Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:58, 15 December 2006

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 for adminship

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

grika

Final (5/13/6); Ended 22:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

grika (talk · contribs) ? I am approaching my 2 year anniversary of contributing to Misplaced Pages. In addition to article creation, copy editing, wikilinking, etc., I have have contributed in the following:

• Punctuation patrol
• Dab patrol
• Vandalism patrol
• New article VfD patrol
• Double redirect patrol

I have also:

• Joined the discussion on a number of contentious topics, mostly religion related.
• Contributed to a number of articles before they became featured, most notably Cat.
• Actively wrote articles to "fix" red links.
• Converted a number of articles from the Jewish Encyclopedia of 1904.
• Received an Anti-vandalism barnstar

Grika 22:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I obviously accept my nomination.

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Misplaced Pages backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: One area I want to help with is article security (locking/unlocking). I also plan to continue to regularly perform Vandalism patrol and New article VfD patrol among others and to explore different patrols and other improvement categories I have yet to experience.

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

A: Creating the Pinewood derby article ? because no discussion of scouting is complete without it. Editing the Navy Reserve article ? because of the time I spent researching the history. Editing the Private library article ? because I took an article that was VfD'd and turned it into a good article. I'm also pleased with my contributions under the WikiProject Minnesota and my converting of articles from the Jewish Encyclopedia.

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 only real conflict I've been directly effected by concerns a number of language pronunciation articles I started. When the first one was recommended for conversion to a phonological article, I stated my opinion that articles should be written or at least have versions aimed at non-scientists. When everything language related includes examples employing IPA, it makes the articles less approachable by the general user. As the other pronunciation articles entered similar discussions, I simply added my voice after other users recommended keeping the articles for essentially that same reason stated above. And when the proponents for simplicity lost the debate, I added my article as a pronunciation guide to the respective language learning wikibook.

Optional questions from Malber (talk · contribs)

4. What do the policy of WP:IAR and the essay WP:SNOW mean to you and how would you apply them?

A: IAR certainly embodies the mantra of "edit boldly." And indeed, I agree that users should not feel stymied when contributing as one of the expectations of the community in general and admins specifically, is to monitor submissions and act according to the rules of Misplaced Pages.

As for SNOW, it seems that it would be difficult if not impossible to expect that kind of foresight, as many of what I call superusers are passionate about their particular genre. I do feel that I understand the idea of SNOW and have backed out of, or tried to mitigate overly passionate discussions anticipating the potential result.

5. Is there ever a case where a punitive block should be applied?

A: Of course there are many reasons to impose a block, but the idea of "punitive" seems almost retributive. At some point all you can hope to do ethically, is to control abuses without impinging on people's freedoms.

6. What would your thought process be to determine that a business article should be deleted using CSD:G11?

A: I have been involved with a number of articles that intrinsically or by proxy, involve specific companies. In most cases, there is a clear differentiation between describing a company and its importance to the topic of the article or the industry in which it operates and using said description as advertising. Furthermore, the most blatant misuse is usually in the External links section of the article in question, thus the article itself is not necessarily at fault but simply requires redirection.

General comments

• See grika's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

Discussion

Support

1. Moral Support Excellent mainspace editor, has done good fwork for the encyclopedia. Please continue editing. Canadian-Bacon 04:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

   The 'f' isn't even next to the 'w' key! :) -- Renesis (talk) 04:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

   My excuse is gonna be that I was hungry at the time. Canadian-Bacon 06:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

2. Support strongly you are a great mainspace editor, while you need to work on warnings and the Wiki-space I am sure you will make a fine admin. — Seadog 04:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
3. Moral Support because of your long and quality contribution history. -- Renesis (talk) 04:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

   Let me clarify why I said "Moral" and why I am removing it: The comments below will likely reflect the feelings of many users; however, in reviewing your history and seeing your dedication to the project, I feel that you would have the demeanor to use the admin tools appropriately, and that you would learn to apply policy and participate in XFD discussions in time, and therefore (as Joe would say) that the net effect of your promotion on the project would be positive. -- Renesis (talk) 05:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

   I wonder whether it's finally time for the elevation of Misplaced Pages:What would Joe say (WP:WWJS) to guideline status... Joe 07:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

4. Support - A good sense of NPOV. -- Szvest - 13:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

   Support It seems that grika has placed a great deal of effort into cleaning up the[REDACTED] community and should be strongly condiered for adminship.StephenGarciaisthecoolestpersonever 22:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

   Vote struck out as it was cast by an indefinitely-blocked user. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 01:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

5. Support I don't see why not. Reasonable contributor with some good discussions. Cribananda 00:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Only 39 Misplaced Pages-space edits. Sorry. - crz crztalk 03:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose Sorry, I believe that you require more experience. No evident need for the tools. Sporadic vandalfight only, not warning the vandals. No XfD. No requests for page protection, an area that you state you would be willing to participate as an admin.--Húsönd 04:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose This pretty much says it all:

   Talk: 85

   User talk: 45

   Misplaced Pages talk: 5

   Misplaced Pages: 39

   I can't support anyone who has barely any contact with the community whatsoever. -- Kicking222 04:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

4. Oppose. Article building, fixing, and stuff is good, but it doesn't need admin tools, and gives no indication that you can use them well. I don't think very many people understand that. And I don't see this XfD participation you claim to have (the fact that you still call it VfD indicates that you don't really participate, too). -Amarkov _edits 05:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose. May be a fine editor, but has shown relatively little interest in the policy and process that are the bread and butter of admin work. --Dgies 05:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose. Edit count too low, not enough talking to the community. Build it up and come back; I'll be here to support you. Yuser31415 06:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose Not even 2000 edits. Dionyseus 07:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose. A fine editor, but averaging around 30 edits a month since this summer. Admins don't need to eat, sleep, and breathe Misplaced Pages, but they should be spending more time here than that when they're active. A Train 14:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose as per Yuser. I don't think edit count is as big a concern, but where those edits are is. I'd say work on anti-vandalism and New page patrol. David Fuchs 16:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
10. Oppose per Crazy and Husond. I also agree with A Train's comment about your average edits per month and Kicking's concern about your lack of interaction with the community. And I just can't see sufficient editing experience for adminship or any need at all for the tools. Sarah Ewart 17:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
11. Oppose. Edits reveal lack of experience, especially in dealing with other Wikipedians directly. As to answers to Q1: locking pages is (and should be) a rarely used final solution to a problem. Individual blocks of users involved in vandalism or edit wars should be the main approach. Being involved in vandalism and new article patrol can be done very effectively by non-admins. - WJBscribe  19:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
12. Oppose. Not enough experience yet. Would have no problems switching to support once experience level rises. Yaf 21:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
13. Oppose per lack of experience. Suggest a withdrawl.--Jersey Devil 03:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
14. Oppose lacks in edits and experience. Terence Ong 15:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
15. Oppose until you are more experienced. Jorcoga 05:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral Withdraw this RfA as it will not succeed. To use the admin tools you need to work on admin tasks - new page/recent change patrol; new user log; XfD discussions; vandal patrol; reporting vandals to WP:AIV when they have passed {{test4}}, etc. You can also ask for an editor review and get some admin coaching when you have some experience of the above. Really, if you can get your total contributions-to-date to be your average monthly contributions ~1500 - by doing the above tasks then you should be in a position to reapply in four months' time. (aeropagitica) 06:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
2. Neutral Seems like a good editor, but probably needs more experience. Edit count isn't everything, but it's a proxy for everytyhing. --Coemgenus 17:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
3. Neutral so as to avoid pile on. An admin should be more active on a day-to-day basis. Don't know that there is an absolute minimum, but 18 edits a day nets >500 edits a month. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 22:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
4. Neutral You do not deserve an oppose opinion as you are a long time contributor to this project, which must be taken into strong consideration. However, the lack of Misplaced Pages name-space edits is a major concern here. I suggest you withdraw this nomination and work towards this area of Misplaced Pages. In time, I am sure you will succeed in a future nomination. --Siva1979 02:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
5. Neutral - needs more communication with the rest of the community. -- Selmo 03:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
6. Neutral Not enough contact with the Misplaced Pages community to warrent Adminship. Get out there, frequent such places as WP:RFA, WP:AFD, WP:FP, and WP:Village Pump, and come back here in 6 months with over 2000 edits. You'll get my vote then. Sharkface217 03:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
7. Neutral I suggest you withdraw and spend more time getting developing a deeper involvement in Misplaced Pages.-- danntm _C 04:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
8. Neutral Siva1979 said it all. You contributing time shows that you won't abuse the tools, but more participation in admin related tasks is neccessary (for my vote). James086 02:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Crazytales56297

Final (8/19/12); Ended 21:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Crazytales56297 (talk · contribs) Crazytales is an excellent editor. His 3228 edits show that he is dedicated to the projects, and his 781 talk edits show that he is willing to talk to other users and help them, as well as taking criticism. He also has 569 project page edits, showing that he is able to work well with a group. Crazytales has been with the project for the better part of two years, and I know him both here and in real life to be a thoughtful, sensible, and open person. His skills as an editor will be greatly improved with the help of administrative powers. --teh tennisman 21:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Thanks for nominating me. ~Crazytales56297 | t+c 00:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Misplaced Pages backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: I feel that the admin tools would help me in doing behind-the-scenes metapedian work on[REDACTED] that I've noticed often has a backlog, like WP:OP and XfD's. I also plan to patrol CAT:CSD and WP:AIV because, respectively, there are sometimes over 300 CSD candidates in the category, and vandals can go several hours post-final-warning without being blocked. Of course, I 'll be a pretty active WP:AN and WP:ANI watcher and poster too. I'll also new-page patrol and new-user patrol to delete obvious nonsense and apply username blocks. In summary, I'll be a vandal-focused admin.

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

A: I'm proud of all my contributions, and I don't like emphasising some over others. However, I'm pleased with my contributions to automobile related articles, which are mostly adding photos and cleaning up. I'm also proud of my vandalism reversion. I often edit articles relating to stuff I have and have had experience with, like Virgin Mobile cellphone service and Logitech mice.

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 had one small conflict with RJN over Evanescence's classification as gothic rock. I put that in, he reverted, I approached him on his talkpage about it and backed my classification up with data from last.fm. He apologised to me about it and allowed me to revert. Overall, I'd say we both handled the issue civilly but ignorantly, as neither of us was aware of the ongoing article-talk-page discussion regarding the classification, which resulted in it not being classified as gothic rock. Another conflict I had was with User:A Man In Black regarding xlinks to veekun.com pokédex in Pokémon species articles. We discussed it on WT:PCP, I feel that I handled that well. I'll deal with editing conflicts by taking a deep breath and discussing it with the user. I try my utmost to remain civil and follow WP:NPA.

Optional questions from Malber (talk · contribs)

4. What do the policy of WP:IAR and the essay WP:SNOW mean to you and how would you apply them?

A: Ignore All Rules is paramount to me. I think it enables any user in good faith to contribute even if they don't know all the policies backwards and forwards, like how a good writer who doesn't know the slightest thing about wiki-syntax can use {{wikify}}. The snowball clause is another thing I think should be made policy. Ridiculous proposals most likely made in the name of disruption (like my Misplaced Pages:votes for deletion/Jimmy Wales when I was a n00b) need to be stopped quickly, and Snow does this.

5. Is there ever a case where a punitive block should be applied?

A: No. Blocks are NOT meant to punish users; they're meant to prevent Misplaced Pages from being damaged through vandalism/3rr/username vios. However, I would invoke IAR over BP in the case of an obvious gnaa troll replacing the text of a page with 'GNAAGNAAGNAAGNAAGNAAGNAAGNAAGNAAGNAAGNAAGNAAGNAA(repeat ad infinitum)'. Blocked indefinitely, thanks for coming, don't come again. (Obviously, 24h if IP, blocking is pointless if AOL IP)

6. What would your thought process be to determine that a business article should be deleted using CSD:G11?

A: Duck test. If it looks like an advertisement, and reads like an advertisement, then it is one. However, I'm only CSDing those advertisements that are beyond salvation. Those that aren't, are useful for cleanup if the subject meets notability guidelines.

7. What is your age?

A: I'm 14.

Discussion on the propriety of this question moved to the talk page.--Doug Bell  21:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

General comments

• See Crazytales56297's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

Discussion

• My previous RfA can be found here: Misplaced Pages:requests for adminship/Cchan199206. ~Crazytales | 56297 21:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• As the nominator, I'd like to make the point that while "that edit summary" was made, it was in response to some vandalism that specifically mentioned that anatomical region. Am I condoning Crazytales' course of action? No. What I am saying is that everyone makes mistakes, and that one mistake is not the reason to sway one's vote toward the negative. Everyone has made some mistake on the encyclopedia, whether it was making vandalism somehwere that no one could see it or by not reverting vandalism because one thought it was funny. All in all, I believe that all of you whose votes were biased due to that comment should rethink your opinions. If not, you are being shortsighted, and besides, no one is perfect. That's all I have to say about that. --teh tennisman 03:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

  I realize that as nominator you want to defend the candidate, but in my opinion your argument only raises more concerns. If "everyone makes mistakes", then who is going to say Crazytales56297 won't make still more serious mistakes? It's a pity an edit summary can end this wonderful user's RfA, and given more time I may support him. As for saying, "if not, you are being shortsighted", is that a personal attack? Yuser31415 06:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

  One mistake, maybe not. But a mistake the same day? It was after listing this RfA, even. -Amarkov _edits 06:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

  Everyone has made some mistake on the encyclopedia, whether it was making vandalism somehwere that no one could see it or by not reverting vandalism because one thought it was funny. Whaaa??? I can safely say that I have never done either of those things and I'm kind of taken back that you would actually think that kind of attitude is universal. Next time Crazytales wants to try an RfA, I would advise him to select a nominator who understands this a serious project because your credibility has just plummeted. That said, I do believe everyone makes mistakes. It's just very unfortunate that Crazytale's mistake was so recent. He just needs to edit for awhile without those kinds of mistakes before some of us are convinced that he is ready for adminship. That's all. No one is saying he's bad and can never be an administrator, just that he needs a little more time. Sarah Ewart 14:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• The edit summary which shall not be named is a bit childish, but let's not make that molehill into a larger geological phenomenon. God knows that we've seen much, much worse from the likes of other admins whom I need not name here. Crazytales has a good number of edits across all namespaces with a significant proportion of them in the Misplaced Pages namespace. I would like to see an answer to optional question #6 above before I vote. A Train 13:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• I strongly suggest that the candidate withdraws from this nomination, which in all likelyhood will not succeed. With a few more edits and no offensive edit summaries, I'm sure the community will be ready to support this editor. Thank you. Yuser31415 22:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Look, all of those who responded to my comments, all I was saying is that no one is perfect. It was not meant in any intention of NPA, but was my attempt to put what Crazytales said into context. And Sarah, I understand that you may have never done anything wrong, but still, all I was saying (redundancy alert alert) is that no one is perfect. If that makes his credibility "plummet" I apologise for not having the foresight to realize the outcomes of my actions. That said I apologize for any ill will that came of my statement. --teh tennisman 01:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Nominator support. --teh tennisman 21:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

   Support Will make a fine admin. — Seadog 01:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC) Change to Oppose

   I don't see lack of activity as a problem. By the way, WP:IAR already is policy, sir "I'd like to make WP:IAR a policy". :P -Amarkov _edits 01:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

   (changed to neutral)

2. Support A dedicated vandal fighter. Culverin? 01:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
3. Support a good editor Canadian-Bacon 02:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
4. Support looks like a good mainspace editor, although remember to keep a cool temperament.-- danntm _C 03:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
5. Support a very helpful and friendly user. -- Szvest - 13:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
6. Weak Support The aforementioned edit summary is less incivil when one realizes it's in response to this edit. (The more appropriate edit summary, Crazytales, would have been less conversational. Sometimes it encourages vandals if they think they are getting a personal reaction.) Hopefully, Crazytales will be more circumspect and less indecorous in the future. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

   Thanks. You have my assurance that will not happen again. ~Crazytales56297 | t+c 21:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

7. Support. íslenskur fellibylur #12 _(samtal) 22:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
8. Moral support I must commend Crazytales on his recent determination to improve despite the collapsing RfA. His vandalfight in the past two days is very impressive and I hope that he won't feel discouraged by this RfA and continue such great work in order to achieve a successful RfA in the near future.--Húsönd 19:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
9. Moral support. I strongly agree with Húsönd. Keep up the good edits, and you'll likely make it next time round. – Chacor 09:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

Weak oppose Sorry Crazytales, I know that you are a very friendly and helpful editor but I don't see much of a need for the tools. Your past 500 edits span for almost 3 months with only sporadic vandalfight and participation in XfD. If you step up your pace then I will definitely support you next time. Good luck though.--Húsönd 01:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

changed to moral support--Húsönd 19:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I know my activity level has been reduced in the past three months (since September). This is because I've been somewhat stressed with the transition to a new school and my C- grade in one class. I've been working on stepping up my activity level. ~Crazytales56297 | t+c 01:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

1. Strong oppose We can do without edit summaries like this, as pointed out by Agent86 below. Yuser31415 01:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
2. Weak oppose I'm sorry Crazytales, you are a great editor, and your participation in project space is good and varied. However, it only takes a few edit summaries like that to make people angry. The best way to combat vandals is throw bland templates at them until they get frustrated by it all. I understand how you might take it personally, a lot of vandalism I see around here raises my blood pressure a little as well, but administrators have to stay cool under pressure and remain disconnected from the situation. I'm opposing for now, but I think you would make a good candidate in a few more months with some continued work on remaining as aloof as possible. None of us should play the same tricks that vandals do. (Also, why is self revert not acceptable?) riana_dzasta 03:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

   Basically, what that means is that vandalism is not acceptable even if you revert it yourself. ~Crazytales56297 | t+c 12:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

3. Strong Oppose That diff that Yuser displayed was too much for me not to, basically I expect potential admins to be civil to those who aren't. If it was older I would remain at support but that was very recent. — Seadog 04:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose I don't like the idea of an RfA while you're running for ArbCom, it looks like an attempted power-grab. I would oppose anyway, though, on the basis of the link and points raised above. Sarah Ewart 05:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

   Note: I've intended to withdraw from the Arbcom elections for a few days now. I just haven't had time to post it. No power-grab intended. ~Crazytales56297 | t+c 12:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

   Thanks, I appreciate that. As I said, I'm not comfortable with someone starting an RfA soon after it becomes apparent their ArbCom nomination will likely fail. It just doesn't sit well with me, however, that is really an aside and not my main reason for opposing. I do believe you are sincerely acting in good faith and I do not wish to see you become discouraged by this RfA. I'm sure with a little more time and experience you will be a much stronger candidate and will become a very good administrator. Sarah Ewart 14:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

5. Oppose. Unconvincing answer to Q1, & that edit summary. Mr Stephen 09:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose An admin has to remain civil, and what I see in the edit summary doesn't comply. Sorry. ← ANAS 12:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose Extremely incivil edit summary disqualifies candidate for now. Irrespective of his age, there are serious maturity concerns here. Xoloz 16:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
8. Weak oppose. Good at fighting vandals, but you don't need to be an admin to do that. What admins need is civility; this user is civil most of the time, but could use some seasoning and experience to develop it better. I'd say keep editing, and re-apply after some time passes and more experience is gained. Also, displaying a userbox in which you claim to eschew grammar will not win you support around here. --Coemgenus 17:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose. Civility is not an optional criteria for an admin. Answers to questions do not inspire confidence. Sysop powers are not necessary to fighting vandalism and in my opinion this user lacks the maturity to use them.- WJBscribe  18:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
10. Strong Oppose per that offensive edit summary pointed out by Agent 86. I have now changed to Strong Oppose per the fact that the candidate did not disclose his previous failed RfA under his different name as pointed out by A_Train. Dionyseus 20:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
11. Strong Oppose per edit summary pointed out by Yuser31415 Yaf 21:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
12. Oppose. Sorry, it's not just the edit summary, but the maturity that making such an edit summary shortly after listing your RfA demonstrates. The cornerstones of adminship qualification in my book are maturity, civility and judgement--I'm afraid you damaged my opinion on all three accounts. --Doug Bell  22:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
13. Oppose per - policies are not the place to express your opinion. BigDT 22:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
14. Oppose I am concerned over the lack of civility being shown in some of your edits which have been pointed out in the above oppose comments. An admin has to remain civil at all times. Please do not take this to heart and address these issues in the next few months. If this is done, I am sure the Misplaced Pages community would forgive your past actions. --Siva1979 02:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
15. Oppose that diff provided by BigDT did it for me. Don't use policy pages to make a point.--Jersey Devil 03:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
16. Oppose -- not at this time sorry. Perhaps with a track record of a few good months behind you and I'd reconsider. - Longhair\ 04:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
17. Opppose per above. Michael 07:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
18. Oppose. Crazytales is a good, well-meaning editor. Far, far too much hay has been made of that edit summary; even the most level-headed of us has said something regrettable like that and in context it was far from a mortal sin. I am not particularly impressed with the candidate's answers to the questions, although he was sporting in obliging me with answering #6. With due consideration to the answers, I am concerned about consistent enforcement and application of policy. I am also a bit nonplussed by his failure to disclose his prior RfA under a different username. A Train 14:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
19. Oppose Quality editor whose personality shows through a bit too often. TonyTheTiger 22:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I'll have to change to neutral. Too few talkspace and WP talk edits. -Amarkov _edits 01:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
2. Neutral. You seem like an excellent and friendly Wikipedian. You participate in XfD's, AIV reports, vandal-fighting, etc. However, I feel you don't have that much experience in the article namespace. Looking over your edits, I don't see you getting that much involved in article discussions and such, and that worries me a bit since admins need to also be reasonably good dispute resolvers/mediators. Nishkid64 01:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
3. Neutral for the moment. I have no concern whatsoever about the drop in your contributions - real life should have priority. I was leaning towards support, however, I cannot do so unless the nominee can explain why he felt it necessary to include this edit summary when warning a vandal earlier today. Fighting vandalism is one thing, but I don't see why it can't be done in a civil manner. Agent 86 01:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

   Note the edit that was made. So it wasn't just completely random. -Amarkov _edits 01:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

   For an admin that will be reverting similiar vandalism all the time, I do not think that edit summary was in any way appropriate. Yuser31415 01:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

   I did see the edit the nominee reverted. However, I'd like to know why you felt you needed to go beyond the warning template or why it was appropriate. Incivility does not necessarily need to be met with incivility. Agent 86 01:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

   That has to deal with real life. I'm personally offended whenever I see 'suck my dick' or similar, even when not explicitly directed at me, due to incidents at school. I should better put into practise compartmentalization, and not let IRL activities influence my behaviour on Misplaced Pages. ~Crazytales56297 | t+c 01:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

   Crazytales, I am very sorry if you are going through bullying or harassment at school or anywhere else, but you are right that you need to ensure that that does not influence you on Misplaced Pages as an editor and certainly not if you become an administrator. It will be helpful if you promise right here and now that nothing like this would ever happen again. More comments on your talk. Newyorkbrad 02:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

   Thanks for your support, Brad. This edit summary was an isolated incident. I promise to take a deep breath before posting an edit, and to not let IRL harassment affect my work on Misplaced Pages. This will not happen again. ~Crazytales56297 | t+c 12:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

4. Neutral You just need more experience and please avoid lapses in civility, even towards vandals. But you are a good editor and if you reapply after some more work, I will gladly support you. TSO1D 04:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
5. Neutral for all of the reasons discussed above. Get some more experience in admin areas such as XfD and vandal fighting/ reverting. Holding your tongue when under extreme provocation is de rigeur for admins - we have to put up with a lot of flack and abuse, so keeping a cool head is vital. (aeropagitica) 06:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
6. Neutral per TSO1D and (aeropagitica). Needs some more civility. bibliomaniac15 20:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
7. Neutral I see some good things and some bad things in the non-admin AfD closures (nothing as bad as the one I royally screwed up). History of counter-vandalism and reports to AIV is good for someone who will be blocking. I think folks are making a lot more hay out of this edit summary than is really necessary, but that's me.--Kchase T 23:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
8. Neutral per BigDT and Amarkov. Tennis DyNamiTe 23:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
9. Neutral No obvious need for tools. Sharkface217 03:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
10. Neutral I'd like to see you as an admin one day, but not just yet. Keep up the good work. --Majorly (Talk) 14:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
11. Neutral It does not reflect on your abilities, but I don't feel that a handle with complicated numbers like you have is a good fit for an administrator. I'm not trying to be jerky, but people should be able to easily get ahold of or reference someone via name, and with yours, they'd either need to copy/paste it from your sig or have it written down somewhere. As this RFA seems to be heading in a direction that doesn't result in promotion just yet, I encourage you to consider putting in for a username change request before you run again. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
12. Neutral Probably a good editor. As has been pointed out by someone citing an edit summary, civility is important, but I don't want to oppose for now since it's only an isolated incident. Insanephantom 09:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Dina

Final (98/1/2); Ended 22:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Dina (talk · contribs) – Dina has been with us an awfully long time, becoming active 5½ months ago. She is an excellent low key user, dedicated to the project and not a stranger to gruntwork. There's a tremendous amount of vandalism reversion (always with a warning, of course), many WP:AIAV reports, and a limited amount of XfD participation. Dina is also a valuable contributor in the mainspace, reflecting her occupation and meatspace interests. Best of all, unlike myself, Dina is always polite and uncontroversial in her approach. She will be a welcome moderating influence in the sysop corps, her maturity and poise radiating all over the place and rubbing off on some of our rasher colleagues. That's as good a reason as any to overlook any deficiencies in edit counts, especially since she will not be focusing on deletions if elected. Thank you. - crz crztalk 15:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept. Dina 16:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Misplaced Pages backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: I expect at first I’d primarily use the tools in those areas with which I am most familiar, and as an addition to my regular work. My learning curve on Misplaced Pages has been slow, but steady and I anticipate approaching the tools cautiously. Most of what I learned about Misplaced Pages I learned by watching the actions and judgments of other editors, and I expect to learn about adminship in the same way.

I have the most experience at this point with vandalism fighting, some in Afd and tagging CSD’s and I believe that my contributions to those areas have refined over time. I also anticipate looking to the buttons in situations I seem to find myself in more lately – a user asking for help with Marc Lepine, (a good candidate for sprotection), a vandal devoted to quickly inserting an image into dozens of pages that needed blocking as soon as possible, an attack page so vile and full of slander and personal details that I actually felt compelled to blank it while tagging it (something I’ve never done before, as I know it adds work for the deleting admin, but in this case I felt was justified), or a redirect created by userfying a page created in namespace that needs to be deleted – in all of these cases I could have acted, instead of requesting help.

Xfd’s are an area where I only tend to contribute when I feel I have something to add to the discussion, however I do read them quite a lot. I expect I’ll start by closing the uncontroversial ones, until I have my sea legs and my judgment is more widely trusted. I lurk on AN/I, and AIV presently, so that I know what’s going on in those areas, and now I’ll feel empowered to act on some of what I find there. I'll check the backlogs on AIV, and I expect to be largely uncontroversial there as I am something of a stickler for the proper warnings being issued in all but the most extreme cases. I probably need some more experience tagging speedy candidates before going to town on the CSD backlogs, but I intend to work on that, and ask questions ("why did you do that instead of that?" asked of non-critically of another editor is always educational) until I am up to speed.

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

A: Well, perhaps counterintuitively, I think the article I’m proudest of is this rather pathetic stub I created in June 2004 and promptly forgot about. When I did check it again, literally years later, it has become Propagandhi. Check the edit history (I have in depth) and it’s a great illustration of how Misplaced Pages works when it does work. My sad little stub could certainly have been speedied (it didn’t assert notability) or Afd’ed (Propaghandi are a notable band, though not particularly famous) but instead the little stub thrived – the stub sorters, and cat adders, the info-boxers and image finders, and of course, that great Misplaced Pages resource, the interested writers transformed it into a pretty damn good article on a subject that is dear to me. If I could reconstruct what I thought I was trying to start when I created that stub as a newbie, well, this is pretty much it. It’s something I try and keep in mind when other new users create questionable stubs.

All that said, my article writing has improved and I’ve learned to work on things before tossing them into the mainspace. I created The Class of 1959 Chapel and took all the photos in the article. I also created Harvard Film Archive (still need to take a good photo). Other articles I've worked on include Glass Flowers and Gregory Mosher – I also took this stub about Marie St. Fleur while it was up for Afd and worked on it (because I live in the region I just happened to know that the subject was more notable than what was being asserted) and rewrote it, adding sources with the ultimate outcome of the nominator withdrawing the Afd (always a nice consensus outcome, when possible.)

I’ve also banged around on a few smaller self-assigned projects – taking photos for some Boston/Cambridge articles (and uploading them on commons, where I am User Dsmack, trying to organize and expand articles related to the All-American Girls Professional Baseball League (still working on that, I have some books on the subject on my holiday wish list), trying to organize and expand Misplaced Pages’s coverage of Museology topics (I expect some merging and some new articles to come out of it.) I also enjoy a lot of gnomelike activies – I random article edit, trying to find articles that need stubbing, catting, wikifying or to be "unorphaned". I check out the new pages list for promising stubs that need help to survive. I’ve spent a fair amount of time disambiguating, either projects listed on Wikiproject disambig (I’m pretty proud of my work on Gothic, it wasn’t easy) or tiny self-assigned ones, like Peabody Museum which needed a lot of disambiguation from Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology.

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: Generally speaking, I'm not here to engage in conflict. However, acting boldly, whether editing, removing bad content, reverting, or speedy tagging is invariably going to lead to some disagreement with other editors. When an editor brings to my attention that they disagree with my action, I generally try to approach the content of the disagreement and ignore any unnecessary roughness they may use to get their point across, with the exception of outright vandalism or “attacks” – those I try to ignore. I do believe that even while assuming good faith, occasionally a stern word is necessary, but it shouldn’t be motivated by emotions and if that's not possible in a given circumstance, action is better left to more disinterested editors.

The only situation I can point to that caused me some "stress" was my interactions with IP Range 62.147.39.XXX. I reverted this user's edit here and placed this warning on his talk page. That was the extent of my interaction with this user that evening, resulting in this dispute on AN/I, this complaint on AmiDaniel's talkpage, and a fair amount of discussion and unfortunate characterizations of my person, intentions and intelligence. It was frustrating, because I think my action was justifiable, but if he had approached me civilly, I certainly would have been happy to talk about it. It did teach me that in some situations, even though VandalProof makes some non-vandal-related editing tasks easier, it’s a better idea to do the revert manually, even if performing the identical actions. I suspect if I had not done the revert using VP, the editor would not have been quite so pissed off. I responded here and here, the redlink was stubbed by User:Dweller and sent to Afd (an Afd in which I studiously avoided participating) and the matter seems to have died. I think I would take the same path in conflicts like that in the future (where the focus is completely on me) by essentially stepping back a bit, letting others handle it and agreeing to abide by whatever they decided. Because of this experience, when I feel another editor is being attacked, and trying to step back from it themselves, I sometimes jump in and try to help, as the other editors involved in this situation did for me.

Optional questions

Dear candidate, I would like it if you could take the time to answer these following questions. Admins should be prepared to deal with all situations, taking the time to answer these questions may help other people to decide on their consensus votes. Cheers! Yuser31415 06:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I oppose the asking of these questions -- I realize that "optional" questions have often requested opinions on very constructed situations in the past, but this is just one step too far. Jimbo using sockpuppets? Do forcibly-invented answers to these ultra-hypothetical situations really help anyone decide? -- Renesis (talk) 06:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I have changed the wording from 'Jimbo Wales' to 'experienced and well-liked editor'. Thanks, Yuser31415 07:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC) *reads through again* And I have changed the third question to one more reasonable. Cheers! Yuser31415 07:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

4. What would you do if you discovered that an experienced and well-liked editor had been using sockpuppets abusively?

I apologize if this answer lacks imagination -- it is honestly quite hard to picture a situation in which I would discover definitive evidence of that sort about another user without having participated in some process including lots of other editors (RFC, RFCU, etc.). In the unlikely event that I found myself in sole possession of this information, the truth is I would probably go immediately to AN/I to share and discuss the troubling revelation before taking any action.

5. In a heated debate, whose opinion would you respect the most: the opinion of a new admin, or an anonymous IP who had been actively editing on Misplaced Pages for twice the length of time the admin had, having high quality edits?

In a heated debate I would respect anyone who made good arguments and kept their cool, regardless of previous experience.

6. What is your understanding of WP:IAR?

I understand WP:IAR as an exhortation to the community as a whole to remember that nearly all existing policies and guidelines were created by consensus and can be altered, amended or replaced by a new consensus at any time. I don't see it as an excuse for going against consensus, or failing to build a new one. It's not a get-out-of-jail free card and the rationale for an action, particularly a controversial one, should always include why it is best for the encyclopedia and attempt to build a consensus based on that argument.

General comments

• See Dina's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

Discussion

Support

1. Nom support - crz crztalk 17:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
2. Yes — Seadog 17:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
3. Support User will make a good sysop: no reason to oppose, and seems to avoid conflict! --SunStar Net 17:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
4. Support. Prolific contributor, provided detailed answers to the standard questions and seems to understand policy. SuperMachine 17:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
5. DVD+ R/W 17:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
6. Support — Looks good. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 17:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
7. Support. I wish I'd answered the questions as fully. Tonywalton  | Talk 17:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
8. Support A good user. It is time to give her the mop. --Siva1979 18:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
9. Support --Majorly 18:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
10. Support Good answers, good user. | Mr. Darcy talk 18:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
11. Support -- Good luck. -- Szvest [REDACTED] 18:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
12. Support Seems good :-) ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ 19:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
13. Support - came across Dina way back in early September when she thanked me for adding something to an article she was working on (the Gang Green article, I do believe). I'd only been with the project a couple of weeks and such contact is very encouraging. Nice to see she is still around and doing well! Support not a problem. Nice one, crz. Bubba hotep 19:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
14. Support no comment. Anom8trw8 20:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
15. Support. Definitely, =). Nishkid64 21:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
16. Support —Quarl 2006-12-11 21:16Z
17. Support with no hesitation whatsoever. Khukri 21:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
18. Support as she appears to be both an excellent editor and an outstanding admin candidate. Sandstein 22:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
19. Support. --SonicChao 22:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
20. Support per above-no problems here; excellent user.--teh tennisman 22:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
21. Support No problem here - start swabbing the decks! (aeropagitica) 22:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
22. Support - should be a great addition to the admin corps. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
23. support --W.marsh 23:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
24. Support a good candidate --Steve _(Slf67) 23:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
25. Support per all above - fully qualified, no issues. Newyorkbrad 23:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
26. Support great work. Opabinia regalis 01:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
27. Support; has done a lot of great work as an user, and will continue to do so as an admin. --TBCΦtalk? 02:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
28. Support like what I see. Sandy (Talk) 02:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
29. Support Very good editor, will do good for Misplaced Pages. Alex43223 02:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
30. I agree with the above. (Radiant) 10:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
31. Support — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlohcierekim (talk • contribs)
32. Support Good answers to my questions, a strong and well balanced admin. Mopping time. Yuser31415 18:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
33. Support good answers.-- danntm _C 18:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
34. Support. I'd like to see more wiki-space edits. I ould say that of almost anyone though. The answers to your questions are pretty much ideal though. --Wizardman 19:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
35. Support per nom. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 21:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
36. Support have seen Dina around and she seems like admin material. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
37. Support If she's not an admin already, now is the time to promote her. Scobell302 22:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
38. Weakish support Dina seems to be a great contributor; my support is somewhat weakened by a very low number of talk edits on articles (76) and in the Misplaced Pages-space (12). I never look at editcounts except in regards to talk pages (I feel that it helps me see how someone can interact with the community and/or amidst a contentious issue), and I would definitely prefer to see more interaction from Dina. With that said, I'm still, obviously, supporting. -- Kicking222 00:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
39. Support. For sure. Mikker 02:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
40. Jaranda 03:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
41. Support. Per all above. Mirror, Mirror, on the wall... 04:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
42. Support looks good -- Samir धर्म 05:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
43. Support Knows how to use the tools well, and good candidate. Daniel5127 <Talk> 05:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
44. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 05:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
45. Support Terence Ong 06:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
46. Been-waiting-for-this-one-Support Riana 08:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
47. Whatever post I have seen from this user was good ones. Hence Support --- ALM 09:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
48. Support Impressed by her conduct in the dispute I helped to resolve (see Q2 above). A cool head - unlikely to misuse admin powers. --Dweller 10:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
49. Weak Support I see no problems other than the low talk and WPtalk edits (hence the weak). Apart from that, great. James086 12:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
50. Support. Cool user. Looks responsible and I like her answers above. - Darwinek 13:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
51. Support. Just ran into her work fixing an AfD/prod botched by another user. I liked the way she explained things in her edit summaries and that she was careful/considerate at the AfD to add an extra comment about what had happened, to reduce any possible confusion. John Broughton | Talk 15:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
52. Weak Support Answers are convincing, and very good edit summaries. However she needs to contribute more in project/project talk space. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 15:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
53. Support -- I was going to support anyway, but I think your answers to the optional questions are excellent. -- Renesis (talk) 18:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
54. Support per nom, answers to questions and my own positive observance of user's activity. Accurizer 19:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
55. Support. I'm a little hesitant about the low talk page edit count, and that she's only been active since July. But her answers and record are very good. --Fang Aili 19:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
56. Support - Great candidate. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 20:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
57. Boring, unnecessary support - I don't do RFAs much, but I'm perusing RFAs and this one looks good. Misplaced Pages needs less bureaucratic admins IMO. I've seen too much arguing going on already. Milto LOL pia 20:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
58. Support: Plenty of edits, plenty of experience, good question answers. Should be a good admin.  Orfen  | _Contribs 23:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
59. Support seems very even-headed despite the conflicts mentioned and would most likely not abuse the tools.¤~Persian Poet Gal 23:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
60. Support - we need more admins, and she's certainly qualified. -Patstuart 01:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
61. Support I like the way she describes her easing her way into admin duties instead of recklessly diving into them. I also like the detailed answers to the questions. --physicq (c) 05:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
62. Support ..without any hesitation! All the best with the tools. ← ANAS 07:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
63. Communismo or muerte support That's what everyone does when they see Crz — Nearly Headless Nick 14:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
64. Support-When I ran the edit counnt using Interiot's tool I was surprised at the low number of eidts up until I saw the number of edits in the last 5 months and my jaw hit the floor! Booksworm Talk to me! 15:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
65. Support per nom. utcursch | talk 15:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
66. Support per experience/answers.--Húsönd 20:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
67. Support, per nom. --Carioca 22:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
68. Support per nom. s d 3 1 4 1 5 final exams! 01:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
69. Support, sound candidate --Herby 16:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
70. Support per nom. Sarah Ewart 17:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
71. Support Dina seems like a trustworthy user. | AndonicO 19:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
72. Support per nom. She looks like an excellent candidate to me. Best of luck, - WJBscribe  19:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
73. Support She looks to be what it takes to make a good admin Somitho 19:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
74. Support Looks like excellent candidate. - Yaf 21:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
75. Support per above. Just H 23:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
76. Support Good answers to questions. More talk-page would be nice. Tennis DyNamiTe 23:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
77. Support No problems to be seen. Sharkface217 03:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
78. Strong Support Obvious experience with Misplaced Pages demonstrated. --lovelaughterlife♥ 03:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
79. Support --HappyCamper 05:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
80. Support. Michael 07:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
81. Support - Why not? --WinHunter 13:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
82. Support. No reservations. A Train 14:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
83. Support - vandals beware. CaptainVindaloo 21:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
84. Support. Sad that Dina's low key. We need more outstanding Wikipedians like her. bibliomaniac15 02:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
85. SupportGood dispute resolution; hard-worker. King Toadsworth 01:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
86. Support I see no reason to oppose Dina. Dionyseus 05:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
87. Weak Support - Good reply to questions, that dispute with 62.147.39.XXX was not your fault. I guess he/she overreacted a bit. Insanephantom 09:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
88. Support- Needs admin tools to fight vandalism. Good Editor. --Natl1 13:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
89. Support. You're good at what you do. yandman 13:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
90. Support Good answers to the questions. E104421 13:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
91. Support Shlomke 15:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
92. Suppport Yanksox 15:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
93. Support A good candidate, will make a good admin. Canadian-Bacon 18:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
94. Fiance support Feel free not to count this vote -- I'm a reader not an editor, but I know how good an admin she'll be and how hard she's worked for it. Drboggs 22:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

    Support per above. Just H 23:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

    Oops, it looks like you voted twice. Considering the vote directly above you is my "meatpuppet" I'm going to indent this one. I'll leave it to someone else to indent the other, because, well, I personally find it kind of endearing. ;) Dina 23:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

    Whoops, thanks for the catch there. Don't worry, I think consensus has been reached even without your "meatpuppet" :-) Just H 04:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

95. Support per nom and the above reaction. Agathoclea 09:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
96. Support per nom. Seems like a good, level-headed editor. Coemgenus 13:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
97. Support Good editor! Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 14:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
98. Support Wow, almost missed it, great editor. HighInBC 17:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. No sorry, if just becoming active, just on sometimes doesn't see good. How long has she been on? Reply and maybe It'll change but for now No WikiMan53 T/C My editcounter 23:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

   Information on how long the candidate has been active on Misplaced Pages is available on the talk (discussion) page to this page, here. From the comments so far, her activity length and level seems to be sufficient for everyone's purposes. If this oppose vote is based on the comment on your talkpage that you do not yet have enough experience to be an administrator, I would urge you to reconsider it, as the consensus is the candidate does have such experience. If the oppose vote is based on something else, I frankly do not understand it. Newyorkbrad 23:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

   Isn't this supposed to be for finding consensus, rather than expecting others to follow consensus? This "vote" just seems like a part of that. Besides, there's no way this person won't be promoted. Milto LOL pia 23:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

   That's not true. If someone is able to make a cogent argument, with supporting evidence, against this candidate becoming an admin, they quite possibly won't become one. But rattling off an oppose that really makes no sense and has no grounding in evidence won't do it. Sarah Ewart 17:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

   The !voter asked for information and I provided it, while gently suggesting that the vote might (or might not) be a WP:POINT violation, and if so could stand rethinking. Obviously the !voter is equally free to stand by his or her earlier decision. Beyond that, sometimes, even in a clearly successful RfA, an oppose or neutral commenter mades an observation that can helpfully guide the admin-to-be in the future, so it doesn't automatically follow that negative comments on such an RfA should just be ignored. Regards, Newyorkbrad 23:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

To try and answer the question: I first registered in February of 2004 and made one edit (to an article talk page, which is a little funny...) I had a few tiny spates of editing over the next two years, (I was a devoted Misplaced Pages reader, actually - we are elusive, shy animals, but we do exist! - and used it often as a resource for a project I was working on) but really didn't start contributing substantially until July of this year, which makes it about 5 1/2 months now. I think most people have my sort of history, they just tend to do it as an anon, but for some reason, I'm the kind of girl who given the opportunity to create a log in, tends to. Cheers. Dina 01:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Just like me. Logged in March 05, didn't get active till January 06 - crz crztalk 01:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, that's kind of neat. I've always assumed most people made their first edit as an anon. The main reason I'm really happy about it is that I doubt my username would have been available if I'd registered this summer. It wasn't on Commons and I was a bit disappointed, though not surprised. Dina 01:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Too few project/project talk space contributions. I really don't feel comfortable supporting admins who only plan on doing vandalism stuff. -Amarkov _edits 04:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
2. A well-deserved wait. However, she'll have to do a lot of WP maintenance in due time. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 23:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Cbrown1023

Final (48/1/0); Ended 02:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Cbrown1023 (talk · contribs) – I would like to nominate Cbrown1023 to become an administrator. Recently, I have been seeing him all over my watchlist, working on areas in the Films WikiProject, and his polite, civil behaviour is just what I expect in an admin (and I had to double check to make sure he wasn't an admin already). He does work in many admin areas – takes part in many deletion debates, which he can close if promoted; he's often commenting on the admin noticeboard, and from this I feel he knows what adminship is all about; and he also reverts vandalism, so could make use of the block button as well. A very worthy candidate, in my opinion. --Majorly 00:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I humbly accept this nomination. :-) Cbrown1023 00:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Misplaced Pages backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: I hope to help with many sysop chores. I already have the administrative noticeboards on my watchlist and have contributed to some of the discussions when I could. I have viewed what type of behavior is expected as an administrator and how they should handle themselves. I would like to help with anything brought to the noticeboard by needy users. I would also like to help with CSD. This way, when on new page patrol, I can just speedy delete articles instead of tagging them and leaving them for an admin to "clean up" as I do right now. Another thing that I believe I could help with is a crackdown on vandals. Currently I patrol recent changes with VandalProof and just warn the vandals. In the future, I could help at AIV (I just report there now) and assist with blocking heavily troublesome users to protect Misplaced Pages while on patrol.

I am greatly involved with the many deletion debates, frequently going there and voting in most of them, I'd like to help close the nominations and act accordingly based on the consensus reached.

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

A: I am quite pleased with my contributions to WikiProject Films, it's were I spend most of my time when not on RC/NP Patrol. I have assessed hundreds of articles and added the {{Film}} tag to many more. I have always been available to answer questions relating to films on the project talk page and on my talk page. Through the project, I have learned how to edit templates (I have added a lot to the project banner), create userboxes (here), and create barnstars (WP:FILMSTAR, with the help of Pegship, who graciously created an image for it :)). I have created a sidebar for the project. I also do many automated tasks for the project (using AWB): I notify users when the Cinema COTW has been chosen and I drop-off the monthly newsletter (which I write with the help of other editors) to name two. I also welcome newcomers to the project.

WikiProject Films is not the only project that I help with, I am a member to many projects. I have added the project banners of WikiProjects Star Wars, Oz, and Middle Earth. I have graded many WikiProject Horror articles, participated in WikiProject Biography discussions, and graded some Biography articles.

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 not had any major conflicts so far. I have had very small disputes, mostly with vandals. An example of this is on V for Vendetta (film), a user kept trying to change the prose (of an FA article) to list and adding original research that was being discussed on the talk page. Another user and I eventually got him to stop by notifying WP:AN/3. The other ones were minor and you could not really consider them "disputes." Any information you would like to see regarding these things could be found at my user page.

I have not had any stressful experiences either. Normally, I am not involved in disputes long in enough for them to get stressful. They normally end or, in cases like RCP and NPP, I am not directly involved in them.

I dealt with all my disputes differently. If you look in my archives, you can see a difference in how I handled myself and how I have grown as a user. In the past, I was a little sharper in my tone, but have learned to be careful of that. I am know more aware of the many policies surrounding Misplaced Pages and can implement them in disputes when I am unsure of what to do.

In the future, I will be civil, assume good faith, and use administrative tools to protect Misplaced Pages from any harm.

Optional questions from Malber (talk · contribs)

4. What do the policy of WP:IAR and the essay WP:SNOW mean to you and how would you apply them?

A: WP:IAR: In the case of others applying it, I understand. This policy allows user who do not understand any of our policies and wiki mark-up to contribute. It is very similar to writing of articles, someone who does not know how to write wiki mark-up but can write very well can still contribute greatly by the use of the {{wikify}} template. I think this is very useful in helping to expand our encyclopedia. As an administrator, I would apply this to show kindness. An example is a violation of 3RR or a genuine try to help by a user. For a violation of 3RR, I would not necessarily block for the 4th reversion, but I would for the 5th and 6th; for the try, I would give them another chance if it was just a minor mistake that messed up everything (but they had a bad history).

WP:SNOW: Snow is also very useful. It let's us stop unrealistic proposals quickly. An example of this is if someone submitted an AfD for Misplaced Pages or United States of America. Articles like that should never be deleted. Another one, the userbox brought up in the "Oppose" section, is one that should have been speedy kept because of WP:SNOW. There is no way of deleting it without deleting evey other userbox in Misplaced Pages. Also, everyone voted for keep except for the user. I would apply it the same way, if there is no chance that an article would be deleted, then I would speedy keep it. I would definately not apply this rule to items that could be controversial or have no clear consensus. I would not let my opinion show and try to hide it with SNOW because, though sometimes annoying, process is important. Cbrown1023 23:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

5. Is there ever a case where a punitive block should be applied?

A: No, there is no case where a punitive block should be applied. It's against policy. :) That is exactly what you want me to say, but I'll explain further... There are only two reasons to block someone: Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Misplaced Pages. (from WP:BP) Disruption goes hand-in-hand with breaking policy and damaging (policies are to keep WP safe and to get things done, or to remove disruption). Some blocking reasons I can think of and what block for (and the reason): username violation (dirsruption/policy), 3RR (dirusption/policy), and destroying Misplaced Pages (protection). The only possible reason to block someone on purely attitude would be "disruption". Furthermore, I would not block a user indefinately for attitude, normally, I would set the time for an hour to two days and possibly more depending on the severity of the offense. Cbrown1023 21:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

6. What would your thought process be to determine that a business article should be deleted using CSD:G11?

A: From WP:CSD#G11:

Blatant advertising. Pages which exclusively promote a company, product, group or service and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company, product, group or service as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion.

Note: These answers relate to if this article has been tagged for speedy deletion by another user or was found by some type of patrol (new pages/recent changes). First, I'd look to see if any POV statements like our company is the best were there. Next, I would see if there was anything in it that could be kept and rewritten to produce a good article. If there is no possibility that the article could be re-written (or a very slim one), then I would delete the article. If any of the above conditions are not met, then I would remove the speedy tag and leave a note on the talk page explaining my actions. Cbrown1023 21:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

7. What is your age?

A: I am a teenage adolescent. Cbrown1023 21:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

General comments

• See Cbrown1023's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

Discussion

Support

1. Support as per my nom :) --Majorly 00:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
2. Support. Everything looks good here. =) Nishkid64 01:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
3. Support A worthy, thoughtful editor. м info 01:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
4. Weak support per lots of AWB/VP/whatever edits. No big worries. -Amarkov _edits 02:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
5. Support Everything seems in order. James086 03:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
6. Support I just had to check your user rights log! riana_dzasta 04:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
7. Support Looks good. (aeropagitica) 05:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
8. Daniel.Bryant 09:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
9. Support - fantastic workrate. Seen around a lot. Bubba hotep 15:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
10. Support - I've seen this user around, and seen him improve. Lots of AWB edits, but is helpful and participates in AfD discussions. No reason to think he can't be trusted with the tools. Only one worry: would like to see more evidence of contributions to articles. Carcharoth 15:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
11. - crz crztalk 17:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
12. Support - An asset to the films WikiProject, will make a good sysop!! --SunStar Net 17:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
13. Versatile user, I c no problem here. (Radiant) 17:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
14. Support No problems here. --Siva1979 18:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
15. Rettetast 20:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
16. Support looks alright to me.-- danntm _C 20:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
17. Support will make a good admin. --SonicChao 22:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
18. Support. Why not-great choice. --teh tennisman 22:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
19. Support a good candidate --Steve _(Slf67) 23:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
20. Suport. Great user, very civil and experienced.--TBCΦtalk? 02:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
21. Support Amazing. Alex43223 02:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
22. Support. Khoikhoi 04:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
23. Support - an excellent candidate who would make for a great administrator. I have worked with him on film assessment and other WP:Films related articles, and always found him to be polite, knowledgeable, and dedicated to the project. I believe he will get to know how to use the admin tools very quickly to continue to support and improve Misplaced Pages. --Nehrams2020 08:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
24. Support Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 15:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
25. Support. I see no problems with him as an admin. --Wizardman 19:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
26. Support. No concerns here. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 21:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
27. Support. Prolific and professional editor. Mirror, Mirror, on the wall... 04:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
28. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 05:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
29. Support, looks good. Terence Ong 06:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
30. Support. Errabee 07:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
31. Support. Has the right traits to become a good admin. Hoverfish 08:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
32. Support Keeps cool, is civil, and no problems. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 15:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
33. Good answers, no red flags. Þicaroon 03:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
34. Support no problems here. ← ANAS 07:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
35. Support. Fantastic user. Personally welcomed me to WikiProject Films and I have had very positive interactions with him. Green451 22:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
36. Support. s d 3 1 4 1 5 final exams! 01:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
37. Support no problems. Sarah Ewart 17:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
38. Support, per nom. --Carioca 19:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
39. Support A good editor overall. | AndonicO 19:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
40. Support. Looks absolutely fine.- WJBscribe  19:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
41. Support. Looks fine. - Yaf 21:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
42. Support. No problems. Sharkface217 03:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
43. Support - why not? Insanephantom 12:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
44. Support- Per a good editor. --Natl1 13:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
45. Support. No worries. yandman 13:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
46. Support. Michael 20:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
47. Suppport Delta Tango • Talk 21:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
48. Strong Support Is fully deservuing of the admin tools. King Toadsworth 01:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Because of partisan political user boxes like this: Bubba ditto 18:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

   Just to note the result of that MfC was speedy keep, and Cbrown1023 was just one of all the users who voted keep. --Majorly 19:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

   I'm sorry you feel that way (:(), but userboxes like that are allowed. (WP:USERBOX#Content_restrictions) That was also the consensus, not just my opinion. It says no political campaigning, that userbox was just showing a poliical alignment, not campaign. It is field of view/philosophy. Cbrown1023 21:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

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

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

Brian New Zealand

Final (43/18/8); Ended 01:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Brian New Zealand (talk · contribs) – Brian may not be widely known to the WP community outside the Oceania area, but he does a power of work on New Zealand-related pages and other pages within the Oceania region. He is courteous, friendly, helpful, and has just taken over the running of Portal:New Zealand. His NZ-related tasks frequently include things like vandalism-reversion, something that would make the admin tools most useful. Some 2800 edits since July last year, over a broad range of namespaces. Worthy of the tools, I'd say. Grutness...wha? 01:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I'm shocked that Grutness would nominating me. Yes, I will accept. Brian | (Talk) 07:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Misplaced Pages backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A:I anticipate that as an administrator, I will be better equipped in my efforts to help reduce vandalism and would focus on CAT:CSD, WP:CV, WP:PP, WP:RM, WP:IFD, and the different areas of WP:AN.

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

A: I am proud of all my contributions. I really enjoy writing an odd article that's missing from this wikipedia, expressly New Zealand related political subjects. I take delight in jobs such as copyediting, portal maintenance. As well as looking after the New Zealand Collaboration of the Fortnight

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 always tried to be civil and helpful, however, one of my experiences at Misplaced Pages was when I had what could be described as "a bit of a tiff" with User:TharkunColl, on his Talkpage over the Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom article, I got slightly annoyed at the edit warring that was taken place on the article, and tried to ask TharkunColl to stop, however it ended up becoming a bit hotheaded. From that, I gained a pretty good experience in distancing myself from arguments on Misplaced Pages, and I've taken away from it my knowledge of dispute resolution and ability to distance myself from disagreements on Misplaced Pages without too much difficulty. Should any future situation arise, I will be patient and helpful in my response. I feel a natural respect for the perspectives of others, which I do my best to understand and appreciate.

4. More than 80% of your mainspace contributions are marked as minor. Given this, could you point to some examples of contributions to articles that you feel have been significant? Dragons flight 02:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

A: Articles that I have done significant contributions to have been Monarchy in New Zealand & Governor-General of New Zealand, I have also written articles about New Zealand places, and local councils such as the Taupo District Council and the Taupo District. Most articles I have written, or articles I've written a majority on, I do most of the drafting in my Userspace, and then move the text to the mainspace when I've finished. I have also written the Articles on the New Zealand Cadet Forces (I wrote most of the article, my early edits were as an anon, I also wrote the New Zealand Cadet Corps, and New Zealand Sea Cadet Corps articles) I also have written the Compulsory Military Training in New Zealand article.

Optional questions from Malber (talk · contribs)

5. What do the policy of WP:IAR and the essay WP:SNOW mean to you and how would you apply them?

A:

6. Is there ever a case where a punitive block should be applied?

A:

7. What would your thought process be to determine that a business article should be deleted using CSD:G11?

A:

8. What is your age?

A:

General comments

• See Brian New Zealand's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
• Brian has been an admin on Wikinews for 10 months. Sarah Ewart 05:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • For those who are interested, there's a relevant discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Wikipedia_Admin_vs._Wiki-X_Admin_-_transferable_skills.3F.

Discussion

Support

1. Nom support! Grutness...wha? 01:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
2. Support Nzgabriel 02:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
3. Strong support. I considered nominating him about six months ago, but at that point I didn't think he had enough edits here to succeed.-gadfium 02:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
4. Support --Cspurrier 02:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
5. Jaranda 03:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
6. Support Sarah Ewart 05:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
7. Support Brain is a great administrator over on Wikinews, and (IMHO) would be a great administrator here. From what I gather the number of Kiwi admins here on the WP is rather low. Brain, being based in New Zealand would be active when the administrators from the United States are either at work or sleeping. Terinjokes 05:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
8. Support per nom. A NZ admin would help in a variety of ways. --Bduke 08:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
9. Support per nom. Brian does good work monitoring highly visible articles (like Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom) and is polite and courteous when communicating with other users.--Oden 13:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
10. Support: clearly trustworthy, which is really all that mathers cause adminship should be no big deal. WP:1FA is really optional for me. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
11. Support He has been an admin on Wikinews for 10 months. FellowWikipedian 20:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
12. Support Personal bias, but has helped me a lot on stuff I've done on WikiNews and elsewhere. ShakespeareFan00 21:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
13. Support meets my criteria, and is already experienced with the tools.-- danntm _C 00:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
14. Support I'm familiar enough with Brian's contibutions to feel confident in his judgement.--cj | talk 01:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
15. Misplaced Pages needs additional admins from New Zealand who can watch over related articles. In addition Brian has admin experience from Wikinews therefore I Support. м info 01:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
16. Support I know of Brian's work mainly through the Māori-language Misplaced Pages where he was formerly active. He is polite and honest and a good worker. Misplaced Pages needs more people like Brian who are not interested in trumpeting their own greatness but just get involved in the way that works for them and the project Kahuroa 05:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC).
17. Support: Admin experience at Wikinews implies that he won't misuse the tools (and I don't believe he'll mess up with Misplaced Pages-specific stuff). TimBentley (talk) 16:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
18. Support Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979 18:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
19. Support. I'm satisfied that the nominee can use the tools and can be trusted with them. Agent 86 21:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
20. Support. This is a case where your adminship on Wikinews should be given a lot of weight. Your edit count is toward the low end of what people look for, but I am sure with Wikinews added in you would have a robust contribution set. The other problem is that your proficiency with the technology (AWB) is being used against you. I commend you for using the most efficient tools. TonyTheTiger 23:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
21. Cliche Support I thought he alr--*stops* you know where this is going ;-) — Deon555_desk 02:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
22. Obvious Support - he is an admin at WikiNews and has demonstrated there that he can be trusted. Nobody has uncovered any reason to oppose other than editcountits ... good grief ... support. BigDT 02:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
23. Support I think he would do better with the tools. Alex43223 03:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
24. Support, unless we inherently distrust Wiki-news. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 05:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
25. Support. I admit that I have seen BNZ more on Wikinews and Wikia than en.wikipedia. But I have seen him to be a fair and responsible user, and I do not think there would be any problem with him having the tools here: he has been here enough to know how things work, and personal qualities carry over from wiki to wiki. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 06:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
26. Support. Brain clearly has experience with wikis, and is familiar with how to use the tools. While I am not certain this RFA may pass this time around, I recommend that you read a bit of our policies and guidelines, as there are some quirks that Misplaced Pages has and Wikinews hasn't (or you could argue it's the other way around... it's all relative). A bir more familiarity with process and hands-on experience couldn't hurt. Titoxd 20:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
27. Support lovelaughterlife♥ 03:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
28. Support; user has great experience on Wikinews. Ral315 (talk) 03:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
29. Support Nice guy. Mirror, Mirror, on the wall... 04:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
30. Support Terence Ong 08:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
31. Support Jon Harald Søby 14:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
32. Strong support - nothing but praise for Brian. Very competent, willing to do the boring crap no one else is wanting to do, and also willing to accept when at fault. Already has admin experience from WikiNews I believe. Would do be a good admin. --Midnighttonight (rendezvous) 23:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
33. Support, per what I saw with Interiot's Tool Booksworm Talk to me! 15:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
34. Support. Looks like a decent editor. Regards, —Celestianpower 17:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
35. Nothing to suggest there would be a problem here. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
36. Support Experienced editor, admin at Wikinews; seems like a good choice to me. --Coemgenus 17:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
37. Support, From what I have seen of Brian, he is an excellent editor and would make an excellent admin. Somitho 03:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
38. Support Wikinews experience as admin makes up for lack of experience here. Would ask user to be less taciturn in communicating with others. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 22:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
39. Support A good Wikipedian who is qualified for Adminship. Sharkface217 03:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
40. Support; Slade (TheJoker) 16:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
41. Support Well deserved. // I c e d K o l a 22:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
42. Support More kiwi admins needed --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 23:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
43. Support. Zaxem 00:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I'm seeing almost no mainspace edits that are not AWB or some script. You'll probably pass anyway, but I have to oppose for that. -Amarkov _edits 02:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
2. Weak Oppose From your contributions I'm not very convinced that you effectively have a need for the tools. Apart from today, no vandal fight, and you barely warned any vandal. Maybe another month or two would help dissipate any doubts. You appear to be a great user though and I might change my position before this ends.--Húsönd 04:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

   I have been involved in vandel flighting in the past, just over the last month I've been busy with Exams, and have not had the time Brian | (Talk) 04:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

3. Oppose per dire lack of meaningful WP: participation, including XfD - which matches up poorly with your answer to Q1. - crz crztalk 05:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

   I rarely participate in AFDs. Does this mean I'm unsuited for an admin's role? =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

   Depends on what you put into your Q1. If you listed CSD as your first task, then yes. - crz crztalk 00:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

   Strong oppose per crz. Brian indicates he wants to work on IFD, but doesn't have a single edit to that page. I realize that unopposed noms for deletion there result in a delete, but working in an area that is entirely new to the candidate seems bizarre to me. He also wants to manage CAT:CSD, which I find really unsettling given his AfD experience. He sometimes leaves reasons for his AfD !votes, often per somebody else. In other instances, his reasoning doesn't make any sense: Keep: I don't see anything wrong with it, or Keep- I agree, lets keep it. Sometimes, he hasn't given a reason at all, simply voting: 1 2 3, and 4 (though the last one could be interpretted as "per above"). One might believe this was just a misunderstanding on his part, if not for this AfD, where he's informed that he ought to give reasons, but insists it's unnecessary to make a "detailed recommendation". I so agree, but he didn't then give any reasoning at all. (Four hours later he commented he'd just seen the clip in question on television.) I don't want to see someone handling CAT:CSD who treats AfD as a vote and has almost zero experience discussing deletion policy.--Kchase T 06:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

   After looking through more evidence, I've concluded I was too hasty in evaluating this candidate. He told me he's been doing new page patrol here and after looking through his deletion log at WikiNews, I'm reasonably satisfied of his competence to evaluate speedy candidates by the very similar criteria we use here. Still, a strong history of AfD participation would be a much better record with which to support, and given the AfDs I've cited above, I can't bring myself to do so. Switching to neutral. I will contact Xoloz and teh tennisman, as their !votes below may have been inspired by my opposition.--Kchase T 02:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

4. Oppose per crz and Kchase02. Candidate exhibits clear lack of experience with Wiki-process, and yet expresses a desire to work in areas which depend upon such experience: not a good sign. Xoloz 13:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose per above. Too little experience with what he wants to do; not enough well-spread edits IMO. teh tennisman 21:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose, good editor but needs more experience in too many areas. Deizio talk 23:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
7. Essentially no involvement in Misplaced Pages policy or administrative processes. Answer to question one can be copied out of some admin handbook page; it is not the result of being familiar with the processes listed. Egregiously empty ballot-casting in what few AfDs there are. —Centrx→talk • 02:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
8. This candidate would benefit from more experience with process. (Radiant) 17:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose per Radiant!. More process-related experience is a must, and process experience on Wikinews is not entirely equivalent to process experience here. Try to get involved a little more and give RfA another shot later. --Coredesat 19:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
10. Weak Oppose as the number of mainspace edits seems a bit low. More experience, and I would have no problem switching to support. Yaf 22:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
11. Oppose. A thorough look at your contribs reveals very little participation in janitorial tasks. Your contributions to New Zeland related articles is awesome. However, that alone does not qualify you for the mop. Your answers to the questions aren't impressive, either... not enough to convince me that you'd know what you were doing if awarded the mop. Sorry. – Lantoka (talk) 09:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
12. Weak oppose, per Q1/process involvement mismatch issues, and modest total "throw-weight of contributions", which might otherwise have modified such concerns. Alai 01:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
13. Oppose. No slay vandal, no win vote. But excellent editor otherwise. --Elaragirl 17:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
14. Strong oppose This user has attacked me for attempting to prevent abuse of process. Hawkestone 19:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

    Please have a read of WP:BITE, that user was a newbie, a simple message putting him right would have been better than everyone attacking him as if he’s scum. Brian | (Talk) 21:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

    In the context of Hawkestone's and others' comments at User_talk:Customs#Please_obey_the_rules_or_leave, I fail to see how Brian's comment at User_talk:Hawkestone#User:Customes attacks Hawkestone. I appreciate their concern for Misplaced Pages, but agree with Brian. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 22:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

15. Oppose Due to edit history and unimpressive answers. --Strothra 22:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
16. Oppose per Lantoka. I may switch to Strong Oppose if Hawkestone provides differences which show that the candidate has attacked him. Dionyseus 18:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
17. Oppose. An admin ultimately requires 2 qualities: being trustworthy and a thorough understanding relevant policies. The first is clearly satisfied here, not least due to Brian's role as an admin on Wikinews. However the diffs of participations in XfDs provided by Kchase and lack of involvement in process mean that I don't think the latter quality is demonstrated. - WJBscribe  19:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
18. Weak Oppose per Xoloz. Perhaps more participation in the areas you plan to work in would give the needed experience. Voice-of-All 23:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
19. Oppose per Xoloz. Future support likely. ~ trialsanderrors 00:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I feel that you do not have sufficient edits in talk space, and I believe that you might need more experience with user interaction and conflict resolution. Also as Amarkov stated a large proportion of your mainspace edits are script based, which is not a disqualifier in itself, however your low number of content additions could be. Having said that though you a appear to be a competent well-intentioned editor so I would not feel comfortable voting against you. If you run again in a few months I would be sure to offer my support. TSO1D 03:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
2. Neutral while you seem to be a good user, I see almost no vandalism warnings to match your vandalism reverts. And per other concerns. — Seadog 04:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
3. Neutral Weak Oppose I think that you have the temperament and editing skill for adminship, certainly. There are two things that concern me based on a quite limited perusal of your contributions record .. so I might be encountering a sampling error here. First, as was pointed out, you seldom place warnings on the talk pages of anon-ip vandals; these are useful because they provide an indicator to other editors who encounter the vandal that this person has been naughty and facilitates escalation of response. Second, I notice that there are a substantial number of cases where you have forgotten to sign your posts; I think that's something quite basic and particularly important for someone who is acting with the admin hat on. I think the solution to each of these is just picking up the habits related to each ... which might come with more editing - but I really don't think 'too few edits' is in my mind - you have enough to qualify in my book. Regards, --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

   My Mistake, most of the articles I reverted today have been on my watchlist for a while, and I've just got used to reverting them. I normally use the {{test}} messages through. As for signing my posts, I know I use to do that sometimes, but I thought I had signed most of them over the last few months Brian | (Talk) 04:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

   Thank you for the explanation - I was dig-skipping through your contributions and could have easily missed the trends you point out. Regards, --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

4. Neutral I know that you're a good user, very active in helping users and wikignoming, but I'd proabably like to see more of the same, with a lot more involvement in the Project_talk namespace, as this shows us that you're using and discussing policy. Also, I'd like to see way more vandalism warnings, as has been pointed out, as they're indispensable when deciding to block (or not). Keep up the good work! Martinp23 14:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

   Thanks Martinp23 for the kind words, I remember when you were a new user here, and answering your {{helpme}} questions :) Brian | (Talk) 00:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

   Yeah - I remember too :), and would have loved to support as well. Sorry Martinp23 17:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

5. Switched from oppose. As explained there.--Kchase T 02:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
6. Leaning support. I would have loved to support (I was going to), but the points brought up from the oppose !voters swung me slightly. Daniel.Bryant 09:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
7. Neutral, same as Daniel.Bryant. Sorry. riana_dzasta 11:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
8. Neutral per Seadog. You seem like you would be a good admin, but I would love to see you spread out your edits to other areas other than New Zealand. You're certainly capable of being an admin. I'd improve and try again in 3 months or so. --Wizardman 19:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Royalguard11

Final (58/2/0); Ended 22:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Royalguard11 (talk · contribs) – Royalguard11 is an exemplary user, with very nearly 8000 edits at the time of nomination. I'm personally shocked that he isn't already an admin - hopefully this will change very soon. My interaction with Royalguard11 has mainly occurred on the AMA IRC channel, where he and I are channel ops. He is an active member of the AMA, with a thorough understanding of dispute resolution policy. In other areas, he has a strong history of XfD experience and has showing a willingness to do the "thankless" work by migrating many many userboxes by hand (using a Mac, without AWB for help), with a lot of vandalfighting thrown on the side. To this end (of using a mac) he has created AIV'er to allow mac users to quickly and easily list users on AIV, with a graphical interface :). In my opinion, Royalguard11 will make an excellent admin, and I'm certain that the community will agree. Thanks, Martinp23 21:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I humbly accept. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Misplaced Pages backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: I know lots of the sysop work is dirty and long, but I'm up for it. I'm often posting something at WP:AIV, so I would definitely help out there, especially during, err, up times (like last week). CAT:CSD is almost always backlogged, so I would help out there as much as I can. I would also help in closing xFDs (and I have closed some obvious keeps before). I also would pitch in with move requests that require admin help (like over edited redirect and the like). I would also help out with protected page requests. I guess what I'm trying to say is that if you need me to help with something, and you ask me, then I'll be there to help you out with it. Sometimes I get in that state where you click a wikilink, and another, and another, and you find yourself ten pages away from where I was, so I do have lots of time to pitch in with the admin effort.

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

A: The article I'm most proud of is Newfoundland referendums, 1948, which I spent some time researching online (after I took it in class some months ago, and discovered that it didn't exist on wiki!). Even though I live in Saskatchewan. I have tried to also contribute to articles related to Saskatchewan, and I've started over 30 articles in that are alone. I also tried to give Saskatoon City Council a little cleanup and added short bio's about councillors, since some of them wouldn't meet WP:BIO on their own. I realize that I'll have to update it every 3 years (at each election), but that's the beauty of wikipedia, you can update as things change. Articles should never look historic (unless of corse they're about historic/static places/people).

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 not been in too many major conflicts really. I try to help other editors with conflicts through the AMA (which every new user seems to be able to find even though it took me several months). I'm not a person that will go "I'm right, and everyone else is wrong", and if I'm tired or in a hurry then anyone is allowed to hit me over the head and remind me (it did happen once, as looked at on my editor review).

4. Question from Centrx: What is your opinion of this action, in which a user who displayed a Nazi userbox was indef-blocked by Jimmy Wales and and the user page was deleted? Should users be allowed to post flashy, sensational banners espousing hateful political positions?

A (edit conflict) Yes, I was following that thread on the mailing list the last week. On such a diverse place like Misplaced Pages, it is impossible to legislate and make rules for everything. Some people were arguing that it was the same as have an "I support <party> userbox". I believe that Jimbo did the right thing. You can't troll around on wikipedia. I remember that the user also hade some other userboxes that were just as distruptive too. Now, I know that the question is meant to ask basically about political userboxes in general (because I'm part of WP:UM of corse). I believe that users should be able to have something suttle like "This user supports <party>". But, there are some invisible lines in the sand that must be drawn. It is basically universally agreed on that the Nazi's were, dare I say, evil. Anyone who supports the Nazi's and Hitler are outcasts, because of what they did. I know that the communists were just as bad, but everyone's forgotten them since the Cold War. And the US and China are traiding partners (PRC is communist still).

Where are these lines drawn and who decides where to draw them? Why should infamy decide whether a userbox is allowed? Is a userbox more conducive to creating an encyclopedia simply because fewer people will know enough to be revolted by it? —Centrx→talk • 23:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Consensus. It's what[REDACTED] lives on. Most people agree that no Nazi's is a good thing. It can also come down from above, from Jimbo or the board. When they decide to draw lines, it's our job to follow them. If we don't know where to draw the lines, then we need to decide by consensus. Consensus was agaist something like mass userbox deletions (and depending who you talk to it may also be against WP:UM). (Now to the part of the question that was added while I was writing that) Many userboxes are not encyclopedic, I'll give you that. That is the reason why they were migrated out of template space and into userspace (now if someone could just explain that part to the people who hate UM). Why are they allowed? Because consensus has allowed them. If Jimbo declared tomorrow that all userboxes should die, I would comply though. But he hasn't, and consensus hasn't turned against userboxes yet. So they are still here. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

What is consensus; how is consensus formed? Do consensus decisions result from counting numbers in a poll advertised to partisan allies? Should a userbox be allowed simply because the political position in it is more popular? —Centrx→talk • 00:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The post that I made on WT:UBM was to inform a group of editors who are heavily involved in migrating userboxes that what we do might be for naught. If it was decided that the userboxes would stay deleted, then there would be no point in TGS/GUS/UBM, and the userbox wars would probably re-breakout. I also posted to AN/I, with no responce whatsoever. And for some reason, I failed to find the Wikigroup dedicated to the utter destruction of userboxes, so I couldn't inform them. In responce to the second one, how popular is it to be a Republican right now? How about a Bush supporter? Boxes about them may exist. How about the Liberal Party of Canada? They were basically thrown out of government, but userboxes for them exist. Consensus, well, is done on a case by case basis. Sometimes it's a poll. Sometimes it's a discussion. Sometimes it may be a !vote. A bureaucrat must determine consensus of this RFA. How? Only they truely know the secret formula. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 03:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

5. Question from Centrx: What is the purpose of a Misplaced Pages user page?

A: Well, according to WP:USER, Your userpage is for anything that is compatible with the Misplaced Pages project. It is basically a little of your space. You can put what articles you've written, some userboxes that state your biasses to inform other editors of, babel to inform other users what language you speak, user categories which are intended to help Wikipedians with similar broad interests to congregate and converse. Some user's put a short bio on their userpage, because most wikipedian's are not-notable. A userpage can basically be used for anything that doesn't violate policies or guidelines (especially WP:USER, but excluding WP:NPOV). So no advertising, no fair use galleries, no attack pages. Some users do overuse userboxes (and I have seen them when migrating userboxes). If there is something wrong with someones userpage (in the opinion of someone), then the best thing to do is to talk to the user about it, and point them in the right direction. The overall point? I know the point of mine is to inform about articles, and biasses.

6. Question from Centrx: What is the reason behind why one should assume good faith on Misplaced Pages, other than smoothing relations? What evidence is necessary before one no longer needs to continue to assume that an established user is acting in good faith?

A: The answer is WP:BITE really to start. We are to assume that some people have a little "fun" (if you can call it that), but we're sure that they will go straight, and begin to become a good editor. We must AGF for many reasons, many of them brought up on the mailing list, well, today I believe. There was a question about a Star Trek episode being used as a source. Then of corse mayhem ensued and there was a question of whether it was verifiable. If we AGF, then we realize that they have checked their facts and we leave it be. If we don't, then someone who is perinoid would spend their whole real life™ checking every reference on[REDACTED] to see if it's correct. Of corse anyone is free to do that, but there simply isn't enough time to do that. Of corse, if you assume good faith, then you believe that everything's done in the best interest of the project. If you don't, then you spend your probably-short-wiki-career fighting with everyone, makeing personal attacks, legal threats, ect. It's a mind set really. If you go in with a AGF mindset, then you'll try to see everything from that angle. If you don't, then you might not get the idea of a wiki.

An established user deserves good faith. An established user is usually someone that has been here at least a month at least, and probably know's (many-most) policies. If a good faith user breaks down and starts to vandalize, or just do anything that is counter to the project, then good faith is lost, and is usually followed by ArbCom, or at least a RFC.

7. Question from Centrx: What is policy on Misplaced Pages and how is it formed?

A: A policy is something that everyone on wiki must follow (excpet when WP:IARing). A policy is universal law on wikipedia, and many of them are WMF based, like WP:NPOV, and the everyone-can-edit edict. According to WP:POLICY, they are started in one of three ways. Either by making a policy for something that's already generally accepted, and has been for a while (I can't think of one at the moment), by declaration from godJimbo, the WMF, or the Devs (server related things), or by the magical thing we call consensus. Hypothetically, if we did not have WP:NPA at this moment, we could write it down, advertise it at the villiage pump, and everyone could say "Yes, that's how we do things already", and we could call that policy because it's basically writting down the status quo.

8. Could you please comment on your 2718 userspace edits? - crz crztalk 03:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

A: WP:TGS (as I remember it) mostly. User:Royalguard11/Status, because it took me a while to get the right table for it (and of corse I only use it half the time now). My monobook.js I have changed quite a bit, because I like to change it a lot. A bit was labelling socks of the Quebec Vandal (there's 51 of them). Some vandalism reverting. I used to update my userpage a lot when I used to patroll Special:Crossnamespacelinks so I would update where I had checked (because I couldn't remember). But it's mostly WP:UBM (as it is now) related things, bypassing redirects that I did with every box I adopted (without using AWB). I'm one of the more heavily involved users.

9. Question from Voice of All: You said you would help at WP:RFPP, but that area usually seems to be under control. I find that I can do other things and it rarely builds a backlog in my absence. WP:PP is another matter, I seem to be the only one that does much there consistantly. Would you be willing to help out there?Voice-of-All 20:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

A: As I understand from the page, and from your admin log, the "patrol" of that page appears to be making sure that pages aren't being protected for too long, and hoping that unprotecting will improve the articles. Now, unless I'm in left field there, then I'm sure I can pitch in and help out with that. It isn't very wise in[REDACTED] to have pages protected from editing for too long. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 20:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

10. Question from Kingjeff: What is your opinion of permently semi-protecting pages that are high-risk for vandalism? Kingjeff 21:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

A: As I said in my answer above, it isn't wise to have pages protected for too long. That being said though, there are some pages that recieve a lot of IP/newuser vandalism, George W. Bush being one of them. If it is getting to a point that there hasn't been any constructive eding from IP's or new users over a long period of time (say, two-three months at least), then it may be smarter to save good faith editors the trouble of having to revert vandalism perpetually, and getting edit conflicted while trying to make good edits because of vandalism, and semi protect the article for an indeterminate amount of time. Of corse, eventually everyone will forget about Bush and it will be unprotected sometime in the distant future. I would say though that as a new admin, I wouldn't be indefinitely sprotecting articles without getting a second opinion from another more experienced admin. But, then again protection time isn't specified, and may be undone by any admin at any time (without wheel-warring of corse). -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 21:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

General comments

• See Royalguard11's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool. Added to this page by Sharkface217 22:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• I did have an editor review, and it has been archived (but is still linked to from my signature, and anyone is still free to review me and I still read them). It is at Misplaced Pages:Editor review/Royalguard11. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 21:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, and before I forget for the nth time, if the community trusts me with adminship, then I will be openly adding myself to Category:Administrators open to recall. It would be hypocritical not to after I defended the idea of it at CFD. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Support

1. Nominator support you didn't beat me :P Martinp23 22:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
2. Support I almost beat you here. Basically per nom this user is a great example of what an admin should be. — Seadog 22:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
3. Support Why aren't you an Admin yet? Sharkface217 22:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
4. Support TSO1D 22:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
5. Support I know this has gotten really old but: You're not an admin?? –The Great Llama 22:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
6. Strong Support 100% certainty he'll be an enormous asset to the team Glen 23:09, December 9, 2006 (UTC)
7. Support Looks like a good candidate for the mop and bucket. (aeropagitica) 23:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
8. Support a good candidate --Steve _(Slf67) 23:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
9. Strong support. Wow, why didn't tell me about this? A great user and also a great colleague to work with in AMA. --Neigel von Teighen 00:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
10. Strong support. Of course. --SonicChao 00:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
11. Support. Without a doubt, admin worthy. AuburnPilot 00:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
12. Support per above and dealings with at the AMA. Addhoc 00:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
13. Support John254 03:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
14. Support. A thoughtful editor who can work effectively with those from diverse perspectives. Rfrisbie 04:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
15. Support Shows promise of being an admin more interested in process than in agenda-pushing. The project can always use more than that, because process is important. One mild disagreement: I don't agree with the answer given to #4 above. Making a Nazi hide that fact doesn't (to my mind) improve the project. I'd rather know who I'm dealing with. --Ssbohio 05:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
16. Support. A good editor Brian | (Talk) 05:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
17. Strong Support - crz crztalk 05:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
18. Support seems good to me, should use the tools well. James086 05:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
19. Support. Glad to give the tools to this outstanding vandal fighter. One minor concern that I have, though, is the number of spelling errors in his contributions to this RfA. An administrator who is also a native English speaker should take care to always spell his contributions correctly, in order to be both well understood and taken seriously. Sandstein 07:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
20. Support seems like a great candidate, definitely worthy of the tools. Hagerman 07:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
21. Support I'm confident that user will make a great admin. He has answered all answers very well, impressive. Good luck! ← ANAS 12:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
22. Support Good number of edits and time. Good quality edits. AMA mediator. God answers. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 13:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
23. Support A good contributor and editor. Friendly, levelheaded and hardworking. CharonX/talk 15:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
24. Support I thought he already was an admin, to be honest. CameoAppearance 17:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
25. Support. Great user, will make fine admin. Nishkid64 18:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
26. Support. No reason to oppose and with Martin nominating, I have confidence in the candidate. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 19:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
27. Support Tyson Moore es 19:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
28. Support Looks like a good editor who will make a good admin.-- danntm _C 20:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
29. Support No problems here. teh tennisman 21:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
30. Suport Congratulations. м info 01:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
31. Support What a great asset to Misplaced Pages! Katalaveno 03:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
32. Yes. Daniel.Bryant 09:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
33. Support, per nom. --Carioca 14:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
34. Misplaced Pages can always use another guard. (Radiant) 17:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
35. Support per nomination. --Siva1979 18:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
36. Support. Your work at the AMA is great, I am sure you will make a fantastic admin! Wikiwoohoo 19:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
37. Strong Support Hurry up, get the mop, get back to work, and start AD-MIN-ING :) — Deon555_desk 22:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
38. YA RLY. Admin tools would probably benefit your AMA-ness. --Deskana talk 23:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
39. Support Unlikely to abuse admin powers.--TBCΦtalk? 02:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
40. Support per all of the above. Alex43223 03:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
41. Support. G.He 04:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
42. Support Responsible, friendly and dedicated. Mop him boys. Dfrg.msc 04:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
43. Support Per all above. Mirror, Mirror, on the wall... 04:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
44. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 05:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
45. Support. Zaxem 06:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
46. Support Terence Ong 08:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
47. Support Just H 23:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
48. Support. Mainly due to moral opposition to Centrx's badgering of the candidate. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 08:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
49. Support, per Interiot's tool a lot of edits in such a short time (most edits in the last 6 months! Booksworm Talk to me! 15:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
50. Support Trustworthy editor. Xoloz 16:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
51. Support: A good editor who will use the mop wisely. s d 3 1 4 1 5 final exams! 01:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
52. Support nothing more to add --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 02:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
53. Support Sarah Ewart 06:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
54. Support. Mostly based on handling of Centrx. --StuffOfInterest 14:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
55. Support. Looks like a stong candidate. And if you can handle that grilling from Centrx, you can handle anything.- WJBscribe  19:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
56. Support very strong understanding of policy and will use the tools just fine.¤~Persian Poet Gal 20:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
57. Support Looks ok. - Yaf 21:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
58. Looks good, I don't find the opposition very compelling here. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I asked the questions above in relation to this assumption of bad faith and the user thinking that this userbox is appropriate for Misplaced Pages, but the answers to the questions above about AGF and policy formation are weak, many automated edits, and most of these AfDs are empty votes added at the end of a long list of deletes (e.g.: , , , , ). The answer to one question is simply a resort to a generic "oh, it must decided by consensus", but the answer to what "consensus" is I don't see that this user understands that consensus must comes from reference to the principles and policy of the encyclopedia. It is not a poll and it has nothing to do with political parties or a "secret formula". —Centrx→talk • 20:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
   • You know how to hold a grudge, Centrx. Though regarding to the userbox incident above, you - yet again - are twisting the facts. You, for example, failed to mention that this box was only one among a large number of userboxes you speedy-deleted from userspace. An action that was overturned with a great majority - dare I say consensus - of editors. Still, I believe everybody is entiteled to his own opinion, though I choose not to share yours. CharonX/talk 23:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
     • No, my opposition is based on the answers to the questions, which, in addition to not showing improvement about the specific issues that prompted them, show a lack of or weak understanding of policy that I was actually surprised at. I could simply have opposed initially with a few diffs if I were "holding a grudge", but I asked these questions and the result was unexpectedly weak responses. Also, I don't think any user who uses Misplaced Pages as a site for partisanship, especially of the emotive glowing userbox kind, should be an administrator. This was one of several user boxes which are absolutely inappropriate, which the user wished to be undeleted en masse either without consideration of the matter or as a part of some general principle that favors political advocacy on Misplaced Pages. There are communist ones, fascist ones, death penalty expansion ones—and a small minority of relatively innocuous political parties which are still inappropriate to building an encyclopedia. The deletion review was advertised at the user box migration project, and no where else, which is one of the major problems with polling. —Centrx→talk • 04:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
     • If you really want me to explain the comment, I will. Two-stepping is a political term, refering to when politicians are asked questions, which they ignore and instead give an answer that better fits with their party line/propaganda. The current Harper/Canadian government is excellent at it, for when they were asked an uncomforable question, they would ramble on about their five pillars, or accountability, or how everything was the fault of the previous government. T1 doesn't apply to userspace is pretty self explanitory. Supporting a political party is not a)a crime or b)a speedy deletion criterion is also self explanitory. Then I mentioned ANI, where admins did not even comment on the situation, and the only comment was a crytpic "It is regretful Centrx did not link to the pertinent discussion in his deletion edit summary." from El C. As for consensus, there are a hundred different factors that could be taken into account in every different situation. There is not one end-all-be-all definition. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
       • I know what the cliche is. The issue is assuming that I was purposefully ignoring your questions, when to my mind I directly answered them. AGF has nothing whatsoever to do with verifiability—we must not assume that everything cited is accurate and inaccurate interpretations of sources come from good-faith users—and it does not stem from biting newcomers. You simply have no idea whether I "ignored" your questions, and it should certainly have been clear to you that I did not ignore "every single question". —Centrx→talk • 04:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
       • Err, ok. I didn't see that box before, and it's pretty closely identified with Nazism. As I said on the DRV, it's hard to tell sometimes from just titles for us that can't see deleted material. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 03:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
         • There's also User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/Communist, User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/Totalitarian, User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/Fascist, User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/NPD DEU, and User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/Death Penalty, for example. It only so happens that you or others may not have a natural revulsion to them, or do not know their policies, or that you like your Saskatchewan New Democratic Party better than you like the German National Democratic Party. —Centrx→talk • 04:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
           • If you don't like the boxes, and think they should be deleted, then there is a process called MfD that you can go through to have them deleted. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose, although not for (all of) the same reasons as Centrx. Weak answers to questions are a real concern for me, and I have a hard time understanding why so much of this user's edits are to userspace (yes, I know Userbox Migration is a lot of them, but that leaves you with under 6000 other edits in six months. I expect this will pass regardless, but I hope this user will take to heart some of the criticism leveled here and proceed carefully and neutrally, rather than becoming a partisan admin, of which we have had plenty in the past. -- nae'blis 19:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

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

About RfB

• WP:RFB

Requests for bureaucratship (RfB) is the process by which the Misplaced Pages community decides who will become bureaucrats. Bureaucrats can make other users administrators or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here, and remove administrator rights in limited circumstances. They can also grant or remove bot status on an account.

The process for bureaucrats is similar to that for adminship above; however the expectation for promotion to bureaucratship is significantly higher than for admin, requiring a clearer consensus. In general, the threshold for consensus is somewhere around 85%. Bureaucrats are expected to determine consensus in difficult cases and be ready to explain their decisions.

Create a new RfB page as you would for an RfA, and insert

{{subst:RfB|User=Username|Description=Your description of the candidate. ~~~~}}

into it, then answer the questions. New bureaucrats are recorded at Misplaced Pages:Successful bureaucratship candidacies. Failed nominations are at Misplaced Pages:Unsuccessful bureaucratship candidacies.

At minimum, study what is expected of a bureaucrat by reading discussions at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship including the recent archives, before seeking this position.

While canvassing for support is often viewed negatively by the community, some users find it helpful to place the neutrally worded {{RfX-notice|b}} on their userpages – this is generally not seen as canvassing. Like requests for adminship, requests for bureaucratship are advertised on the watchlist and on Template:Centralized discussion.

Please add new requests at the top of the section immediately below this line.

Current nominations for bureaucratship

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 at Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval.
• Requests for comment on possible misuse of sysop privileges
• A summary of rejected proposals for de-adminship processes, as well as a list of past cases of de-adminship, may be found at Misplaced Pages:Requests for de-adminship

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

• Unsuccessful requests for adminship
• Successful requests for adminship
• Requests for adminship
• Misplaced Pages administration