Support. User could make good use of admin privileges. Superm401 | Talk 04:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
11. Merovingian (t) (c) 05:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
12. Good support.--MissingLinks 07:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
13. Support - per my standards and above comments. --Celestianpower 17:30, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
14. Support good answers to questions, sounds like an excellent editor. DDerby(talk) 18:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
15. Support in slight sheep mode: good answers to questions, I don't know Brian but he seems a reasonable being, mop him. Alf 22:07, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
16. Support. Awesome. Welcome aboard, Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 22:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
17. Support been here for a long time and wasn't involved in anything bad.  Grue  05:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
18. Support, will make a good admin. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
19. Support hell, just pulling a decent NPOV edit of a flamebait target like Microsoft gets my vote.  ALKIVAR™ 07:20, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
20. El_C 23:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
21. Support. You mean he isn't an admin already? I'm surprised, actually. I'd have nominated him myself if I'd known. :-) – Seancdaug 03:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
22. Support, and damn the editcountitis. Ral315 W_S 17:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
23. Support, looks like he'll make good use of admin powers. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 17:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
24. Support. The purpose of Misplaced Pages is to create an encyclopedia, and only the main namespace directly serves that end. I agree that it is important for an administrator to demonstrate a wide spectrum of interaction, but with over 300 non-mainnamespace it is hard to see how others fear hasn't. We need administrators from all parts of the spectrum of positive interaction, not everyone has to be a wikipolitican editing primarily outside of the main namespace. --Gmaxwell 18:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
25. Weak Support. I say weak as I still don't know him well enough to full on support, but from (the very little of) what I've seen, he's great :D Redwolf24 (talk) 22:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
26. Support. It's good to see candidates who aren't intentionally combative, such as those who gravitate toward policy discussions. Unfocused 01:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
27. Cool. --JuntungWu 11:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
28. Support. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:00, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
29. Support Good editor - this imbalance stuff is silly--Rogerd 02:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
30. Andre (talk) 03:06, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
31. Support. He definetely deserves it! Shauri smile! 22:46, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
32. Support. Seems like a reasonable editor, and I don't see at all how edit count would be a problem. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:59, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
33. Support Quite positive interactions on Browser wars (quite some time ago). Clearly not a troll or vandal. -- Rick Block (talk) 05:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
34. Support. Carbonite | Talk 13:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
35. Support. Dlyons493 Talk 16:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Has been here over a year and a half, and only has less than 3000 edits. Private Butcher 21:58, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

   Good lord, are you kidding me? Less than 3000 edits? You're worried because he has LESS THAN 3000 EDITS? Ral315 W_S 13:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

   Besides, that would be fewer. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:07, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

2. Oppose. PedanticallySpeaking 17:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

   From the top: Please include a short explanation of your reasoning, particularly when opposing a nomination. Mike H (Talking is hot) 17:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

3. --Boothy443 | comhrá 07:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. NeutralOppose. Quite an imbalance between namespaces. (~90% in article NS). Will consider if the nominee explains why. Deryck C. 15:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

   I don't understand the question. I put most of my effort into maintaining articles, and I discuss them when discussion is useful; is there something you feel I should be doing differently? - Brian Kendig 20:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

   The user is talking about having more edits in the[REDACTED] namespace, such as on pages like WP:AN/I WP:AfD, etc.. If you ask me its quite superficial though (even though I have a healthy distribution myself :)). Ryan Norton 20:20, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

   Ah, I see now - thanks! I've started discussions in the WP namespace when I've needed to get involvement while following procedure on something, or when I've been unclear on policy (for example, when the Upload form had a required "I am the copyright holder" checkbox which would seem to preclude uploading fair-use stuff). In general, though, I prefer to leave the policymaking and debating to other folks. - Brian Kendig 22:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

   The imbalance is now less serious (~80% now) and I'm withdrawing my opposition. Deryck C. 17:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

   Just so's no one thinks I intentionally tried to do anything about this ratio - I'm not really sure how the percentage changed so much! Almost 40% of my slightly-more-than-100 edits over the past week have been in non-article namespaces, mainly Image and Template, just because those were what I found that needed attention; but my focus remains the articles. - Brian Kendig 00:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments

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

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

A. There are two things with which admin privs would really help me. One is the quick-revert tool to undo vandalism - I've often wished I had access to this. The other is the ability to rename pages when there's already a page in the way; previously I've been having to seek out an admin to move things around whenever I find a situation where this is necessary. It would also be really nice to be able to fix typos on protected pages (I've sought help fixing occasional misspellings on the Main Page sections). As for other admin duties, such as protecting/unprotecting, deleting/undeleting, blocking/unblocking, etc. - I look forward to participating, to monitor the lists of situations where these are needed, and lend a hand to reduce the backlog and keep things running smoothly. - Brian Kendig 14:10, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

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

A. I am most proud of my bold edits to Windows XP, which (IMHO!) gave it a kick in the pants and led it to its eventual Featured Article status. I'm also really happy with areas where I've been able to take a family of related articles with duplicated or contradictory information, and move blocks between them to be more on-topic - an example is removing the long and detailed plot summaries from Star Wars and Star Trek and merging them into more specific articles about the movies and series. I also enjoy keeping on top of the Disney-related articles, fine-tuning them to remove speculation and add photos. - Brian Kendig 14:10, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

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

A. Just have a look at the history of Virtual Magic Kingdom for the most recent example of conflict and stress. ;) In short, a new user didn't know his way around Misplaced Pages, and continued to revert edits back to his own versions with admonishments like "Now leave it be!" I tried every route of communication I could find and followed procedure for conflict resolution, but for a while I thought it would be fruitless because he failed to see anything but the article itself; finally he figured out how to use the Talk page and we discussed things and came to an understanding, and since then he's become a great contributor to the page, and has even been helping out another new user. Other times I've encountered conflict have generally been because a user has a specific agenda (most commonly, wanting to promote a specific web site or suppress an unflattering but verifiable fact in an article); with communication and consensus these can be overcome. I don't take edits personally. When someone tries to use email to complain to me about some edit I've made, I insist on bringing the discussion to a Talk page instead, so as to invite other viewpoints. I refuse to get into personal fights with other users - it's not about me personally, it's about what's best for Misplaced Pages. - Brian Kendig 14:10, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Graft

Vote here (26/4/2) ending 21:03 21:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Graft (talk · contribs) – (Self-nomination) I've been editing here for many years and recently decided I ought to be doing more to contribute in a community-wise way. I'm pretty even-keeled, rarely get in protracted fights, never been disciplined for anything, and I think I'm pretty good at finding compromises. I haven't, however, been much involved in arbitration, RfCs, etc., and think that I should maybe be doing more things other than editing at this point. Graft 21:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Strongest possible support - excellent editor, strong contributor, been here forever. Guettarda 21:06, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

   Jobe6 02:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

2. Long overdue. —Charles P. (Mirv) 08:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Support, good editor. --Alcidebava 13:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Unflocinaucinihilipilificative support, damn the editcounting! ~~ N (t/c) 17:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Pcb21| Pete 19:29, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Support looks good. Ryan Norton 20:10, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
7. Support. Looks pretty good to me, has enough edits and has been on long enough. --WikiFanatic
8. Support. Graft has demonstrated a real commitment to the concept of Misplaced Pages, doesn't shy away from controversial subjects (like Global Warming), but instead makes an honest effort to really work through them and address them thoroughly, in an even-handed way. DanKeshet 01:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
9. Merovingian (t) (c) 05:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
10. Support I believe he has good reasons to be an admin, and will be of service to WP. --Blackcap | talk 05:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
11. FireFox 17:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
12. Support Make with the mop, Graft by nature... Alf 22:10, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
13. Support. Looks good. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 22:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
14. Support been here for a long time and wasn't involved in anything bad.  Grue  05:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
15. Support, will make a good admin. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
16. Support. El_C 23:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
17. Support, and damn the editcountitis. Good users don't need 4000 edits to be worthy. Ral315 W_S 17:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
18. Support Graft is objective, perceptive and tenacious... qualities that serve him well. Give him the mop. FeloniousMonk 19:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
19. Support - this user is quite observant and conscientious. I think the admin tools will be used wisely. --HappyCamper 00:39, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
20. Support. I do not believe that a numerically high rate of contributions per day should become one of the myriad prerequisites for adminship. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:58, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
21. Andre (talk) 03:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
22. Support. Low use of edit summaries is not quite enough to discount all the other positive factors to consider, but should be corrected as an important courtesy to others. Unfocused 12:57, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
23. Support wants to contribute, has been steady Dlyons493 Talk 20:49, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
24. Support, too qualified be left without a mop in his hand. Shauri smile! 22:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
25. Support. Would prefer to see more edit summaries though. Carbonite | Talk 13:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
26. Support. Cannot find reasons to oppose. Deryck C. 17:20, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose, this person has been here since 2002, and only has over 2000 edits. Any passive editor could do that in three years. I don't think you're qualified for adminship. Private Butcher 23:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

   Comment That doesn't mean that much, really, other than editcountitis. Even for the editcountitis bit, have you seen Durin's completely brilliant charts? They show the frequency of edits in a given period, among other things, and that's more important than total edits. Anyway, just because this fellow hasn't put in 50 edits a day since day one doesn't mean he won't be a good admin. Some people go on long wikibreaks, and God bless them for it—there's something called life out there that's good to be a part of sometimes. If someone registers, has 30 edits, leaves, comes back a year later, signs in again and is an active contributor, than he's hardly at fault for having, say, only 2000 edits in a eighteen month period. Just thought that that's kinda a stringent requirement for adminship. I mean, an admin doesn't have to be someone who logs on every other day, they can just as easily be someone who puts in a few edits a week on RC patrol. It won't kill us. And anyway, after having gone through his contribs, it looks to me like he's editing on at least a bi- or tri-weekly basis and has been for some time (save a wee gap in September). --Blackcap | talk 00:28, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

2. Oppose Seconded, although this user has lots of time on wiki 50% of the total edit content is talk pages . Perhaps its just me but I think admins should be doing more article editing/creation than just talking. Graft, please dont take this as a personal afront, what edits you do have are very good and quite useful, but it seems very low and very little for such a long time as a user.  ALKIVAR™ 07:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

   Oppose till user sets an email id. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:57, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

3. Oppose: Nominee has been here long enough to understand policies and their application. Edits look good. Seems a decent candidate with two exceptions; low use of edit summaries and the fact that the user is not on frequently enough to be a successful administrator. Administrators need to be available, in contact, and participating in ongoing discussions/debates. 1.2 edits per day over the last 90 days is just too low of a participation level for me to feel this admin will be successful. --Durin 14:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Oppose for reasons stated above. PedanticallySpeaking 17:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral
Neutral Hmm I don't know. I don't think he understands policy enough being as he can't be involved in arbitration anyways unless he is an arbitrator. Jobe6 22:51, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Re-read his comment if you would - I don't read them that way at all. Guettarda 01:43, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

My bad. Took it the wrong way. Jobe6 02:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Please answer the standard questions below. Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 23:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

1. Please answer the standard questions before I can tell anything! Thanks! Deryck C. 02:58, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

   I can see that the nominee hasn't stated acceptance yet. Maybe we should decide things later? Deryck C. 02:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

   This is a self-nomination, so it's fair to assume that it's accepted. . . (preceding unsigned comment by Mirv (talk · contribs) Revision as of 08:12, October 1, 2005)

2. Neutral No excuse in not answereing the questions on a self nom. Jobe6 16:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

   He's answered them now. --Blackcap | talk 18:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

   Neutral I'm afraid - one of the reasons being the few Misplaced Pages namespace edits. FireFox 17:21, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

   I'd take a look at m:Namespace shift. Just a thought. --Blackcap | talk 16:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• Err, sorry for the delay in filling out these questions - I didn't realize this process moved so quickly and mere hours would be so significant! Graft 16:55, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
• A chart showing this user's edits along with a total number of edits line and average edits per day line is available here: Image:Graft-edits.png. This chart was done on request of User:Dragons flight. --Durin 14:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Uses edit summaries 41% of the time, 34%% of the time over the last 500 edits. Average edits per day is 1.8, 1.2 over the last 90 days. --Durin 14:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• I think this RfA is a perfect example of what's wrong with RfA (as discussed on the Talk page). After three years of solid contributions ("solid" in terms of quality of additions, and in terms of being level-headed), Graft has proven that he is a solid Wikipedian, who is highly unlikely to abuse admin tools. People can maintain a pretense for a few months - we have no problem promoting people who are relatively new but show promise. Jimbo described adminship as "no big deal" - simply the fact that users should not have extra powers until they are well enough known by the community. After three years, Graft is a known quantity. And unlike so many other people who burn brightly and then burn out, he's still here. So why the editcountitis? Cut the senior citizens a little slack ;) Guettarda 22:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• For me, edit counting isn't the issue in the sense of only X number of edits over Y time. The issue is that this user's presence and activity in the project is quite low. An admin needs to be active in order to stay abreast of policy changes, be involved in ongoing debates and discussions to which they are party, and respond to user requests on issues the admin has taken action on. Low participation says nothing about the user's trustworthiness or ability to be a good editor. It does say, to me, a lot about the nominee's ability to succeed as an admin. If this user had the # of edits they have, but 80% of them were in the last six months, their level of activity over the recent period would be much higher. I'd be much more inclined to vote support. But, the pattern over the last three years has stayed relatively stable and low; there's no reason to expect a sudden increase in activity should they become an admin. --Durin 16:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

• Your point makes sense if one pre-supposes an administrative function for admins. However, trustworthiness is the only criterion that matters for adminship. As I read things, there is no administrative role for admins - while many take an adminstrative role, it isn't part of the job description. There's a janitorial role for admins (if they choose to embrace it), but mostly adminship supplies editorial tools. I uploaded an image last week, realised there was a problem, and deleted it. If I was not an admin I would have had to put a {{speedy}} tag on it, and an admin would have had to delete it because s/he was trusted with tools that a non-admin did not have. As for "staying current", there is no guarantee that someone who has done a lot of editing in anticipation of an RFA will keep up with things. On the other hand, one can easily judge whether they think someone like Graft, who has a three-year history, will do things rashly (or whether, called upon to make a policy decision, is likely to act cautiously and find out what the rules are, if he doesn't know what they are). As for success as an admin - 172 and Everyking would meet your predictors for "success" as an admin, but one ended up de-sysop'd and the other had an arbcomm injunction against them. Ed Poor knows Misplaced Pages inside out, but keeps getting embroiled in controversy. When it comes down to it, this is a project to write an encylcopaedia, everything else is ancillary. Sysop tools are useful to editors. Anyone the community is sure won't abuse the tools should have them. Adminship should not be an elite club. There is no cabal. These are not the droids you are looking for. Guettarda 16:50, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

• I respectfully disagree. However, this RfA is not the forum for long discussions on these points and thus I will not respond in full as I did above. Thank you, --Durin 16:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

A. Although I don't imagine I'm going to be that helpful as far as watching for vandalism or edit wars because I don't edit for many hours continuously, I'd like to be useful in general janitorial tasks (like deleting/moving pages) which need to get done.

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

A. I was rather pleased with the first version of binocular vision that I wrote long ago, in the middle of editing a whole spate of visual system articles, but that version is long gone now. I rewrote genetic drift a while ago into a much more coherent form. Also I wrote a bunch of stuff about the Mexican Revolution which I thought was rather good at the time (although probably not by "modern" standards).

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

A. I've obviously been involved in many editing conflicts. I don't think I get greatly stressed out by it. My usual method of dealing with conflicts is simply adhering to the facts of the debate, delineating and spelling out my arguments in support of the points at issue, and generally eschewing ad hominem as much as possible, which is I think the way to be most productive towards resolving and moving past the dispute.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

23skidoo

Vote here (58/0/0) ending 20:57 October 7, 2005 (UTC)

23skidoo (talk · contribs) – 23skidoo first joined us on January 4, 2003— since then, he has amassed over 11,000 edits , nearly 9,000 of which have been to the Article Namespace. He is also a frequent contributor to the daily discussions at Articles for Deletion and other community-related discussions and holds approximately 900 edits in the Misplaced Pages Namespace. When not helping with Misplaced Pages, he works as a freelance journalist and book editor which is a definite plus. That said, I believe 23skidoo to be an exceptional candidate for adminship and give him my strongest possible support. Hall Monitor 20:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I'm happy to accept the nomination! Cheers! 23skidoo 00:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Strong support. Pardon the cliché, but I thought he was one already. Hall Monitor 21:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
2. Support strong contributor --TimPope 21:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
3. Support - a consistent contributor who would well wield a mop. -- BD2412 21:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
4. Strong Support I knew he wasn't one, but I never understood why ; - ) Redwolf24 (talk) 22:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
5. Support. JYolkowski // talk 22:46, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
6. Support — consestent editor (plus, I trust the nominator). →Journalist >>talk<< 23:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
7. Support, good editor. Private Butcher 23:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
8. Support, as per nom (hope he accepts...) ≈ jossi ≈ 23:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
9. Support Very good contributor. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
10. Support. Amazing work on Star Trek-related articles. Acegikmo1 23:51, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
11. Extreme pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcaniconiosic support!Disclaimer: This vote is not intended to be offensive. Additionally, this vote should not be used for controlling operations at a nuclear power plant, bank, airport, or hospital. You may not sue me in a COURT OF LAW in Trenton, New Jersey, for any damages this vote may cause you. --Phroziac 00:19, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

    ^ lol. →Journalist >>talk<< 01:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

12. Support, strong editor. K1Bond007 01:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
13. Thumbs up.  Denelson83  01:43, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
14. Great stuff.—encephalon 02:32, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
15. Support. Great involvements in both articles and policies, per the nominator. Deryck C. 03:00, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
16. Support, great editor. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
17. EXTREME LEX LUTHER SUPPORT WITH EXTRA CRYPTONITE!!!!! Ryan Norton 03:28, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
18. 11,000 edits? Extreme asexual support. --Fire Star 04:10, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

    I think sexual support is higher-end ^^ Deryck C. 04:47, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

19. Extreme Mexican Support. He's done quite a good amount of work here, and has been active in the Misplaced Pages namespace too. Titoxd 05:54, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
20. Support -Greg Asche (talk) 06:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
21. Support with extra cheese -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 06:14, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
22. Support Good editor --Rogerd 06:19, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
23. Support CambridgeBayWeather 07:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
24. Long-overdue support. sɪzlæk 09:56, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
25. Support, great contributor. Alphax  10:35, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
26. Support KHM03 14:37, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
27. All types of supports are here – I am tempted to add one more: an Indian support. --Bhadani 14:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
28. Support. cliché--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 14:53, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
29. Strong Support Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
30. Support - Guettarda 17:09, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
31. support this really is long overdue Yuckfoo 19:00, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
32. Wholehearted support Zach (Sound Off) 20:21, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
33. Support. He's been on longer than me, and I thought he already was one! Here's my support. :-) --WikiFanatic
34. Support. SimonP 00:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
35. Support. -- JamesTeterenko 05:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
36. Thought he was one. --Merovingian (t) (c) 05:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
37. Support--Cyberjunkie | Talk 05:47, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
38. So am I allowed to say Extreme lesbian support or am I not? — JIP | Talk 06:47, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
39. Support. Very fine contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
40. Dancing support. That's right, I'm dancing. Coffee 10:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
41. Support. Thunderbrand 15:11, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
42. I don't know JIP, but gets my Furry Alien Support. Alf 22:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
43. Support Good User --JAranda | yeah 03:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
44. Witty Support Comment Here  ALKIVAR™ 07:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
45. Support. Michael Warren | Talk 09:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
46. Extreme Death phoenix Support. {{cliché}} Give him the mop and bucket already. --Deathphoenix 20:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
47. 23yes. And please tell me what happened to the other 22 skidoo? Radiant_>|< 22:45, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
48. Support. El_C 23:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
49. Support. Great user name, by the way. PedanticallySpeaking 17:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
50. Support. 11,000? That's a whole lot of 01:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
51. Temporarily un-wikibreak-ing to Support. --Alan Au 03:18, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
52. Support Thought he already was one. Molotov (talk) 05:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
53. Cool. --JuntungWu 11:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
54. Support Xoloz 12:07, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
55. Support --Rogerd 03:06, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
56. S'port good guy (and I like bandwaggons) --Doc (?) 10:52, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
57. Support very active. Dlyons493 Talk 12:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
58. Support. Jayjg 21:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

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

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

A. I need to do a bit more research on that. Probably many of the same things I've been working on in the past. 23skidoo 00:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

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

A. I've been quite pleased with the series of articles K1Bond007 and I have put together relating to the James Bond novels. There's still plenty of work to do but I like how that group of articles have turned out. Also, because of my own personal knowledge of the subject I'm quite happy with the article on Rock Around the Clock which I reworked. 23skidoo 00:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

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

A. Occasionally I get a little put out if someone takes the letter of the law too literally or assumes all articles are like comparing apples to apples, but on the whole things have moved fairly smoothly around here for me. 23skidoo 00:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Nabla

Vote here (24/0/1) ending 18:09:21 , 07 October 2005 (UTC)

Nabla (talk · contribs) – (Self-nomination) I'm a registered user since 2004-07-31, after a long break I've been here regularly since 2005-04-24. I have 3314 edits at the moment I write this, more or less 2600 of them since April. (see kate's tool for distribution and updated numbers). Take a look at my page for some more info.

Why do I want to become an admin? I like encyclopedias ever since I was a young boy, I have read some in full and still do. Helping to build one interests me even more than the possibility to write about some subjects of which I know something useful of. I think that being an admin will allow me to give an extra help to build a better encyclopedia. So here am I, proposing my self for that task.--Nabla 18:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Support, I believe from what I read and looked at that, you should be qualified enough. So there, you have my support. Private Butcher 18:54, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
2. Support —but need more usertalk edits. Why dont you join the Welcoming committee, you can make many new friends! →Journalist >>talk<< 19:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
3. Yeeeeaaaahhhh! FireFox 19:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
4. Support. This user has demonstrated a wide range of abilities in a number of areas, and has done a lot of good work in article editing. This user has shown good civility on talk pages, and a definite desire to collaborate within the community. (Also, having a native Portuguese speaker around is always useful!) I am certain this user will make an excellent admin. --NicholasTurnbull 20:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
5. Support high enough edit count and been here a while. I see zero controversy. freestylefrappe 20:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
6. EXTREME JOHN KERRY SUPPORT WITH EXTRA VIETNAM VETERANS!!! Low-key candidate :) Ryan Norton 20:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
7. Support!. Excellent editor and well rounded. Great janitorial work. We need more like him ≈ jossi ≈ 20:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
8. Support, good editor with many edits. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
9. As the rumbing increased in intensity, bystanders were amazed to hear it slowly form into a monolithic, monosyllabic, all-encompassing YES!!! Grutness...wha? 05:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
10. Support—encephalon 05:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
11. Support Good editor--Rogerd 07:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
12. Merovingian (t) (c) 05:30, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
13. Support. Very fine contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
14. Support seems like a good nomination. Alf 22:16, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
15. Support, will make a good admin. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
16. Support. El_C 23:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
17. Extreme NAMBLA support! Ral315 W_S 17:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
18. Support. Applaud the modesty, which we need more of here. PedanticallySpeaking 17:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
19. Support for the standard and obvious reasons. --Gmaxwell 18:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
20. Support good all-round contributions. Dlyons493 Talk 22:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
21. Strong Portuguese support Molotov (talk) 05:18, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
22. Cool. --JuntungWu 11:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
23. I want you! to join the W.P. Cabal! Shauri smile! 14:18, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
24. Support. Should make a good admin. Plus, how could I not support when even Boothy443 does? Carbonite | Talk 13:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

1. On the fence although user has the time, and edit count, I generally dont like self nominations... but thats not the reason i'm on the fence. Perhaps it is just me, but this username makes me think of NAMBLA I know this is odd, but I think it could be a future issue. Would only support with a username change.  ALKIVAR™ 07:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Nabla is simply a mathematical operator. Nabla 18:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

  Would you at least consider adding the ∇ to your sig? I think that would be an acceptable compromise.  ALKIVAR™ 00:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

• Requesting that someone adopt a peacock sig to gain your support seems really weird to me. Unfocused 21:57, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• I thank your warning and advice but my username has never been controversial (I've never read of NAMBLA before...), plus I like a plain sig and the symbol - ∇ - shows up as a plain square to me and probably others. Also the first thing you'll see on my user page is a ${\displaystyle \nabla }$. Anyway when/if such is needed I'll consider it. Nabla 02:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• Could You give some examples of articles You started? feydey 23:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I have only started a few articles, please follow the link at the answer to question 2 bellow. Other from those you can find there, I've started only a handful out of copyvio's or as short translations of Portuguese language articles. Nabla 00:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Being an admin is about (un)deleting and protecting pages, reverting vandalism and blocking vandals Right now I see myself as more useful helping on 'house cleaning' duties: closing AfD discussions, also at other *fD pages. Also to keep an occasional eye at New Pages and Recent Changes, although I spend more of my time there wikifying/copy editing than reverting or requesting speedy deletes that would be handy too. As to the rest only time will tell.

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

The expansions at Gerês and Pedro Nunes, because I had to learn more about something I like. The same goes for most of the few I still keep an eye on. Yet most of the times I add/remove something I keep it on my watchlist for a while, to check for reaction and then I let them go. This is a wiki, not much use in trying to keep track of everything I wrote.

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

Not really. On occasional differences of opinion I stated mine and tried to understand the other(s). In my opinion most edit/revert wars are a rather foolish waste of time and energy. They could be avoided if all involved kept cool, which is relatively easy to do in the 'net', if you wish to. Just do something else or log out - there's life beyond WP... -, and get back to it some time later - that's day(s), not hours - others will support your opinion, or not... If they don't... you don't have to force your's onto others. The future? Who knows about the future? I don't... still I don't see why, or how, I would change myself much.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Deryck Chan

Vote here (15/10/11) ending 15:12 October 7 (UTC)

Deryck Chan (talk · contribs) – Deryck has been with us actively since May of this year, first as Deryckchan, and presently as Deryck Chan. He has over 2600 edits between the two accounts, with edits spread out among the namespace. He is involved in editing and writing Hong Kong related articles and has contributed several FAs already. In addition, he has also helped me maintain WP:MIND. I feel that this is a worthy Wikipedian who deserves a mop and bucket. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 15:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept the nomination as a candidate for adminship. Deryck C. 15:46, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Guess I'll have to, eh? Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 15:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
2. Support CambridgeBayWeather 16:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
3. Sure, why not? SchmuckyTheCat 16:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
4. Support. Although I've only come across him via WP:MIND, rather than on articles, I've seen nothing that suggests to me he shouldn't be an admin. KeithD (talk) 16:49, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
5. Support. When I've come accross him, he seems to be level-headed and a good editor. Titoxd 17:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
6. Strong Support His help with me on Misplaced Pages:Barnstars on Misplaced Pages was above and beyond the call of duty. I'm going to vote for him 10 times, but you don't have to count the last 9. ;-) Karmafist 18:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
7. →Journalist >>talk<< 18:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
8. Bart133 (t) 22:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
9. Support - dedicated to the project. No reason in my mind that he wouldn't make a good admin. --Celestianpower 22:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
10. extreme support--Exir Kamalabadi 01:05, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
11. Strong support. He is very active and dedicated. --Microtony 1:32, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
12. Pcb21| Pete 19:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
13. Merovingian (t) (c) 05:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
14. Extreme Heterosexualist(sic) support. Did stupid things once in a while, but he has always proven himself humble enough to apologize and learn from them. Has shown himself willing to listen to people's concerns rather than behaving stubbornly, which IMHO should be the #1 criterion for adminship. Borisblue 04:34, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
15. Cooperative. Andre (talk) 03:09, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I just don't believe this person would be a good admin, from what I've seen. Private Butcher 18:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
2. Oppose The "Support Me" signature smacks of campaigning, which I find distateful. --Rogerd 07:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
   • Oppose. Might be willing to reconsider if user removes RfA link from his signature, and stops using transcluded templates as a signature- the preferences page explicitly warns not to do this, and it is an easy vandalism target. Ral315 W_S 20:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

     Moved to neutral.

3. Oppose I generally hate to do this but all this campaigning isn't a good use of judgment in my opinion, putting so much time in on WP:MIND when there's so many backlogs concerns me. I don't see much RC patrol/vandal fighting...I guess I'd like to see a broader particapation. Great energy and very positive though! Rx StrangeLove 23:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

   To Ral315, Kelly, Rob and all others who oppose my use of transcluding signatures: that signature was originally an idea of Omegatron and others who thought my HTML-Wikimarkup blended signature was too hasty to be seen in source codes. Now I've changed them to the raw code form and removed all campaigning text. Hope you'll reconsider your vote. Deryck C. 10:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

   Use a less colourful and less intricate signature if people are going to complain. There again, the code for your signature doesn't appear to be to bad; I've seen far longer. Rob Church 15:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

4. Oppose. I strongly dislike campaigning for adminship — an editor that has earned the trust of the community and edited enough for the Misplaced Pages community to be aware of him or her should be able to pass RfA without campaigning, and choosing to campaign when it should be unnecessary shows poor judgment (actually, it was the user's campaigning that brought me to this vote page). Additionally, the points brought up by the neutral and other opposing users give me further doubts about this request. —Lowellian (reply) 23:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

   Just little curiousity: Where did you find me campaigning? Deryck C. 16:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

   Originally, in the signature. Other voters here have pointed out other places. —Lowellian (reply) 19:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

5. Oppose still WAAAAAY too green in the political/user interaction aspect of the job of administrator. I dont know if this comes from his non-native use of the english language, or perhaps just inexperience, in either case I dont feel this is the appropriate time to promote him... perhaps in a few months.  ALKIVAR™ 07:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Oppose. I like your enthusiasm, but think it's a little too early. You seem to act before reading the guidelines on what you're doing, like with those FAC oppose votes that people have mentioned, and I think that campaigning for support votes this blatantly was another example of this. I understand that you don't repeat your mistakes once they're pointed out, and there's plenty in your favour - eg going out of your way to welcome new people - but I'd rather you spent a few more months on here before becoming an admin. CTOAGN 19:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
7. Oppose for reasons already stated. I don't oppose campaigning, but I don't like these complicated signatures. PedanticallySpeaking 17:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
8. Please refer to my comments on the user's talk page. JuntungWu 11:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
9. Oppose. I can't say it better than was said by Juntung. The user's talk page is also revealing with it's quid pro quo dialogue with another admin candidate. --hydnjo talk 18:17, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

   What should I do then? Refuse to answer him? Just because he's another RfA candidate and talking about the RfA? Deryck C. 17:07, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

"The best way to give thanks is, of course, to vote back on my RfA ^^" is, in my opinion, campaigning. You don't see it that way so I will give you the benefit of doubt and strike my comment. --hydnjo talk 18:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

1. Oppose I don't like the idea of campaigning. This isn't an election. Acetic' 08:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

• Neutral - until questions are answered. I would just not bother with voting yet but seeing as the nominated voted himself, we can be sure that he has seen the page. --Celestianpower 16:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

  Switch to support. --Celestianpower 22:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

  Thank you very much. Deryck C. 01:32, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

1. Neutral for now - I think he just needs a couple more months' seasoning and showing consistent cluefulness. I think his dedication to the project is obvious - David Gerard 16:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
2. Neutral - Difficult candidate to evaluate - most of the edits in the past 500 are all in the mind benders... which while neat doesn't help me evaluate at all. Also doesn't use edit summaries much. Ryan Norton 20:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

   A little reply: You may choose "(main)" in the namespace drop-down to evaluate my work on articles. That page can actually reflect my work to the[REDACTED] according to your criteria. Deryck C. 02:21, 1 October 2005 (UTC)`

3. Neutral - needs more variety on articles he edits. aOnly 528 distinct pages is not enough IMO. Once he gets up in that counter, I will be happy to support. ≈ jossi ≈ 20:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
4. Neutral for the time being. I can see the overwhelming effort made by Deryck, particularly in Hong Kong- and science-related articles, and he's indeed a gung-ho wikipedian. But sometimes this young man might be too reckless in communicating with other contributors (maybe he should mind his language every now and then). I'll wait and see, trying to make my vote later on. Good luck! ;-) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 10:20, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Neutral for now, would be happy to support in a few months barring further incidents. Ral315 W_S 13:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Oppose. I was trying to remember why I had such a negative impression of Deryck, and then it occured to me that it originated with this and similar FAC edits he made in June (which he mentions in his answer to question 3). Additionally, voting for yourself doesn't show an ideal understanding of process, and despite a massive amount of Misplaced Pages edits, the total is misleading since the majority of them are connected with Misplaced Pages:Mind Benders, and he rarely seems to enter the really contentious areas. His contributions to Misplaced Pages:FAC recently seem obsessed with pictures only, and he rarely uses edit summaries. His edits also indicated some difficulty with English, and although this isn't a reason in and of itself to oppose, it could pose problems as an admin. If this sounds harsh, I should offset it by saying that I believe he's a good editor, but that I just can't trust him with adminship at this point in time. I'm also curious as to an example of an article that he thinks was "protected unreasonably". --Scimitar 16:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

   First, about the voting-for-myself problem, I must say sorry, for it is quite impossible for me to understand an unwritten social custom before I get trapped by it. Second, a little reply for the "protected unreasonably" question. The article Kowloon Tong (MTR) was protected without any discussion or given reason from early June to September. Third, about the "no contentious edit" question. Rubidium hydroxide and Rubidium oxide are 2 examples of articles written completely by myself in terms of content. I understand the fact that I gave a really negative impression to you and no matter what I do you will not turn to support. What I'm doing with this reply is, simply, to clarify your concerns for other potential voters. Deryck C. 16:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

   Not that negative an impression. If I was so close-minded as to be unwilling to change my vote after reasoned discussion with a good editor, I wouldn't be much of an admin myself, would I? Would you be willing to commit to using edit summaries in future?--Scimitar 18:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

   Yes. May I ask a little question: Do I need to put an edit summary when I edit my own user page or use the "new section" button in talk pages? (In the latter you just can't have a summary). Deryck C. 01:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

   I have been using edit summaries a lot since I became an admin, because I committed to doing so during my adminship discussion. I haven't been consistently using summaries in my own user pages, however. When you use the new section button, the edit summary doubles as "Subject/headline" field, so it's hard to avoid giving a summary there. I have some javascript which forces me into using edit summaries except on my user pages - let me know if you'd like to try it. Lupin|talk|popups 15:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

   Scimitar, I think its bad form that you haul up Deryck Chan for his English. I see nothing wrong with his english, and I personally, can very well understand users who have rated themselves with "en-1" in commons:. Secondly, I think its a bit harsh to single Deryck for a single edit which happened in June. He was probably new to FAC then, he's learnt from his mistakes. I remember that edit very well, and let me assure you he hasn't repeated it in FAC ever since. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

   I'm afraid if I've come across harsher than I intended. The edit in June was the reason I remembered Deryck, and I merely noted his English, which is certainly passable, and I meant no offense by. Following Deryck's assurance that he'd use edit summaries, I've switched to neutral, as I don't feel strongly enough to oppose at this point. That said, I just don't know how Deryck would respond in potential conflicts, so I'm not confident enough to make this an outright support, either. I hope I've caused no offense.--Scimitar 14:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

   Thank you. Also thanks to God who showed you the truth about me. Deryck C. 16:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

7. Oppose. Use of transcluded signature is Major Bad Mojo. If editor replaces signature, will reconsider. Kelly Martin 20:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC) Editor has stopped transcluding signature; however, still have concerns about campaigning. Neutral. Kelly Martin 13:51, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
8. Neutral this time as per the reasons cited above, but mostly due to campaigning. Hall Monitor 19:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
9. Neutral. Only 31.5% of his edits are to articles; even if you add Talk pages in the article namespace, that only brings it up to 39%. The number of edits shows his dedication to Misplaced Pages, but it concerns me that he puts more effort into discussing policy than editing articles. Also, the number of distinct pages he's edited is currently only at 541 - considering the number of edits he's made to non-article pages, it seems like the number of actual Misplaced Pages articles he's touched is probably very low. - Brian Kendig 17:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
10. Oppose - transcluding signatures is a drain on the system. Campaigning in that signature is not good form. Voting for yourself is not good form, either. Rob Church 20:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

    I'd like to see him going and removing all instances of that damn transclusion everywhere to reduce the drain on the system further. However, I won't advise it because you'll bugger up the page caching and further drain the system. If possible, try to reduce any instances of this that you come across. Rob Church 15:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

    Hope you may clarify: any instances of what? Deryck C. 16:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

    I referred to instances of your template signature, which will still be lurking about the place. Vote changed to neutral, however, after a lot of reflection and consideration of the bigger picture. Rob Church 17:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

11. Neutral. Per reasons stated above. Would possibly support in a few months. Carbonite | Talk 13:10, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• In addition to WP:MIND, I'm also an ad-hoc administrator in WP:HKCOTW and WP:SCOTW. I also contribute massively to chemistry related articles besides Hong Kong related ones (see impurity and sexual reproduction, for example). Deryck C. 02:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
• I find it a little distasteful that his user page says: Deryck for Admin!!!! Go and support me at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Deryck Chan!!! Not "please have a look at what I've done and give your opinion of me," but "go and support me!"

  Thanks for your opinion. I will change the wordings as you find that distrateful. Just a little fact: I copied the approximate design from the notice when Essjay and Redwolf24 were on RfA and RfB. Deryck C. 16:20, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

  Wording changed from "Go and support me" to "Come and cast a vote". Deryck C. 16:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Deryck's last words in this RfA: The RfA is about to close now, and I'm not sure if I'll be promoted (60% support rate, certain distance lower than the 75% conventional margin). However, no matter what'll be the result, I'll try to serve the community as hard as I can in the future. If I succeed, I'll take all your opinions and try to improve myself in building relationships. If I fail, I'll take this as an experience and have maybe one or two months of work, and come back in a brand new face which will not offend anybody. I hope everybody enjoyed discussing about my RfA and... Relax now! Deryck C. 17:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

From the pillbox I inquire:

1.The answer to Q3 indicates you learned something (swell!) about how the project works from an incident. Do you really think it's to the projects advantage to let "the other side keep their edits" if it means possible POV or falsehoods in articles?

I am sure about that, because only if both sides have considerable points and arguments in a debate will neither side tend to give up. Therefore, to compare between accepting one side's opinions or keeping the debate fiercely unconcluded, the former should be preferred as this brings both reading conveniece to readers of the articles and peace to the editors. Deryck C. 17:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

2.How would you act, as an admin, to help defuse situations between other editors?

I'll point out some neutral facts about the issue and draw the dispute to concensus with the support of these facts. (Thanks Scimitar for pointing out these questions.) Deryck C. 17:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

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

A: I'll anticipate to help fighting vandalism. In addition, I will try to unprotect pages which have been protected unreasonably for a long time.

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

A: I think Sun Yat-sen is my most-pleased contribution to Misplaced Pages. 2 months ago, I spot a project from another user (Borisblue) ,who doesn't know Chinese, is hiring a Cantonese man to improve this biography. I volunteered, and eventually, the article was expanded, split into sections, given more and more contexts, and later on even exploded out a section into another separate article! Per the advice of the Boris, I put the article onto WP:PR and later WP:FAC. In the FAC, many objections were raised and a big number of improvements were made. Now, the article is a featured article which is going to appear on the Main Page on 8 October. This article pleased me so much because this is the FA which I put the most amound of time and efforts into. It really pleased me much.

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

A: It was in June when I first encountered an FAC of the article Hong Kong. As it was the first FAC that I did anything with, I simply didn't know the rules and made tens of people angry. Hereby, I apologize for all those faults I made 3 months ago, and hope those I've made angry in June can support me by observing the fact that I've personally successfully nominated 2 articles into FA which is a sign showing I understand the rules now. In the end, with the help of a certain number of helpful users who explained me with all those rules, I gradually learnt to observe the rules. These days, edit conflicts seldom reach me anymore, but in case it does, I'll convert wars on article namespace to debates on talk namespace and seek for concensus. If a concensus is really unreachable, I can give up my own opinions and let the other side keep their edits.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

NicholasTurnbull

Vote here (49/6/3) ending 14:47 07 Oct 2005 (UTC)

NicholasTurnbull (talk · contribs) – Nicholas first edited on Misplaced Pages in December 2004, and has been reasonably active in editing since June 2005. He impressed me with his general cluefulness and grasp of how the Misplaced Pages community ticks very early on. He works very well on a variety of articles, particularly WikiProject Scientology (he's an ex-member of the CoS and has been great value filling in articles on how the substance of the religion actually looks to a member). He's dealt with conflict admirably, having comported himself very well in ArbCom cases involving Ed Poor and AI. He's also a regular and a chanop on #wikipedia. His edit count is 719, which some here would consider low, but I think his edits are quality. And the most important thing is that he is extremely clueful and would handle the mop well and with good judgement. I said I'd nominate him after three months' active, so here you go ;-) David Gerard 14:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I am truly honoured, thank you, David. I most gratefully accept. --NicholasTurnbull 16:06, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Well, yeah! - David Gerard 14:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
2. Extreme pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcaniconiosic support! ... after 10 minutes of edit conflicts --Phroziac 14:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
3. Extreme Tom Cruise support! Ral315 W_S 15:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
4. Enthusiastic support! Kirill Lokshin 15:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
5. I doubt he will accept, but I would like to be on the record as supporting anyhow. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:45, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

   Well, how about that, he accepted. OK, then, I still support; his skill and willingness for dispute resolution and high quality contributions leave me convinced that he can be trusted with the tools. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:53, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

6. Support. It should also be noted that he's a contributing member of WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages, which gives few edits to show for very tedious work. -- Norvy (talk) 15:49, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
7. Strong support - Nicholas Turnbull has all the qualities needed to be a team player. He's more concerned with the editing, and with the quality of his edits, than arguing over what he edits/how he edits, etc. Off his own back, he revived the continuing-to-be-a-success Mediation Cabal, managed to avoid burning out on the AI arbcom case and the XAL situation with the Bogdanoff Affair. Nicholas contributes tirelessly and unceasingly to the good of the project as a whole; keeping an eye on the minutae, without losing sight of the bigger picture. I can't really do much more to convince the skeptics of his worthiness, and as I know he doesn't view adminship as a big deal, I know he isn't going to want me to say any more. Rob Church 00:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
8. Support CambridgeBayWeather 16:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
9. Support. I'm a bit iffy, what with suffering a minor case of editcountitis (don't worry, my edit count's about the same as Nick's), but I think in cases of extreme awesomitude we can thrust forth the mop and bucket a little early. Nicholas has made uniformly good contributions, is level-headed, and frankly sums up "extreme awesomitude" quite well. It's a rare contributor who gets sysopped with so few edits, but nobody said Nicholas was a dime a dozen ... --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 17:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
10. Support MONGO 17:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
11. Support Private Butcher 19:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
12. Support. →Journalist >>talk<< 19:06, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
13. Support, enthusiastically. Any user who feels compelled to help WP by establishing ways of communication and mediation will always have me by his/her side. Shauri Yes babe? 19:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
14. I tried to do this before, but Nicholas wouldn't let me. Oh well, here we go now. ] 20:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
15. FireFox 20:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
16. Support, overdue. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
17. Extreme Phroziac support! -- (☺drini♫|☎) 21:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
18. My concern is that Nicholas will burn out on the project and/or lose interest quickly, but, to tell the truth, I don't think that's a reason to be neutral or, heaven forbid, oppose. Nicholas has been keen to learn the policies, to work toward mediation when he finds conflict, and to improve the project. I see no negatives at all, and he keeps his cool and, when he gets frustrated (and we all do), doesn't lash out. An excellent candidate and a good egg. Geogre 22:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
19. Support. I first met Nichols on the #wikipedia IRC channel, where he is a channel op. He has an amazingly calm online presence and a superb ability to build consensus. Slow and steady wins the race, so I think he'd make a great admin and possibly a mediator as well. He's also man enough NOT to quit the project if his first nomination fails. FWIW, he's the one who convinced me to start listening to UninvitedCompany and to chill out more and respect consensus. We need more newcomers who can 'tame' us oldtimers. Uncle Ed 00:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
20. Support, I forgot to vote! meh, let me state he's a great guy, always nice, and nno good reason to oppose. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
21. I've already trusted Nicholas with a lot more than just adminship, so I can't in good conscience oppose here, now can I? Kim Bruning 02:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
22. Support. Remember that editcountitis can be fatal. Titoxd 04:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
23. Support – methinks he should also join the wikicricket cabal. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:43, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
24. Support. Say no to editcountitis. sɪzlæk 10:08, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
25. Support TINIRCC Alphax  10:55, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
26. Support - Guettarda 17:08, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
27. Pcb21| Pete 19:33, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
28. Support, very committed Wikipedian who will use the tools well. Bishonen | talk 19:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
29. Support, he is quite reasonable and it is easy to have a discussion with him. I fully support his adminship. I hope he keeps in mind that administration is a mop rather than special authority to command others. --Gmaxwell 20:38, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
30. 'Support seen around every now and then.... Ryan Norton 21:49, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
31. Merovingian (t) (c) 05:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
32. Support, with my edit number 6800. And, I am sure that he shall shine as an administrator. --Bhadani 15:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
33. Support. I'm glad to make my first edit to Misplaced Pages in several weeks this. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 16:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
34. Support. IceKarmaॐ 21:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Ummm... Ice, if you "really" want to help Nicholas, I recommend that you place this a few lines above this, like... in the "Support" space? Shauri! Yes babe? 23:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Oops! IceKarmaॐ 06:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
35. Support. This editcountitis is becoming a cancer. Ambi 07:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
36. Support. seems good on dispute resolution and that's a rarer skill than spellchecking. Offline editing is a good thing. Dlyons493 Talk 18:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
37. Support, good experiences with this user, and I think Kim's comment about editcounting hits the nail right on the head. Radiant_>|< 22:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
38. Support, I don't see the edit count as a problem. Friday (talk) 23:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
39. Since David vouches for the quality of his edits and prospects of becoming a good admin. El_C 23:43, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
40. Support --JAranda | yeah 23:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
41. Strong Support I met Nicholas first while investigating the Bogdanov Affair, and I must say, I was greatly impressed with his handling of the matter. No qualms at all; in fact, it's my honor. Bratsche 02:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
42. That's hot. Mike H (Talking is hot) 17:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
43. Cool. JuntungWu 11:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
44. Absofuckinglutely Snowspinner 16:04, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
45. Support. Andre (talk) 03:02, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
46. Support is there a pill you can take for editcountis? --Rogerd 03:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
47. Support good guy. Martin 08:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
48. Support It's taken me far longer than usual, because of the low edit count I felt it appropriate to investigate more of his edits than I do for candidates with a longer history. After my research, I can say I'm thoroughly satisfied that Nicholas Turnbull will be a very good admin. Unfocused 12:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
49. Support. Generally I do prefer to see 1000+ edits, just to be sure the candidate knows their way around. In this case, I trust the nominator and see no reaosn to penalize Nicholas for being a quick study. Carbonite | Talk 13:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. 700 edits and 233 articles is simply not enough, IMO. Give it some time, maybe a month or two? ≈ jossi ≈ 21:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

   Oppose. I tried nominating him once on IRC, and he said no. I also think he should wait a while. --WikiFanatic

2. Neutral. I am one of the ne'er-do-wells who believes that one of the requirements of adminship has to be extended participation and commitment to the project. Both to gather an understanding of the community's processes and expectations and to provide the community with a chance to get to know and understand the candidate. I have no firm threshold for edit counts, and tend to adjust my opinions based on the breadth of a candidates participation, the length of time with the project, and the balance of substantial vs. trivial edits. However, the editting record I have before me is really not what I would generally consider sufficient to meet my standards (and not helped by the fact 45% of your edits are marked as minor). The argument being made here, is that this deficiency should be offset by his other activities on Misplaced Pages's behalf (which are of course invisible to me, though I trust the descriptions offered), and because he is argued to be of an unusually good sort. I am not strongly moved by either of these arguments. To the first, while I am glad that he works on IRC and email meditiation, I don't really see adminship as a reward for hard work, and I'm not sure these things substitute for participation in the project itself. To the second, well if he is a good sort (and I have no reason to dispute that), then he would still be a good sort later on with more experience, right? And it would be easier for all to see. This comment reads like an oppose, and for the most part it is, but I am going to stick it in neutral for now while I take some more time to consider this. Dragons flight 21:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

   Oppose. With all due respect to Nicholas and his supporters, I just can't support the idea of making someone a janitor before they've shown they understand their way around the system. From my point of view, becoming an admin is not a reward for being a good guy (though that certainly helps), it's an acknowledgement that someone understands how the community works and is prepared to help clean up the messes that inevitably occur. Though I believe Nicholas would approach this with the best of intentions, I'm not prepared to promote everyone that comes here eager and with good intentions. Experience and breadth of participation are in some sense the easiest of all objections to overcome, and I see little harm in delaying this nom for a while. If this nom fails (which is far from obvious right now), I would still encourage Nicholas to keep up what he is doing and to be involved in the administrative areas of Misplaced Pages. I have faith you'll make important contributions either way. Dragons flight 06:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

3. Oppose uh, it shouldn't be too hard to make another 300 or so edits...  Grue  05:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Oppose for now while I strongly trust David Gerard's opinion here, I still think Nicholas is a tad too green for admin. Sorry Nick, maybe in a month or two.  ALKIVAR™ 07:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Oppose. I had at least twice as many edits on my first RFA candidacy and I was shot down for having too few. I don't see why this should be different. PedanticallySpeaking 17:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

   I suggest to the bureaucrats that this vote be discounted as sour grapes - David Gerard 23:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

   I suggest you let them do their job. If this had been phrased "too green" or somesuch there would be no problem.
   brenneman 03:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

6. A lost cause vote, but I do think that while he seems a strong future candidate, current lack of experience (and not just simple low edit count) should mean that adminship is in the future, and not yet. Filiocht | The kettle's on 08:01, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral until he gets off his lazy butt and answers the questions. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:29, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

1. Oppose. Neutral I have been considering this RfA all day now, and have finally reached my decision. Let me make this as clear as possible — I do not have any particular threshold for number of edits, nor do I have any amount of time necessary to become an admin. In addition, I beleive that NicholasTurnbull is a great editor and Wikipedian, and will make a great administrator. Also, I truly appreciate his efforts off the wiki in helping out Misplaced Pages. However, I truly feel that his amount of experience actually on Misplaced Pages during the past four months is insufficient for becoming an administrator. Perusing through his edits, there are many minor edits (45%, according to DragonsFlight) that involve copyediting; in addition, over 1/8 of his edits (97 of them) are to the user namespace. Also, there are few vandalism fighting edits — though I do see occasional groups of four or five edits reverting vandalism, I see no evidence that NicholasTurnbull has done extensive RC patrolling. In addition, the majority of the Misplaced Pages: namespace edits involve either RfA or the Mediation Cabal. This indicates, in my opinion, that NicholasTurnbull has not been completing admin tasks yet, and may not understand all of the Misplaced Pages principles. Combined with a relatively limited time on Misplaced Pages (just under four months) and an extremely limited number of edits, I feel that NicholasTurnbull is neither experienced enough nor ready for adminship. However, if this RfA doesn't pass, I will gladly support him in the future, as he has my full confidence. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 22:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

   You point out that he "has not been completing admin tasks yet." Considering that he's not an admin yet, I don't understand the concern. --Michael Snow 23:20, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

   After more consideration, I've moved my vote to neutral. What I meant by admin tasks was participation in Afd, RC patrol, etc. While I don't feel that participation in those activities are necessary to become a wonderful administrator (which I know Nicholas will become), I feel that in cases of candidates with a relatively modest number of edits, involvement in those activities is helpful. I don't think I should oppose him, since I feel that he is a great Wikipedian and will become a great administrator; I simply agree with Dragons Flight and feel that he needs more experience. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 14:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

   For whatever it's worth, I'd normally agree with Ficelloguy here. What matters to me most is time on project and number of interactions with jerks than specific number of edits, although it's hard to have such interactions without chalking up the edits, because being an admin is just a species of editor; it is the species that gets into disputes and closing junk and deleting things. I also look for a user's authorship of article edits as an important thing. It's just that Nicholas started off more aware of the dynamics than usual and has, in fact, been plunging himself into the worse interaction space we've got. He has been calm and reasonable thoughout. He has also been writing big chunks and getting few edits because of few revisions. I.e. there is a skew to this particular user that sets him apart from others with the same numbers that satisfied my own standards, anyway. Geogre 03:16, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

2. On the Support side of Neutral. He has done well in my personal experience, and he meets some (but not all) of my standards. --Maru (talk) 00:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
3. OK, I'll admit it. I have a mild case of editcountitis. However, I do believe that NicholasT would wield the mop and bucket well, but I'm not going to Support. Neutral. --WikiFanatic

Comments

• According to WP:KT (and if anyone cares), NicholasTurnbull has 742 total edits. Complete count here. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 14:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't start the editcountitis thing and oppose him soley for his editcount please. I should also mention that Nick makes a lot of big edits, as opposed to lots of smaller ones. So he's actually done more work then a lot of us. --Phroziac 14:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• His user page indicates he is on Wikibreak till October 1st. Maybe David noticed this and just couldn't wait the extra day? Dragons flight 16:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  • He posted to wikien-l, so I took that as a return :-) - David Gerard 16:06, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - I tried nominating him once on IRC, and he said no. I also think he should wait a while. Did you ask him why he said no? Nick didn't at the time feel ready for adminship; he wanted to wait until he was happy with it. I for one think this is a quality that all our admins ought to have; he clearly doesn't see adminship as a big deal, which of course it isn't. Rob Church 00:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Note for people with edit count criteria:

Nicholas apparently uses an offline editor. This is a Good Thing, for obvious reasons. More people should do it!

Unfortunately, however, offline editing skews a persons' edit-count figure quite dramatically, because much less edits are made online, logically.

Don't forget to take this into account! Otherwise in the long run we'd end up with offline editing becoming discouraged.

Kim Bruning 02:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

A. I would anticipate using my administrator privileges to assist the community however and whenever I can. I am, at present, maintainer of The Mediation Cabal, an informal mediation initiative; with adminship, I would able to protect pages and set user blocks where they are required in active disputes, which would greatly enhance my ability to stop POV wars, personal attacks etc. in the course of my position as mediator. In addition, enforcing Arbitration Committee rulings, dealing with vandals (via blocking, reverting, and page protection/unprotection), and closing deletion related matters (including AfDs, CfDs, speedy deletion etc.) would all be matters that I hope I would be able to serve the community in as an administrator.

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

A. Well, I would have to say that I am certainly particularly pleased with the recent redevelopment and maintenance of the Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal page that I have completed, as I am confident that informal mediation could potentially solve a great deal of conflict issues in a civil and polite fashion, reducing needless cases being brought to the Mediation Committee and the Arbitration Committee. In addition, I am pleased with the work I have completed under the auspices of the WikiProject Scientology initiative, as a neutral, accurate and well-researched series of articles on Scientology subjects is entirely unique to Misplaced Pages; also, I am pleased with my spoken recordings I have made of The Giver and Microwave radio relay as I feel that spoken recordings shall be the path to Misplaced Pages articles reaching some wider audiences that paper encyclopaedias have yet to reach. I am also pleased with the work I have done on drawing the map for Suburbs of Johannesburg.

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

A. I have dealt with quite a number of conflicts in my time on Misplaced Pages, and my current position on the Mediation Cabal revolves entirely around managing disputes and remaining clear-headed despite emotive responses from dispute participants. In particular, the most recent Bogdanov Affair matter was quite trying; despite rather vehement and attacking communications from the parties in the dispute, I attempted my very best to bring the matter to an amicable close - in the end, it was necessary to escalate the case to the arbcom. However, I remained polite, civil and pleasant to all concerned, and acted to try to minimise the scope of the dispute as possible. Another dispute that I was involved in was the User:AI case, involving this user's negative POV pushing on David S. Touretzky, to which I brought an arbitration case against this user, in conjunction with User:MarkSweep, and the committee has recently passed a series of bans against this user. Despite incivility from this user I maintained politeness and cordiality. I learn constantly from these disputes, and hope that through this learning I become constantly better able to assist the community as a mediator.

4. A survey of 126 adminship nominations over more than 2 months found that no successful candidates had under 1000 contributions (though only 2 applied) and a less than 50% success rate for those under 2000 contributions. Please explain why you should be the exception rather than the rule when it comes to judging the amount of experience necessary to prepare one for adminship? Dragons flight 16:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I have long been an advocate of judging administrator candidates on the basis of the work that they have completed, rather than comparing the quantity of edits that they have produced to other candidates; it is my view that edit counts only give a partial view of an adminship candidate, and that the abilities demonstrated by a candidate - moreover, the demeanour, nature and intent of the individual in going about his or her work - should take precedence over numerical edit counting. In other words, experience in my view should be measured by what the person is able to do, and the knowledge that they demonstrate in what they do. It is, of course, up to the community to decide whether or not I possess the relevant experience to become an administrator, but I hope that my work in the field of mediation, and in participation in editing elsewhere, demonstrates that I am knowledgeable in Misplaced Pages processes and procedures. In addition, I strive to help the community as best I can through mediation, and it should be noted that a large amount of my mediation-related work takes place outside of the wiki itself in the form of e-mail and IRC correspondence with parties involved in disputes, which I hope demonstrates good intent in the process as well. I hope this answers your question, thank you :) --NicholasTurnbull 16:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

OwenX

Vote here (44/4/0) ending 01:52 October 7, 2005 (UTC) (UTC)

OwenX (talk · contribs) – OwenX is a great guy that he contributes all around Misplaced Pages. I often see him doing RC patrol, he's an active member in a few WikiProjects, and he has great community involvement. kate's tool has him at ~1800 edits (for those of you who care about editcountis), and his first contrib was in December of 04. He uses edit summaries an overwhelming majority of the time, and has plenty of[REDACTED] namespace edits. -Greg Asche (talk) 01:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept. Thank you for the nomination. Owen× ☎ 02:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Support, as nominator. -Greg Asche (talk) 01:54, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
2. Extreme Phroziac support! -- (☺drini♫|☎) 01:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
3. Support - Even tells me the time when he'll be on RC patrol to help out! --HappyCamper 02:46, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
4. Support. →Journalist >>talk<< 02:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
5. Most certainly. -- Essjay · Talk 03:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
6. Support. Friday (talk) 03:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
7. Support CambridgeBayWeather 04:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
8. Support, good editor. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
9. Support, although the low number of edits given the amount of time he's been here is a little surprising. But I really liked his answer to the question about conflict resolution. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

   Thank you. Yes, I haven't been very active until July. The vast majority my edits are from the last three months. Owen× ☎ 12:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

10. Support, a few contacts, always positive. rvv'd my user page with a rollback-like edit summary, tricking me into thinking he already was one. — brighterorange (talk) 14:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

    He probably has one of the fake rollback scripts. --Phroziac 18:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

    I wish...Sam's script doesn't work on my machine, for some reason. I use the standard text for the benefit of those using Derk's tool (myself included). CDVF automatically adds vandals reverted with this specific string to its temporary "blacklist". Owen× ☎ 19:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

11. Extreme pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcaniconiosic support! --Phroziac 18:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
12. Support; I see him on RC patrol; he does a great job of it and could benefit from the extra buttons. Everything looks good to me. Antandrus (talk) 19:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
13. Support great RC work, and NPOV AfD contribs. Only request that you review WP:CIVIL due to a few edit summaries like get with the program, buddy!. It's not an issue, per say, just some could find it offensive and become very defensive before they even look at your reasons or comments. Other than that, full support. ∞Who?¿? 19:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
14. Support: OwenX would make a great administrator. I was impressed on how he weighed in on the Synergy/DE Afd debate. On this issue, a particular user working as a marketing rep for a technology company was posting POV articles about her company and then refused to cooporate with other editors on creating an unbiased article. In a letter to the user's talk page, OwenX clearly explained the implications of that article and how it can be rewritten in a form that is acceptable to Wikipedian standards. His actions in this matter have given me confidence that he'll play a fair and consistant role in protecting Misplaced Pages from commercial exploitation. Solarusdude 20:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
15. Fire 20:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
16. -Splash 20:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
17. Support - ≈ jossi ≈ 21:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
18. Support - Pasboudin 22:29, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
19. Solid user. Andre (talk) 03:54, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
20. Support - 1800 edits is plenty enough to confirm that an editor is serious about improving Misplaced Pages. -- BD2412 05:18, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: I sadly disagree... while one may be serious about editing, this low level of editing does not show enough about user interaction and temperment. This user has yet to have any serious conflict... so what if they do after they've been given admin powers? Makes the situation much easier to just bitchslap someone you disagree with.  ALKIVAR™ 06:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
21. Support KHM03 14:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
22. Support. Great job on the RC patrol. Robert 16:55, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
23. Support. 1800 edits is good enough for me. --WikiFanatic
24. EXTREME DEATH TO EDITCOUNTITIS SUPPORT!! Ryan Norton 21:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
25. Support, damn editcountitis. Ral315 W_S 00:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
26. Merovingian (t) (c) 05:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
27. Furry Alien Support the above comment about his use of a specific string to add to the temporary "blacklist" impressed me more than his answers to the standard questions. Alf 22:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
28. Support. Huhum, definitely. --Sn0wflake 02:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
29. Support Joke137 15:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
30. Support have come across him several times and always found him accurate and helpful. Dlyons493 Talk 17:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
31. Support. El_C 23:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
32. Support Got me on the right track. Seems very helpful and nice.--Guitarist6987876 04:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
33. Support in hopes of a editcountitis vaccine. And because he'll be a good admin. Bratsche 21:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
34. Support --JAranda | yeah 23:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
35. Support Seems to be knowledgeable and active. -- Curps 01:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
36. Support This is a rational person with an interest in the smooth functioning of Misplaced Pages: exactly what is needed in an admin. Chick Bowen 03:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
37. Cool. JuntungWu 11:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
38. Support, although I've had no personal interaction with Owen, by his edits he strikes me as a good person and a valuable editor. Shauri smile! 14:14, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
39. Support. For all the good reasons cited above. I love the consistent use of edit summaries in every namespace, as they are an easy courtesy to provide for those still on dialup and those who don't want to load every single page to get a feel for what's changed. Unfocused 00:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I definitely don't like the banner ad he's placed at the top of his talk page to draw attention to his ongoing RFA, even though it is phrased very neutrally. Even though it's not blatant electioneering, it still seems like poor judgement to me. Unfocused 16:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Banner ad removed. I'll admit, I'm probably pickier than most on things like that, but thank you for your consideration. Unfocused 17:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
40. Support. A fine editor and plenty 'nuff of them. --hydnjo talk 03:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
41. Support is there a pill you can take for editcountis? --Rogerd 03:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
42. Keep this article... Erm, I meant support! --Andylkl 15:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
43. Support. Carbonite | Talk 13:14, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
44. Deryck C. 16:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. OwenX appears to be a friendly person, from what I can observe, but 1800 edits is just too green for me. I will gladly support him in the future once he has more experience should this first nomination fail. Silensor 16:54, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

   1800? Are you kidding? --Phroziac 18:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

2. Oppose, been here for a long time, but only 1800 edits, that's way too little for being on[REDACTED] so long. I have over 1000 and I've been here for a few months. Maybe if they worked harder, in a few months I'd actually support. Private Butcher 19:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

   Note Durin's comment below: He's made approximately 1700 edits in the last 90 days. Just because a user has been registered for 9 months doesn't mean they've been editing at the same level of activity for that whole time. Ral315 W_S 00:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

3. Oppose sadly not enough of an edit history yet to show user interaction conflicts, how will this person react to an in their face assholish vandal? or an ignorant newbie who trashes their "pet article"? Needs more time and more edits IMO.  ALKIVAR™ 06:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Oppose. Too few edits, never have encountered this user. PedanticallySpeaking 17:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

• Neutral. Good person and good editor he is, I must say, but 2000 edits in 9 months is simply too few. Will reconsider if the nominee provides reason for that scarce editing frequency. Deryck C. 15:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC) switched to support.

Comments

• A chart showing this user's edits along with a total # of edits line and average edits per day line is available here: Image:OwenX-Edits.png. I offer this not as a more refined version of editcountitis, but as just one tool to help evaluate an admin nominee with a somewhat low edit count on Misplaced Pages. --Durin 14:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Average edits per day over last 90 days is 19 per day. Use of edit summaries is 96%, 100% over last 500 edits. 93% of user's edits are over the last 90 days. --Durin 14:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Note. I would support, but have an active RfA and don't want to make it look odd. --Lord Voldemort 16:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  • No rule against voting on other RfA's while a candidate in your own - if you're inclined to support, then by all means you should. -- BD2412 05:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

• Additional question I would like to point out for the candidate:
  1. According to the edit count engine, you made only about 2000 edits in 9 months, which is a rather scarce number. Is there a reason for you to edit so scarcely? Or did you take a long wikibreak? If yes, from when to when?
  2. Also with reference to your current scarce editing frequency. Are you going to and by what rate are you going to increase your editing frequency in case you become a sysop?

     A. (to both quoestions) As I mentioned in my reply to Angr above, and as Durin was kind enough to demonstrate in his two comments and the chart he prepared, I wasn't very active until July, when I started taking on maintenance and administrative work on WP. About 1800 of my 1900 edits are from the last three months, for an average rate of 600+ edits a month—in line with other active editors/admins, as far as I can tell. Family, work, and social obligations permitting, I expect to maintain this level of contribution as an admin. Owen× ☎ 18:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

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

A. RC patrols would certainly be easier with a Rollback button, and the ability to Vprotect pages and block vandals when needed could come in handy. It will be nice to delete clear-cut Speedy articles rather than load the category. I would also help in trimming down the ever-growing AfD backlog.

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

A. I didn't write any major articles, but have a handful of smaller ones about various topics from Beer to Israeli companies. Most of my work are small edits: correcting factual errors, improving style or grammar, adding redirects, sorting categories, etc.

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

A.I have been in a few edit conflicts, but nothing to get stressed about. In one case it was with an editor who was trying to promote a Futures trading system. I was trying to reach a consensus with him on a more general wording, but he chose to create a fork--a set of articles with his own version of things. I haven't seen him for a while here, but I joined a couple of editors working on merging his articles into the mainstream. In two other separate cases (Ethnic cleansing and Diaspora), an editor with an extreme POV was trying to use the article as their soapbox. Along with other regulars, we tried to find a common ground, but in both cases the editor dropped the issue. In one case (Tragedy of the commons) I reverted what I thought was an arbitrary blanking, only to face a rude editor who insisted on getting his way. I figured the change wasn't worth fighting over, and backed off. I wouldn't have done things any differently as an admin; if it's a conflict to which I am a side, I'd involve another admin and let them use their judgment. Generally, I would rather win someone over than defeat them.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Kwamikagami

Final (36/9/5) ended 22:47 5 October, 2005 (UTC)

Kwamikagami (talk · contribs) – Kwami has been working hard on Misplaced Pages for over a year. He is extremely well-versed in linguistics and has used his knowledge on some extremely useful projects; for example, he's produced fully referenced guides to the pronunciation of the names of astronomical bodies. More importantly, he's a thoroughly decent and very amenable chap. The Singing Badger 20:30, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. kwami 23:40, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. The Singing Badger 20:34, 28 September 2005 (UTC), as nominator.
2. Support Astrotrain 21:20, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
3. Support, enough edits, and has been here for a long time. Private Butcher 21:26, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
4. Support. Kwamikagami is a great editor, and thoroughly deserves adminship. ] 21:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
5. support - good phonetics, phonology, extra. – ishwar  (speak) 23:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
6. Neutrality 00:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
7. I find the lack of wikipedia-space edits refreshing. --Tony Sidaway 00:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
8. Yes, please. Lupin|talk|popups 00:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
9. Support better 4 sensible edits than 40 just for the sake of an edit count. CambridgeBayWeather 01:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
10. Support Wile E. Heresiarch 01:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
11. Concur with Tony Sidaway. With regards to the statement Hoary pointed out, I trust you understand that, as an admin, you can't delete the Khoisan language article simply because you want to. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 06:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

    Yes, of course. In this case I doubt there would be more than a couple people who would vote, so I would contact the original author and anyone who had ever edited the article. kwami 07:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

12. Weak support. Curiously few Misplaced Pages namespace edits. — JIP | Talk 10:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
13. Support - concur with Tony. --Celestianpower 17:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
14. Weak support. I'm not sure about the « lack of Misplaced Pages namespace edits »; by that argument I would probably not have obtained my own adminship. I get the feeling his heart and mind are in the right places, though. Urhixidur 00:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
15. support, what the hell, opposers, here is somebody who is into assuring that there is something to protect on Misplaced Pages, and doesn't spend all his time bitching on WP: pages, writes great articles without stirring up one dispute that would force him to WP: space, what more do you want? You can get a million WP: edits by adding useless comments to every entry on WP:AN or WP:VP, what's the merit in that? Baad 01:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC) (I'm dab in a surreal mood, sue me)
16. support, Kwami's contributions are notedly diligent and conscientious, and in my experience he has many times demonstrated an innate respect for consensus and fairness, and an ability to get on with other editors- all needed qualities for an admin. That these qualities have come through without recourse to WP namespace edits, is actually a plus as far as I'm concerned.--cjllw | TALK 01:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
17. Support. Sure. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
18. Support - has done excellent and much-needed work. - Mustafaa 20:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
19. Yes, but more Misplaced Pages edits needed. FireFox 20:29, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
20. support: adminship is not useful exclusively for the Misplaced Pages namespace. 24ip | lolol 23:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
21. Support. A long history of good edits and helpful participation on talk pages says far more about ability to be an admin than a few hundred one-line grunts on AfD. Even if a lack of experience with Misplaced Pages-space pages proves to be a problem, any mistakes made can easily be fixed with the right attitude; and Kwamikagami definitely has that. --Aquillion 03:54, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
22. Remember folks, even those that don't waste time in the WP: namespace can make effective use of adminship. Pcb21| Pete 19:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
23. Support, for our constructive collaboration on IPA-related articles.  Denelson83  21:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
24. Support (insert comment here) Ryan Norton 21:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
25. Support, and damn the editcountitis. Just because a user may not utilize the AFD pages, etc. doesn't mean that he doesn't need the rollback tool. Ral315 W_S 23:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
26. Merovingian (t) (c) 05:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
27. Support. He has contributed a lot to language articles and he seems to know his stuff. :-) --Chris S. 05:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
28. Support Could probably use the extra buttons. Good luck! Hamster Sandwich 06:19, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
29. Support —Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 12:10, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
30. Support Seems clear to me that he would be a good admin - just hope we don't lose an excellent editor in the process. Dlyons493 Talk 12:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
31. Support. I don't think a lack of edits in the Misplaced Pages-namespace disqualifies; to the contrary, I think it is refreshing to have admins who focus on contributing quality stuff (we shouldn't forget that that is one of the best ways to resolve disputes and dissolve vandalism). I'm sure Kwami will put his powers to good use. — mark ✎ 21:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
32. Support. El_C 23:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
33. Support. I couldn't care less that he doesn't have many WP edits, he's a solid, good editor, and will be of help to Misplaced Pages. WP edits are dead, God save articlespace. --Blackcap | talk 03:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
34. Support. I have seen plenty of activity on various talkpages, so I don't think lack of experience in interacting with others in the Misplaced Pages namespace is a big problem. Has done plenty of excellent work, so I support. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
35. Support. The purpose of Misplaced Pages is to create an encyclopedia, and only the main namespace directly serves that end. I agree that it is important for an administrator to demonstrate a wide spectrum of interaction, from Kawamikagami's talk page edits we see a greatever involvement than article gnoming. We need administrators from all parts of the spectrum of positive interaction, not everyone has to be a wikipolitican editing primarily outside of the main namespace. --Gmaxwell 18:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
36. Cool. JuntungWu 11:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose, While this user is not a bad user. Actually a very good editor, there just aren't enough Misplaced Pages space edits. Only 5. Jobe6 21:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

   UGH My reason for oppose is not based on editcountitis. It's based on with only 5 WP space edits you can only have so much experience from that. I mean its about is he familiar with policy etc. Also i vote oppose as a benefit for Kwami becasue with Sysop powers he might be distracted from writing great articles. I would not want to lower the quality of his writing just so he could have poweres that might not even be needed. Jobe6 02:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

2. Oppose. Its only 4 if you minus the acception on this page. Type O Spud 00:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

   — Actually, it was 5 before I edited this page. Not that that makes a lot of difference. kwami 00:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

3. Oppose without prejudice - Lack of wiki namespace edits makes me question this editors familiarity with policy and procedure — I will be happy to reconsider later. Fawcett5 01:50, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
   • Oppose till user sets an email id. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

   Done. I checked the protection box when I first set up my account a year ago (I thought I was just keeping my address hidden) and never gave it another thought. kwami 05:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

4. Oppose, I'm not much for editcountitis but his presence in Wikispace is practically nil. But keep up the good work! Radiant_>|< 11:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
5. Oppose for the reasons given above. Jonathunder 17:12, 29 September 2005 (UTC
6. Per Jobe6. CryptoDerk 16:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
7. Oppose - As per above. Do some work on AfDs, join some WP discussions. Show us that you care not only for good articles (as you certainly do) but for WP as a project as well, and I will support. ≈ jossi ≈ 21:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
8. Oppose - needs to participate in Misplaced Pages namespace (Unsigned vote by User:Rogerd)
   • Regarding the few WP namespace edits: I'd like to point to m:Namespace shift and this conversation. --Blackcap | talk 21:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
9. Oppose for reasons already stated. PedanticallySpeaking 17:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral — Consistently good editor, but only 5 Misplaced Pages namespace edits. →Journalist >>talk<< 21:57, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
2. Neutral - Great editor but almost no involvement in[REDACTED] namespace. Get involved in AfDs, RC patrol and the Village Pump and then I will be happy to support. ≈ jossi ≈ 00:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
3. Neutral I keep seeing his great edits all over[REDACTED] but 5 edits in[REDACTED] namespace is very little. --JAranda | yeah 00:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
4. Neutral I agree. I'm always happy to see his contributions to language and linguistics articles, but a lot more experience in the Misplaced Pages space (voting on what to delete and what to keep, giving opinions on policy matters, etc.) is really necessary before one can become an admin. (oops, I forgot to sign! --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:54, 30 September 2005 (UTC))
5. Neutral per lack of edits in WP namespace. I find it curious that some people seem to think that the things that make a good editor are the same things that make a good admin. I don't see at all that this is true. Someone could be a brilliant writer who makes great articles, but this doesn't tell us anything about what kind of admin they'd made. Friday (talk) 14:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
   • I feel the same; but in the same vein, I don't think voting in an RFA brings out admin qualities. IMO judment, neutrality and civility comes before all. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
   • I disagree. Sure, there are lots of rules and policies to learn, but as long as a potental admin has a basic familarity with Misplaced Pages itself, they can easily pick them up as they go along. The important thing is to ensure that they're capable of admitting their own mistakes, talking things through, and won't go off the handle as soon as someone tells them they're wrong. If an admin candidate has those qualities, then any initial problems they cause while learning the ropes can easily be smoothed over. --Aquillion 15:28, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Neutral for now, sorry. I appreciate the answers to my tiresome questions below, Kwamigami is clearly a fine editor and probably fine "admin material" and his low percentage of WP-namespace edits may indeed be a sign of a healthy set of priorities (as well as being necessary to let him do good work in articles), but the very low number of these edits is worrisome. I'd like him to spend a little more time where tempers flare and participants aren't all as mature as readers and cowriters of linguistics articles are likely to be, and to see how he does there. I don't want to oppose, as I've a hunch he'd do well, but I can't (yet) support, either. -- Hoary 03:28, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• You write below: I've revamped the Khoisan language articles, which were in a pretty bad state; as admin I would delete several of them. I don't wish to argue about the quality of the articles, but find this puzzling. Could you elaborate on the last part, please? For example, do you mean that despite your efforts some of these articles are still poor and show little or no promise of ever improving, and that you'll delete them once you're given the ability to do so? -- Hoary 06:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Sorry, the wording was rather vague. A separate article had been created for every Khoisan language listed in Ethnologue 14. Problem is, a couple of these "languages" don't exist. (Even Ethnologue pulled some of them for the 15th edition.) Others are alternate or regional names, or dialects without any information available other than a name and location, which could be listed under 'dialects' in the main language articles. They were like having an article named 'Nemetskiy language' (nemetskiy is the Russian word for 'German'), with the sole content being 'An Indo-European language of Europe'. Not even worth keeping as a redirect, since it could always be found with a text search. kwami 06:56, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Surely there is some (perhaps small) case for arguing that every article about a language listed (even erroneously) in a recent edition of a well- (perhaps overly-) respected source should live on at least as a redirect, if only because some people might conceivably want to look it up and some others might re-create it if it were deleted. But all right -- let's imagine something less controversial: that some well-meaning thirteen-year-old creates Swiss language in order to put forward his essay on A Unified Swiss Language -- on how Switzerland would benefit if all its citizens agreed "simply" (!) to use the single language of English (or Latin, or Romansch, or whatever). I think you and I would agree that this is not encyclopedic (to put it mildly). If you as an administrator came across such an article, what would you do with it? (Sorry to be a bit of a bore, but I think this is important.) -- Hoary 09:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, if the author wanted to keep Vasekela Bushman language as a redirect, after I pointed out that entering 'Vasekela' in the 'Go' box would turn up both articles but go directly to neither, I wouldn't argue about it.

As for the essay, it would make a good redirect to 'Swiss German'. But let's suppose the title weren't useful for a redirect. It doesn't qualify for speedy deletion. (I assume it doesn't give a name, date, assignment number, and homeroom teacher!) I would need to verify that it is not an edit, say, of an article on Swiss German or some such that could be restored, and didn't have contributions from other people. I would then tag it for deletion with {{subst:afd}} for 5 days or so. I would contact the author, even if there's only an IP address. In practice, this article could be on a subject I know nothing about, and since it's unlikely to have links from other articles, I would add a notice on the talk pages of, say, Switzerland, Swiss German, etc. if I wasn't getting any votes. If the only response I got was from the 13-year-old kid, who insisted that his article was a valuable contribution, then I'd ask another admin to mediate so that it wouldn't look like I was picking on him. I'd have to ask around, but I think it would be proper protocol for me to ask another admin to actually delete, since I'm the one who nominated the article in the first place. kwami 22:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Umm, while I'm reluctant to turn this into a quibble about linguistic nomenclature, I think that a redirect from "Swiss language" to "Swiss German" would not be a good idea, because (among other reasons) Romansh is as Swiss as Swiss German is. But I'm happy with what you say you'd do if you thought "Swiss language" was superfluous even as a redirect. Thank you. Hoary 03:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe a bit POV, but I would assume that someone who enters 'Swiss language' is looking for Swiss German. A disambig page is probably better. kwami 05:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

• I hear you're a good editor. Could I have a look at your best article? I would like to know if you know how you present your work, if it up to WP standards. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think I'm such a good editor, compared to a lot of the people out there, so it's hard to decide on a "best article". People seemed to like Middle Bronze Age alphabets; one editor said he should give me an award for it. (But then I think he forgot!) Another on a similar subject is Alphabet#Types. A lot of my edits are factual corrections or updates without much prose, like List of Khoisan languages. I like the Esperanto articles mentioned below, but they're a bit heavy on the jargon right now. I did, however, revise the main Esperanto article substantially, and edited it again for jargon after someone complained that it was inaccessible. That edit seemed to satisfy them ('Thank-you Kwami. The entry now reads much better; It is more "user-friendly", and so clear and simple that even I can understand it :-). Chris R, UK'). I've made some substantial edits to Chu shogi that I think make it read much better. I've pretty much taken over List of the most spoken native languages. That's been a lot of busy work, mostly. It's still unreliable, since we simply don't have good sources to go on, but it now agrees with Ethnologue 15, except for revisions documented on the Talk page, sometimes with considerable debate (like Persian). (I had tried defining the languages according to mutual intelligibility, and got a lot of flac for it - rightly, I now believe, so we've reverted to going by speaker identification, which brings in its own problems.) A fun article is Inclusive we, and I also like Gari Ledyard's theory on the origins of Hangul, which someone moved to Gari Ledyard. — kwami 22:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Pretty good, I'd suggest you work those articles up to WP:FAC, WP:FLC standards. I'd prefer to abstain from voting though. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

A. Primarily reverting (vandalism, obvious POV - a revert button would be really nice there!) and dispute resolution (where I am qualified). I would be hesitant to block anyone, at least at first.

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

A. What's pleased me most is when I've come to a page in the middle of an edit or POV war, rewritten the problematic section (or sometimes the whole article), and had it accepted by both sides without comment, with no further edits except for links or spelling corrections. I also pretty much wrote the Esperanto grammar, phonology, orthography, and vocabulary articles. That was a lot of work, and although I think they still need to be edited for accessibility (technical jargon), I'm pleased with them and how well they've been accepted. I've revamped the Khoisan language articles, which were in a pretty bad state; as admin I would delete several of them.

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

A. Of course. As for stress, that was mostly limited to early on when I wasn't sure of myself, or who these people were that I was debating with. I've generally tried to be civil, though sometimes when I was tired I've slipped up. Calling in a third party or putting disputes up for vote works pretty well when we really can't agree, but often just waiting till the next day clears things up. Either tempers cool, or sleeping on it allows me to see compromises I hadn't seen before. One of the things that stressed me early on was debating an admin, so as an admin I'd be careful not to be intimidating to newbies.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Lord Voldemort

Vote here (38/15/11) ending 21:13 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Lord Voldemort (talk · contribs) – Lord Voldemort has spread his Dark Mark far and wide, with what I would consider great value. He has done admirable work NPOVing the unNPOVable (George W. Bush, for example), and substantial vandal work on that same article, and many others. He has started the promising WP:JEFTA, which is a great idea, and has been doing stub-wikifi-grunt work for quite a while. While his tenure at our encyclopedia is short when compared to geezers like Who, I feel that he has demonstrated the temperament and maturity to wield the mop.

Kate's tool has him at 2360, with an admirable balance across all of the wikispaces except for Category talk. Tisk tisk! Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:13, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I most humbly accept. Although it is late in the day, and I must save the questions for tomorrow. Please forgive me. I'll get on them first thing. --Lord Voldemort 21:33, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Support - who steals the nominators spot while the nominator is away notifying the nominated? Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:30, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

   Sorry. My eagerness to support him got the better of me. --Celestianpower 21:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

2. Support - all my encounters with him have been excellent but my main reason is he edited my user page. I admire that. Plus, my standards are met. Will make a great admin. --Celestianpower 21:28, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
3. Support. Redwolf24 (talk) 22:13, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
4. Support, I see him revert vandalism and do great work at George W. Bush all the time, and he seems like a great contributor. -Greg Asche (talk) 22:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
5. Support. Voldy is a trustworthy character, ironically, with plenty of good experience a good attitude and active in areas where admin tools would be useful. Dmcdevit·t 23:26, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
6. Support I really don't understand why JETFA is being held against him. Acetic' 00:57, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
7. Support Everyone else has said it all, really.--inks 03:44, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
8. Support FireFox 16:36, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
9. Support Just edit the freakin' article I say :). I'm willing the candidate the benifit of the doubt when comes to the personal attack reform, as most of them seem to be from over two months ago. Ryan Norton 16:52, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
10. Support - Trevor MacInnis(Talk | Contribs) 17:36, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
11. Support - I've seen nothing but good contributions, and he is clearly committed to the goal of creating an encyclopaedia of the highest quality. (Further comments in the comments section). Thryduulf 21:09, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
12. Support Private Butcher 21:23, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
13. Support Great user useful in vfd --JAranda | yeah 00:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
14. Yes, please. I'm happy to take the candidate's word that the personal attacks are over. Lupin|talk|popups 00:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
15. Support Banes 06:50, 29 September 2005 (UTC) I echo Thryduulf.
16. Support, those personal attacks aren't nice but they're several months ago and he has been a worthwhile user other than that incident. Radiant_>|< 11:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
17. Support Johann Wolfgang 19:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
18. Support the oppose reasons are ridiculous.  Grue  19:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
19. Support. The personal attacks, while regrettable, are far enough in the past for me, and having been involved in the Gabrielsimon incident(s), I have seen how that particular editor can bring out the worst in people, including myself. I admire the Dark Lord's work on George W. Bush and AfD. I think he can be trusted with the mop. android79 20:05, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
20. Support byegones be bygones. Alf 07:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
21. Strong Support even though he killed Harry Potter's parents :-)--Exir Kamalabadi 07:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
22. Support. The personal attacks are indeed worrying but it appears to me that Voldemort was learning to get to grips with how the community works and I trust him not to do it again (I'm assuming that there were no personal attacks after those quoted by fvw). I see no other reasons to oppose (JETFA echoes my own concerns). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 10:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
23. Support - I'm familiar with Lord Voldemort as a helpful contributor at WP:FPC and have no objections. Comment: I was prompted to come and see this rfa after stumbling across what I considered to be an unfair request on a user talk page for an oppose vote here. Having read the lot, as well as several more user talk pages, I think the way LV has responded to all of this demonstrates commendable maturity and restraint ~ Veledan • Talk 20:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
24. Support --Cool Cat 22:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
25. support: no reason to oppose. as far as I know, adminship does not bring with it a "make personal attack or immature page button." 24ip | lolol 22:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
26. Support.→Journalist >>talk<< 03:29, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
27. Support. Notable objections have been raised, but what I have seen of this editor has left me with a favorable impression. I believe that Lord Voldemort can safely be entrusted with admin powers. --Canderson7 18:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
28. Support, SqueakBox 23:14, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
29. Support, the personal attacks don't add up to much, and his contributions are undisputed. Sam Spade 11:02, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
30. Support. From his namespace span, I can see that he's dedicated at both article-writing and relationship-building. Can see that he will become a good admin. Deryck C. 15:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
31. Support. I'm willing to trust LV. Everyone deserves a chance, especially after an apollogy for previous mistakes has been offered. Shauri Yes babe? 20:43, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
32. Support, if he continues his personal attacks, he can always be desysoped, and Shauri's trust is a good reason.--Wiglaf 21:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
33. Support. Your choice of username does not inspire trust, but as a kid I used to assemble plastic models of the Wolfman and if that's good enough for a Top Gun pilot's call sign ... anyway, if you block someone wrongly, the rest of us can always unblock them, so: best wishes! Uncle Ed 22:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
34. Support. El_C 23:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
35. Support. -JCarriker 05:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
36. Support. also, I think that there's anything wrong with your name. It's a character from Harry Potter!!! --Kewp (t) 16:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
37. Support - if you pay attention to the annoucement board, you might see why me supporting his nomination might be significant (goes to make annoucement)Gimmiet 17:41, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
38. Support- meets my standards. The personal attacks, while worrying, seem far enough in the past we don't have to worry. --Maru (talk) 18:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Note: The following three votes of support were posted past the ending time.

1. Support from neutral based on intelligent, earnest, good faith confrontation of issues against. Right "disposition" proved to my mind. Marskell 22:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Support - if one is actively trying to look for poor editing behaviour, one will most certainly find it. The opposite holds true too - this user is willing to learn and mature, and this makes all the difference. --HappyCamper 00:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
3. STRONG SUPPORT or that lesbian crap. lol. He claims to be evil!!! I like it! Just playing : ) Molotov (talk) 05:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose JETFA is a perfect example of the immaturity that seems to be creeping into Misplaced Pages. I am increasingly seeing users make offensive comments when voting, and editing in general. In addition to the "extreme" votes, other users have been voting neutral just for the sake of voting with ridiculous comments ("Neutral until candidate answers the question" or "Neutral I have not interacted with this user"). I see JETFA as inextricably tied to this voting pattern. freestylefrappe 21:39, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

   I am sorry you feel that way, freestylefrappe. The reason I vote neutral on some nominations without responses is that I feel every admin candidate should make the effort to answer some standard questions; these questions serve as a rudimentary guideline for voters. If a candidate does not answer the questions by the end of the voting period, I feel that the person should not be sysoped. I only vote neutral, though, when it seems like the candidate already has garnered a large number of support votes, or if I have almost certainly made up my mind on my vote (such as this case, for example). Now, would you mind kindly telling us if you have any specific objections to User:Lord Voldemort besides your objections to WP:JETFA? Thanks very much for your understanding. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 21:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

2. Strong Oppose I agree, JETFA is an extremely immature sort of diversion. While User:Lord Voldemort has some strengths as an editor, his weaknesses are such that I do not believe he is fit for adminship. Add to this his history of personal attacks and he is not a good candidate. Agriculture 23:08, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

   I agree JETFA isn't presented in the most mature way, but it is a noble cause that I agree with, I don't see why a bad choice of title for his wikiproject should be held against him. -Greg Asche (talk) 02:00, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

   Look at his history of personal attacks... Agriculture 04:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

   Perhaps, as a gesture of goodwill, he might be prepared to change the title of WP:JETFA. Though the personal attacks would still be worrying. Ann Heneghan 11:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

3. Oppose - Although he has done good work on George W. Bush and other articles, this user has a history of personal attacks. Rhobite 00:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

   Lord Voldemort gave a sincere apology for the incident I'm referring to. I'm not changing my vote right now, but I thought I should mention that he regrets making the personal attacks and has apologized. Rhobite 19:18, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

   Is there a diff for the apology? Ann Heneghan 22:26, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

4. Oppose, making personal attacks, and then when someone removed those attacks attacking that person is not indicative of the right disposition for adminship. --fvw* 04:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
5. Oppose: The personal attacks violate Misplaced Pages norms for civility and are not indicative of a potential administrator--at least not right now. Sunray 05:38, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
6. Oppose. Although admins are no more than regular contributors with a few extra buttons, they are often seen as representatives of Misplaced Pages, especially by new people. Because of this I cannot support someone who resorts to abuse rather than entering into a dialogue when he has a problem with a fellow Wikipedian. Also, although I believe it was created with good intentions, JETFA is, in my opinion, unhelpful. Rje 10:42, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

   Oppose because of the personal attacks. — JIP | Talk 17:49, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

7. Oppose based on the above comments, lack of time, and low edit count.  ALKIVAR™ 07:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
8. Oppose for the same reasons as Alkivar. Jonathunder 17:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
9. Weak oppose the difs shown above and other discussion of personal attacks don't look good. I'd be willing to support in a few months. Broken S 03:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
10. Weak oppose. There is some reason for concern so I sugges waiting a few more months just to make sure. Sasquatcht|c 04:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
11. Oppose - let's just wait a bit on this one to see how things develop re. the propensity for personal attacks. Fawcett5 12:51, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
12. Oppose as per above --Rogerd 05:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
13. Oppose. Administrators have to have a certain disposition. Regardless of whether he apologized for the personal attacks in question, I expect an admin candidate to have never made them at all. May support in a few months, but not now. Ral315 W_S 20:21, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Never made is an enormous bar to set. We're not voting on Christ. Marskell 22:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
14. Weeeak oppose, I'm slightly concerned about some of the user's behavior. --Merovingian (t) (c) 05:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
15. Oppose. PedanticallySpeaking 17:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Note: The following three votes of oppose were posted past the ending time.

1. Oppose pro temps. Don't recall having interacted with this user, but this seemed close enough to merit peering at a few links. Am concerned enough by several of the issues raised to prefer to wait a while longer, especially given the relatively short time here anyway. But seems willing (and able) to learn from his mistakes, so I'd be inclined to support at said later occasion, if that indeed continues to prove the case. Alai 05:12, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Oppose No This shows very poor judgement. It's easy to apologise for something after the fact, but good judgement comes in not calling someone a Homo in the first place. I'm sorry, but the apology should have come way before this nomination. You certainly have the forgivness you ask for but I think the extra buttons should wait a while longer. Rx StrangeLove 06:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Oppose Calling someone a "homo" is not acceptable behavior. Xoloz 12:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral until questions are answered (see above) Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 21:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC) Still neutral. While Lord Voldemort is a great editor, I'm voting neutral because of the personal attacks (combined with a relatively short time on Misplaced Pages). Because I do see that you have apologised with sincerity and have not engaged in personal attacks since, I would gladly support you in a month or two. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 20:02, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
2. Moved vote to neutral because Lord Voldemort apologised for the personal attacks. I'm not familiar with him enough to change my vote to support yet. — JIP | Talk 18:36, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
3. Hmm. This is a hard one for me. I'm not holding the issue with Gabrielsimon and Rhobite against him; he's a good contributor (accumulating more edits in a week than I get in a month, I think); and I've interacted with him on several occasions. However, I really think he needs to stick around a little longer. Three to four months really isn't long enough. Try again in another three to four months and I'll definitely support. Hermione1980 22:52, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
4. Neutral not familiar with him and concerned somewhat by the perosnal attacks reported. ≈ jossi ≈ 00:05, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
5. Neutral. To support. I followed some of the links and it should be noted personal attacks occurred on the user's own user page. Now, this doesn't fundamentally absolve the person of attacks but I do believe in leeway on your own page. Has he launched attacks on other talk pages? I'm neutral for this reason. I don't particularly like JETFP or whatever it is, but it isn't a vote-changer. Marskell 00:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
6. Neutral I think that Lord Voldemort has reformed (although this doesn't make sense) of the personal attacks. Evidence pointing to this are things like his apology, and involvement with projects such as Esperanza. However, I am not positive, and JEFTA really doesn't seem necessary, since editing the articles is the whole point of Misplaced Pages. Give one more month on Misplaced Pages with some good, strong editing, and I will support. Bratsche 02:56, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
7. Neutral Lord makes good edits and will be a decent admin when the time is right...see you in a month or two.--MONGO 05:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
8. Neutral solely for time. Personal attacks on user pages are nasty, but they're not exactly a sign of how a person is going to interact with others. As for JETFA, am I the only one who gets it? There is an implicit criticism of those people who chalk up 1,000 edits by not editing, but rather in tagging. The idea is, "the same energy you used to tag it could have fixed it." It's a "sofixit" that reminds us that tagging it ain't fixing it. That, to me, is a gentle chiding and a very encouraging thing. To me, that looks like someone trying to make us less tagged and more fixed, which is a cause of celebration. Still, the time is too short at this point, and the interactions are still too few. Geogre 01:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
9. Neutral for now, but the kid's basically pretty good. Take the gentle comments in this RFA on board, come back in a month or two and I'll probably support - David Gerard 13:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
10. Neutral for the time being based upon the reasons expressed by others. Hall Monitor 22:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
11. Neutral. WP:JETFA is childish and the user has a history of personal attacks. But he is experienced. I'll remain neutral.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 15:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
12. Neutral as per Gerard, Geogre, Jossi, MONGO

. Hamster Sandwich 02:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC) #Neutral until my question is answered. --Maru (talk) 17:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• Average edits per day at 21. Use of edit summaries at 63%, last 500 edits at 74%. --Durin 21:42, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Last 500 article edits: 92.8% edit summaries. Only 36 times did I not use one, and 26 of those times I marked it minor, so it's not much of a worry. Just thought I'd point that out. --Lord Voldemort 15:13, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• I hadn't heard of JETFA before, but regardless, Voldy is a trustworthy character with plenty of good experience a good attitude and active in areas where admin tools would be useful. Is that right that he's only been here since July though? Dmcdevit·t 21:51, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • First edit as registered user was June 9, 2005. --Durin 21:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Er, I meant to say June. It just seemed to me like he'd been here longer and that's why I brought it up. Also just because I thought there might be some prior account (some of the first edits were vandal reversions and VFD). That was probably gving the wrong impression asking that and not supporting, which was what I was planning on anyway. I have no arbitrary time requirement. Dmcdevit·t 23:26, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
      • I had been lurking for quite some time, and thought I should finally get involved, and allow my voice to be heard. And I think the edit summary thing is fairly misleading. Normally, I do not leave an edit summary when using talk pages. Is that a requirement? Look at my use of summaries on actual article edits. I try to always use one. Thanks.--Lord Voldemort 13:59, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Use of edit summaries in non-talk pages is 70%, last 500 non-talk pages at 88%. --Durin 17:51, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
          • Whoops, I was only counting the article namespace. Thanks for the info Durin. --Lord Voldemort 17:55, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
            • I understand your comments regarding talk page summaries. Others have voiced similar opinions elsewhere. This caused me to modify my template that does the calculations to also show me edit summary percentages for non-talk articles. I imagine someone will convince me at some point to add in a measure for non-talk, non-self user page edits. But, I think the point is that edit summaries are important, regardless of where you are editing. "Would I vandalize my own page?" might seem like a reasonable response to that, but I don't think it is. For example, a doppelganger account could be used to make the edit to your user page. Possible doppelgangers for you are "Lord Voldamort", "Lord VOldamort" "Lord Voldenort", "Lord Volbemort" and more. The human eye, when scanning, does not always recognize these as doppelgangers. So, the edit might go ignored if all we went by was whether it was the user editing their own user page. That's why it's important to have edit summaries even on edits to your own user page. For talk pages, I feel it is important as well because vandalism can and does happen on talk pages. The vast majority of vandalism that occurs on[REDACTED] is done without the use of edit summaries. By encouraging people to use edit summaries for legitimate edits, we raise the bar that vandals have to jump over in order to attempt to get a vandalizing edit past the watchful eyes of RC patrol. Thus, using edit summaries for every edit, even edits marked as minor, makes Misplaced Pages a better place. --Durin 18:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
              • Point taken. Will try harder from now on. --Lord Voldemort 18:19, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment – How many Harry Potter fans are opposing The Dark Lord's" RFA? ;) =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:44, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Okay, JETFA. I don't know how this is any less mature than WP:DICK. I would be more than willing to change them name, or even disband the project entirely. I was just sick and tired of very good, capable editors tagging something with {{wikify}} or {{cleanup}} and then leaving. If you know how to tag an article, chances are you probably know how to wikify it. The backlogs to some of those categories are enormous. Every WP:COTW for the rest of the year could be Wikification, and there would still be more to do. We should try and encourage people to fix the article rather than tag them. I don't really know what else to say about it. Like I said, if it is causing problems, it would be fine to disband it. The last thing I want on WP is more conflicts. And I wish people would hear me out before they had voted oppose. Cheers. --Lord Voldemort 13:59, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

  "Don't Be A Dick" was originally a euphemisation of "Don't Be A Fuckhead". Perhaps take the "fucking" out of the title and you'll get most of your point across to more people - David Gerard 13:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

  Also, Don't be a dick is about users who are not being nice. JEFTA is about users who are being nice by tagging articles and now, according to JEFTA, are being lazy because they don't cleanup every thing they come across. The concept is a good idea, to encourage people to make more in-depth edits, but to exhort them to edit the "fucking" (whatever) article is counterproductive. --Kewp 04:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Note the user has a history of personal attacks and is claiming to have "reformed". As the user has only been with Misplaced Pages since June, I don't see how there has been any possible real demonstration of such reformation. I suggest the candidate reapply in six months given the history of violating Misplaced Pages's rules to give time for an evaluation of the honesty of said users reformation. At the moment, I don't see how anyone in good conscience can vote support for the candidate. Agriculture 14:22, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I just want to say that I don't have a "history of personal attacks". I do have "personal attacks in my history." I admit my faults and don't try to deny anything. And reading your edits Agri, you too have a history of personal attacks. Just thought I'd defend myself here. --Lord Voldemort 14:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
    • It might be pertinent to note that Agri isn't running for adminship; you are. Borisblue 17:25, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
      • I know, I understand that. But don't you think that there is enough hypocrisy in the world? Him calling the kettle black hardly gives him the right to speak authoritatively on the subject of personal attacks. --Lord Voldemort 17:28, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• I have more authority on the subject of personal attacks because I on occasion use them. Am I wrong to do so? Hell yes. But I know it when I see it because I occasionally make use of them. I do it because Misplaced Pages is broken, too many trolls, and WAY too many trolls with admin positions. Is this the pot calling the kettle black? Hell no, because I'm not up for adminship, and when and if I am, I'll oppose my own nomination. Agriculture 00:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • • • • A user who is not an admin can certainly make a comment regarding personal attacks of an admin nominee and have it not be hypocrisy. We have no requirement that a person who is not an admin not vote, in fact quite the opposite. User:Agriculture may have no interest in being an admin. For all we know, the person may think they are not qualified. That doesn't stop them from having an opinion on what would qualify or disqualify a person from being an admin, nor does their own behavior automatically make their comments have less standing. --Durin 17:59, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
          • Yes, I understand all of that. All I am saying is that everyone should try and follow WP policy, not just those who wish to be admins. --Lord Voldemort 18:03, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
        • He's no angel, but we hold admins to higher standards of behavior. Borisblue 17:33, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
          • I know. Except for that one little incident, I think I have handled myself in a very amicable, personable way. Since then I have done nothing wrong to anyone. I have tried to be one of the friendliest, most level-headed editors around here. I am sorry if I have done something wrong. Thank you for your comments. --Lord Voldemort 17:41, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • It's not Hypocritical because I'd never accept a nomination myself. If I were nominated, I'd oppose my own adminship and laugh my ass off at whoever nominated me. As an admin I'd abuse the heck out of my powers, which is why I wouldn't make a good candidate. IMHO we have plenty of dead beat admins, or admins who engage in personal attacks already, without time to observe your supposed reformation, I cannot and will not support you. Admins are held to a higher standard and the last thing we want is *another* admin who abuses their privelages and launches in campaigns of personal attacks. Agriculture 00:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• By the way, Agriculture, your comment does in fact violate WP:BEANS. --Celestianpower 18:22, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, he made a few personal attacks, but he has appologised for them and demonstrated the sincerity of his appology. So what if the excellent WP:JETFA project (that I'm about to join, having just become aware of it) is titled with a little bit of colourful language. WP:NOT censored, so why should the Misplaced Pages: namespace be? Thryduulf 21:09, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I also was under the impression that JETFA was a play on the commonly used internet acronym RTFA. I don't think voldemort should be blamed for the vulgarity of the name. Still, I am undecided about his other edits as of yet. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 13:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• What's up with User:Łóŗď Vòļđèmøřť?--Tabor 07:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • There is one deleted edit on the user page, that reads: "PLEASE DELETE THIS USER... I accidently created this account while trying to fix my signature... I'm not too sure what I was thinking. --Lord Voldemort 15:38, 12 July 2005 (UTC)". The page was deleted by Flcelloguy with the comment "Delete per user wishes"). 11:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
• A few people have commented on his username. While I don't personally care that the character he's chosen is a murderer, I wonder if there are trademark issues associated with using a character's name verbatim, rather than some sort of variant on the original name. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 14:38, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I too had wondered about trademark or copyright issues, but an admin (Redwolf) said that it was fine, so I just forgot about it. --Lord Voldemort 14:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Give up the tit-for-tat justifications, come back in a month or two, and I'll reconsider. Plus really think about a name change (hint: try Voldy). Remember, this is not about you but what you can do for the project with wider powers. Uncle Ed 19:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have clarified, that was what I was thinking at the time. Not currently. Thanks for your concern though. --Lord Voldemort 19:20, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Due to the amount of animosity perceived regarding JETFA, I have made a push to disband it. I do not want this to change anyone's votes, rather, I feel it is a necessary action. Please see my comments further at the JETFA page. I'm sorry to anyone who felt offended. Thank you. --Lord Voldemort 16:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Question: While you meet most of my standards obviously, I haven't found any gleaning of your political stances; to wit, where do you stand on Free speech/licenses/Free software an' such like issues? --Maru (talk) 17:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Answered here.

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

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

Of course everyone wants a rollback button, and there was a point where I was just getting so fed up with vandalism and the time it took to revert, that I just wanted to give it all up. I would be more than willing to help clean up some of those backlogs which are in awful conditions right now. I anticipate closing AfDs (seems to be a chore some sysops won't do). I think I have shown a willingness to help people. I know I have had some problems, but I'll deal with that below.

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

I am not sure there is one particular article I like, maybe Air America Radio. I think my body of work, including the many welcomes I have given out are what I am most proud of. I actually like doing some of the grunt work, and am proud of that too.

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

Okay, and it comes to this. I am not ashamed of my past. I am, however, sorry. My past shows that I had an issue with Gabrielsimon. We were working it all out when Rhobite jumped in. I admit the attacks were childish and immature, however, the remarks about Rhobite (obnoxious, etc.) were what he had called me. Why should he be allowed to get away with it. An admin had said those things, so I figured that would be okay. But I admit I was wrong. Me and Gabe (Gavin) now have a fine relationship. There is an old saying "forgive and forget." I hope all the people opposing me because of my past discretions can do that. Since then, I feel I have shown myself as a level-headed, reasonable editor. Perhaps my thoughts here would help explain myself. Not everyone is perfect all the time. I think an editor that actually wants forgiveness should be allowed it. In the future I just won't let people get under my skin. I was quick to react in the past, but now understanding the scope of this project, think before I act. I wish the people that oppose me would have waited for my answer before they voted. Oh well, I'm doing the best I can do now.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Durin

Final (61/0/0) ended 22:17 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Durin (talk · contribs) – What isn't there to like about Durin? He's an RC Patroller... always uses edit summaries... friendly guy... he's gone out of his way to make edit graphs for RfA nominees (also thanks to him I found out I once made 470 edits in one day), he's been here since March of 05, so a fair 7 months time, and he has over 4000 edits (though I had to count them the long way as Kate took down her counter) He's a great guy, always doing his part to improve the wiki, showing he's willing to do dirty work, and I think he's proved that he can handle the tools. Redwolf24 (talk) 22:17, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I humbly accept. And here my wife was expecting me home...now she'll have to wait while I answer the questions :-) Minor comment; I've actually had contact with Misplaced Pages since July of 2004, and became a registered user in March of 2005. --Durin 23:28, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Redwolf24 ruined my marriage! Redwolf24 (talk) 23:32, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Red, u a male or female? :) =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:19, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. 101% Support. Redwolf24 (talk) 22:17, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
2. Support Ryan Norton 22:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
3. Support - go, Durin, go. Now I could recite the old cliché but I won't for the timebeing. --Celestianpower 22:20, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
4. Support (Could someone please explain how the hell the "lesbian" meme got started?) Does good work. ~~ N (t/c) 22:22, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
5. Support. And yeah, what's up with the "extreme lesbian support" votes of recent? A lot of users seem to be using that mantra now. Titoxd 22:27, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
6. Support, good user. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:42, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
7. Support KHM03 23:42, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
8. Support —mmm... thought Durin was one. →Journalist >>talk<<
9. Support. Andre (talk) 00:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
10. Support. Kirill Lokshin 01:23, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
11. Support BTW i hate pedophiles. Jobe6 02:02, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
12. Support should make a good admin. Alf 06:21, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
13. Support CambridgeBayWeather 09:40, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
14. Support; good RC patroller and the answers given below are very thorough. Rje 10:57, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
15. Extreme fake lesbian intended to stimulate heterosexual males support! I just wanted to say that somewhere. — JIP | Talk 11:23, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
16. El_C 11:51, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
17. Support =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
18. Support. A solid editor and a vigilant copyvio hunter. Owen× ☎ 15:32, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
19. Support Mairi 16:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
20. Support. Thunderbrand 17:49, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
21. Support, I thought he already.. you know. DDerby(talk) 19:10, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
22. Support Private Butcher 19:17, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
23. Support I think we all know Durin knows what makes a good editor and what makes a good admin. In fact, he knows it in more quantifiable detail than anyone else. Support, if only for making me daydream for a couple of days about making some kind of machine-learning algorithm to predict which RFAs will pass and which will fail. Support even more for talking about the importance of edit summaries. Jdavidb 20:05, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
24. Support — see below. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 20:45, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
25. Support - Guettarda 21:23, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
26. Support, good work with the RfA graphs, me likey them. feydey 21:49, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
27. Support. Friday (talk) 21:53, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
28. Support. Very strong contributor. I especially love his graphs. I think he will make a fine admin judging by his work on RC. Johntex\ 23:11, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
29. Support. Absolutely. Jaxl | talk 23:26, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
30. Support. An asset to the community and an extraordinary person. Shauri Yes babe? 23:44, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
31. Support Another good pick by Redwolf24. Acetic' 00:51, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
32. Support Ann Heneghan 11:04, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
33. Yep. I would support a candidate like this 92% of the time; 99% over the last 30 days. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
34. And here goes my edit number 6400 to Support Durin: for Durin’s contributions, as also assertion on the user page “I am neither a deletionist nor an inclusionist”. --Bhadani 15:03, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
35. Support Everything that I've seen of Durin around Misplaced Pages is excellent. Bratsche 20:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
36. Support Astrotrain 21:24, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
37. Extreme Atheist Support! Meets my standards. You'll do well with the mop and bucket. :-) --WikiFanatic
38. Support. Good to see him on RC patrol. He gets the job done. ≈ jossi ≈ 00:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
39. Support. I've crossed his path while doing RC patrol, too. Always efficient and accurate. Definite Admin material. >: Roby Wayne 03:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
40. Support--Cyberjunkie | Talk 06:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
41. Extreme male lesbian support (I'm male, and I like women). Durin has shown a willingness to take on maintenance tasks. --Deathphoenix 14:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
42. Support Johann Wolfgang 19:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
43. Support Good choice. Good luck! Hamster Sandwich 21:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
44. Sup No reason to do otherwise. Tintin 23:50, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
45. Extreme Phroziac support! -- (☺drini♫|☎) 02:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
46. Me too! Me too! -- Essjay · Talk 03:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
47. Support. --RobertG ♬ talk 05:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
48. Support Proto t c 12:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
49. Support, of course. Shimgray | talk | 14:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
50. Support.—encephalon 18:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
51. 99% Support I'll borrow Redwolf24s extra 1% from that vote to make it an even 100% . ∞Who?¿? 18:53, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
52. Support. -Splash 20:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
53. This list is so long :P FireFox 20:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
54. Support. I've found Durin's contributions to be well-reasoned and helpful. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
55. Support, this person would make a terrific admin. Hall Monitor 22:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
56. Support Good janitor--Rogerd 05:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
57. Support excellent editor --Saluyot 14:21, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
58. Support Have come across him often and always found him trustworthy. Dlyons493 Talk 21:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
59. Even More Extreme Lesbian Support Even though i'm not a lesbian, or a woman for that matter ;-) Durin's Chart is insanely cool. Karmafist 00:16, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
60. Yay, I'm number 60! --Merovingian (t) (c) 05:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
61. Support - and I am at 61. --MissingLinks 08:03, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

• Durin, You'll need to provide an email id before I support. :) =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

  :-) I had the e-mail id in there, just had the "Disable e-mail from other users" box checked. --Durin 13:27, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

  Thanks for enabling it. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I was just thinking of nominating him myself. I would have a strong support, but in the interest of fairness, I'm voting neutral until he accepts and answers the questions. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 22:26, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
   • This user is evidently so good he doesn't even need to answer the questions!!! LOL!! Ryan Norton 23:07, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

   • Very funny :-) Personally, I'd like to see all RfA voters hold their votes until an admin nominee has a chance to answer the questions. C'est la vie :-) --Durin 23:28, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

   Vote changed to support. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 20:45, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• For those of you who want the figures I often give on other nominations for the purposes of my own nomination; as a registered user, I've used edit summaries 85% of the time. In the last 500 edits, it's been 98.8% of the time. As a registered user, I've averaged 22 edits per day, 31.5 for contributing days. I don't do charts for nominees over 2,000 edits (I have >4,000) so I'm not doing one for myself unless someone really wants one. --Durin 23:46, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

A. I have a particular interest in helping Misplaced Pages with copyright violations. I've placed a very large number of articles in copyvio status. When I look at Special:Newpages, I work from the bottom up. In so doing, I tend to find the copyright violations that others skip over while tagging for speedy, or tagging for AfD (though I catch a number of those too). I'd like to work on the backlog of copyright violations in articles. Similarly, the recent change in policy regarding {{nosource}} images has left a huge backlog of more than 10,000 images that need to be retagged or deleted (see Category:Images_with_unknown_source). That is a huge backlog that needs a lot of work. Also, while I enjoy fostering new users (examples 1, 2) I would not be afraid to use blocking capabilities where appropriate, but would probably tend towards shorter blocks than average for an admin. I think it is important to foster new users along; even if they are vandals they can sometimes be brought along to be great editors (example 3).

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

A. There are a few things of which I am especially pleased:

• I've made substantial contributions in United States Navy related articles. In particular within that set of articles, I've been working on de-stubbing articles on the entire Spruance class of destroyers. Gathering that information has been time intensive, but I feel such work as that is necessary for a complete encyclopedia article. This was an important class of destroyers during the Cold War and it's been very neglected.
• While doing work on stub-sorting, I became aware of the absence of a stub that covered horseracing. My initial estimates of the helpfulness of such a stub did not stun anybody into accepting the new stub :-) So, I created a subpage to generate data on a notional stub to cover the topic. You can see the result of that effort here. That work resulted in the creation of {{horseracing-stub}} which now has more than 280 articles.
• Working arduously over a span of many days, I managed to reduce the {{sport-stub}} category by several hundred articles. I now have a list (maintained outside of Misplaced Pages) by which I can rapidly compare what articles I have checked in that category vs. what articles are currently in the category to quickly identify articles that I need to review for stub sorting.
• As most users who frequent WP:RFA are aware, I've been doing edit count analysis charts for those admin nominees with less than 2,000 edits. I just received two negative comments about that effort today (and I hope my explanations ease concerns with those two users), but I've received many rave reviews of the effort, including a barnstar for graphic design (4). I was also invited to consider contributing to Misplaced Pages Quarto as a result (5). My main point in doing the charts is to bring some fairness to the process for nominees with less than 2,000 edits. In observing the discussion in the RfAs where I've done charts, I'm noticing a trend of people discussing points raised or refuted by the charts; I think this is beneficial to Misplaced Pages.
• Others reviewing this RfA might want to have a look at User:Durin/Contributions and User:Durin/AfD-RfD-CfD-TfD.

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

A. I've never been in an edit war; such an effort is fruitless. I have been in debates on various points and feel I have handled it appropriately. For example, I had a debate about fair use with User:DreamGuy (see discussion). Another example of a debate I had was regarding the Gordon Springs, Georgia article (see discussion). In both cases, and indeed in all cases where I feel there is disagreement, I'm willing to either not make a change or leave the decision to someone else who can view the facts of the matter from above the trees, as it were. As I note on my User:Durin/Conflict management subpage, editing Misplaced Pages isn't life or death; a hug from my daughter is far more important to me than whether or not a decision on Misplaced Pages goes the way I think it should. I'm a firm believer in eventualism and not having control of my edits once I click the "Save page" button on articles. For every user on Misplaced Pages, there's another viewpoint.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Requests for bureaucratship

Bureaucrats are administrators with the additional ability to make other users admins or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here. They can also change the user name of any other user. The process for bureaucrats is similar to that for adminship above, but is generally by request only. The expectation for bureaucratship is higher than for admin, in terms of numbers of votes, ability to engage voters and candidates, and significant disqualifications. Candidates might consider initiating a discussion here of the prevailing consensus about the need for additional bureaucrats before nominating themselves.

Bureaucrats are expected to determine consensus in difficult cases and be ready to explain their decisions. Vote sections and boilerplate questions for candidates can be inserted using {{subst:Misplaced Pages:Requests for bureaucratship/Candidate questions}}. New bureaucrats and failed nominations are recorded at Misplaced Pages:Recently created bureaucrats.

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

Related requests

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

If this page doesn't update properly, either clear your cache or click here to purge the server's cache.

1. Candidates were restricted to editors with an extended confirmed account following the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I § Proposal 25: Require nominees to be extended confirmed.
2. Voting was restricted to editors with an extended confirmed account following the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I § Proposal 14: Suffrage requirements.
3. The community determined this in a May 2019 RfC.
4. Historically, there has not been the same obligation on supporters to explain their reasons for supporting (assumed to be "per nom" or a confirmation that the candidate is regarded as fully qualified) as there has been on opposers.
5. Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 17: Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions and Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Designated RfA monitors

• Successful requests for adminship
• Unsuccessful requests for adminship
• Misplaced Pages requests
• Misplaced Pages administrators