Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

"WP:RFA" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Requested articles, Wikipedia:Requests for administrator attention, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests, or requests for assistance at Wikipedia:Help desk.

Note: Although this page is under extended confirmed protection, non-extended confirmed editors may still comment on individual requests, which are located on subpages of this page.

if nominations haven't updated.

Current time is 02:46, 5 November 2024 (UTC). —

Current time is 02:46, 5 November 2024 (UTC). —

Requests for adminship (RfA) is the process by which the Wikipedia 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 the community consensus and the Arbitration Commitee rulings by protecting or deleting pages and applying sanctions to users.

About RfA

Recently closed RfAs and RfBs ()

Candidate	Type	Result	Date of close	Tally
				S	O	N	%
AirshipJungleman29	RfA	Withdrawn by candidate	27 Sep 2024	34	21	4	62
Significa liberdade	RfA	Successful	21 Sep 2024	163	32	10	84
Asilvering	RfA	Successful	6 Sep 2024	245	1	0	>99
HouseBlaster	RfA	Successful	23 Jun 2024	153	27	8	85

The community grants administrator access to trusted users, so nominees should have been on Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia (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:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls; a list of names and some additional information are automatically maintained at Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia, 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

For more information, see: Wikipedia:Bureaucrats § Promotions and RfX closures.

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

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

Current nominations

Add new requests at the top of this section

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

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

Current time is 02:46, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.

---

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

EvanProdromou

final (26/8/2) ending 20:25 13 December 2005 (UTC)

EvanProdromou (talk · contribs) – I have been a Wikipedia contributor since October of 2002. I have started several pages almost complete (Abraham Lincoln Brigade, Jacques Marquette, Barbary Wars, Lollapalooza, Palo Duro Canyon, Arkansas River come to mind immediately) and proposed a few style guidelines (e.g. Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms and Wikipedia:avoid peacock terms). I'm also a Mediawiki developer with CVS access. My main interest is Wikitravel, which I co-founded in 2003, but I'd like to have admin status here to be more involved in Wikipedia. ESP 19:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Yes. ESP 20:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Support ummmmm yeah!Gator (talk) 20:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
2. Support. BD2412 T 20:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
3. Support per BDA below. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 21:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
4. Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 21:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
5. File Éireann 01:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
6. Support, unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
7. Support. For friends of gays only, if for nothing else. ;) Matt Yeager 05:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
8. Support. Consistent activity over a long time. Highly involved in the project despite low edit count (he's a developer people!) -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 13:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
9. Yes, please - not obviously unhinged. Lupin|talk|popups 22:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
10. Support. Excellent answer to my question, deserves credit for having been here a long time. After three years as a Wiki-holic, it's ok -- probably healthy -- for one's edit count to drop. Xoloz 04:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
11. Support The use of the edit summarys is very good, I changed my vote based upon the fact that this user has been here for so long and is still here making edits. I've been here for just a few months and I've had small lulls in activity before. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 05:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
12. Support. A trusted user who has been around for a while. It can't hurt to give him admin powers. --NormanEinstein 13:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
13. Support. He's clearly established his trustworthiness. Chick Bowen 16:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
14. Support. The length of time you have been here is a testimony to your dedication to this project. Just remember edit summaries. --Martin Osterman 00:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
15. Support. —Guanaco 03:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
16. Support, very experienced user.  Grue  09:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
17. Support ∾ Obviously understands Wikipedia policy, to the point of creating pages two years ago which were accepted as guidelines and are still widely cited today. Obviously experienced in Wikipedia administration as a consequence of his creation and subsequent maintenance of Wikitravel. Trustworthiness obviously established. Obviously not a May-December romance with Wikipedia; he's in it for the long haul. Will obviously be an asset to Wikipedia itself if given the mop and bucket. I'm croggled that people are actually debating the frequency of his edits given all of the foregoing. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 11:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
18. Support low activity is of some concern, but there is zero evidence of bad activity; hence my vote to support.--MONGO 03:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
19. Strong support as a long-term, reliable contributor. You definitely seem like the type of person who is intelligent enough to familiarize themselves with policy before using it. silsor 18:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
20. Support. El_C 04:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
21. Strong support per Extreme Unction. I am croggled, too, though I had to look it up to be sure. There is absolutely no reason to think he will misuse the tools. The focus on recent edits of a consistent long term user makes no sense to me. -- DS1953 04:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
22. Support. I thought he was a developer already, and he is, which tells me he is quite involved in Wikipedia, just in different areas that I don't frequent. Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 05:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
23. Support I think I was a bit hasty in my formation of my initial opinion. I think this user would make a good admin and really help wikipedia. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 05:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
24. Support of course. Been around longer than most anyone. Low edit counts are reasons against only when it implies newbie-ness, which is obviously not the case here. BTW, his answer to the IAR question should be enshrined in the rule itself. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 21:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
25. Support. Low edit rate is not a reason to deny adminship. —Simetrical (talk) 22:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
26. Support. If we trust him to work on the software, we should trust him with the content. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 23:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Fewer that 200 edits in the last year shows you're barely involved in Wikipedia at all. Additionally, the coverage of your edits over that period misses a lot of the important matters that are the meat of an admin's enhanced role - warning vandals, AfD, copyvio - there's little evidence that you're properly up-to-speed with the rules and mores of Wikipedia as they stand to day (and evidence that you aren't). There's no need for someone to be an admin to be more involved. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

   The evidence cited is from March - for me, that's just too far removed for me to consider relevant. Also, this editor may participate lightly, but he has also done so fairly consistently since July of 2003, which speaks to me of someone who is in it for the long haul. BD2412 T 21:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

2. Oppose Low activity. ^ <200 edits in last year... Olorin28 00:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

   Although I take no position at this time on EvanProdromou's application for adminship, I must dissent from this reasoning. If a user has been active for a year, and has contributed slowly but steadily with no disruptive activity, I do not see why the low edit count is an argument against adminship. Adminship is supposed to be no big deal. We don't need to restrict it to "Wikipedia junkies"; more part-time admins would, in my opinion, actually be a positive good. It's not like we have a limited number of adminships to hand out; it's just a flag in the user profile. Crotalus horridus 14:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

   Oppose I'd like to see more activity in your recent contributions, but also I'd like to see you using edit summaries everytime. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 04:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC) I have changed my vote to Support, see above. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 05:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

3. Oppose due to edit summaries and low activity.—thames 15:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
4. Oppose Not a lot of recent activity, though if your new activity continues would probally support next time; several vandal reverts, but not followed by User talk messages or warnings needed for dealing with repeat vandals. You want to work on tricky technical parts of wikipedia, but failry low or nonexistent edits regarding categories,templates, and/or their discussions. xaosflux ^T/_C 04:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
5. Oppose per lack of activity. Radiant_>|< 16:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
6. Oppose lack of activity. --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
7. Oppose although user shows experience with old policy and guidelines, alot has changed over time... low recent edit count would definately cause a lack of familiarity with modern policies/guidelines. Perhaps if activity level increased I would support in the future. As for now... I must oppose.  ALKIVAR™ 10:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
8. Oppose, lack of activity in last year. HGB 01:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral You use edit summaries on many of your edits, but not all of them, and although i don't usually base judgements on edit counts, only 200 edits in a year indicates a fairly low level of participation. Also, sort of like Finlay McWalter said, i think the way it works is that you get involved in Wikipedia and then you get admin status, not the other way around.--Alhutch 23:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
2. Neutral Not sure yet. --Merovingian 00:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

   Neutral This is a difficult one. I might change my vote after a more careful look at the last 200 edits. Change to support see above. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 05:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• In response to problems with my low edit count for the last year: if you're looking for a certain kind of administrator, it's a valid concern. However, I think I can make up in consistency and longevity what I lack in intensity. As has been pointed out, I've been a contributor since October 2002 and a consistent contributor since summer of 2003. It is quite unlikely that I will get burnt out on Wikipedia; I think I've shown that I'll be participating at this time next year, and the year after, and the year after that. --ESP 16:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• New question posted. Xoloz 21:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

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

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A. I'm especially interested in understanding and participating in the trickiest social and technical problems in Wikipedia: managing conflicts, workarounds for database issues, dealing with new vandalism and spamming techniques, I think that Wikipedia is leading the wiki world in dealing with a massive, public, open community, and I'd like to learn first-hand about those solutions. In addition, bugs and feature requests often come from en: Wikipedia first, so it's worthwhile for me from a developer's point of view to be involved in those processes.

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

A. I've particularly enjoyed adding articles about American history and geography. I particularly liked Thomas Hart Benton (senator) and Thomas Hart Benton (painter), as well as the First Barbary War and Second Barbary War. I also like subjects that have personal connections, such as Citroën DS (I drive a DS) or Nobel laureate Owen Chamberlain as he was one of my favorite professors at Berkeley. I've also liked the two style guidelines listed above, which I think have helped a lot of people think more about writing style in Wikipedia (either positively or negatively). For better or worse my best-known contribution has been meta:Friends of gays should not be allowed to edit 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 can't think of any remarkable conflicts I've been involved in. I'm a strong believer that steering discussion to objective facts rather than subjective judgements can cool tempers and keep Wikipedians working together. I also think that stepping away from an issue in Wikipedia that gets your dander up is probably the best course of action. If you're right in the conflict, the community will help correct the issue; if you're not, you probably shouldn't be fighting so hard, anyways.

4. You are a veteran Wikipedian. Some veterans take an expansive view of the applicability of WP:IAR. What is your view of WP:IAR, used as a justification for administrative action?

A. I think that ignoring rules and experimentation are really crucial for new users. I think they need to feel the excitement of getting started on this project -- the thrill of the frontier -- without getting too bogged down in feeling bad about doing some teensy ritual slightly wrong. I think rules should be something that users discover for themselves ("You know, it'd be good to have a standard way to format Japanese names... oh, look! Someone's already thought of that! Great!") and that they should never be something that the Old Guard uses to show off their power.

For administrative actions... well. I can see emergency cases where an admin needs to step outside the rules for the greater good of the project. A hostile distributed bot using a previously unknown 'sploit... maybe. But I think admins need to set a good example for everyone else -- with a greater set of functionality at their control, they need to show more responsibility. Considering how absolutely easy it is to change rules on Wikipedia if the need arises, I think that admins should take the time to document and discuss exceptions.

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

---

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

The Land

final (35/10/0) ending 18:49 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The Land (talk · contribs) – I received a lot of encouraging comments in an RfA a while back. I've now made enough contributions to get to something like 1300 edits (though deleted edits aren't included in that), across all areas and have participated a fair bit on IRC.

I've also run into some more 'interesting' situations, like [1], done more vandal-fighting, encountered blocking and protection a lot more. I've also contributed more content to a string of economic articles. In short I think I've addressed the issues about broader knowledge and experience and I hope you can support me this time. The Land 18:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:I accept. The Land 18:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. First Post! seen this editor around and always thought he was sensible. Good egg in my estimation. Hamster Sandwich 18:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
2. Support active on talk pages and wikipedia namespace, and uses edit summaries nicely, which is a big plus. not likely to abuse admin tools.--Alhutch 19:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
3. Massive dose of support. He's pretty good. BD2412 T 19:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
4. I went out on a limb in his last RfA and supported him. I thought I was going to be the only one. This time I already know I won't. I will, however, reiterate some of what I said then, "Level-headed? Check. Civil? Check... Heading in the right direction? Check. Can have (most) errors corrected? Check. No big deal? Check. I think I'll go out on a limb and support for now. Just do try and be more active." --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
5. Support - everything seems good. Chick Bowen 19:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
6. Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 21:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
7. Support Izehar (talk) 22:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
8. Support We need more admins watching where the money goes... I mean watching economic topics. Smmurphy^(Talk) 00:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
9. Support --Aranda ⁵⁶ 00:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
10. Support We need more admins, issues in last RfA seem addressed. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
11. Coming back from Wiki-break to support. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 04:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
12. Support, unlikely to abuse administrator tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
13. Support has proved himself. No big deal.Gator (talk) 15:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
14. Support --pgk^(talk) 19:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
15. Merovingian 00:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
16. Support. Seems like a good user, from his edit history and what I've seen of him at AfC. Leithp (talk) 09:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
17. Support. A good contributor, with well rounded contributions both with articles and with janitorial work. Looking through the contributions I see a responsible editor who I think would do well with the admin tools. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
18. Support ∾ The Land is level-headed, reasonable, and knowledgeable. Wikipedia will benefit from giving the mop and bucket to The Land. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 15:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
19. SupportGood editor. Banes 16:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
20. Support. Even though I have never worked with him, the fact that he has had 500 edits since his last RfA is merit enough in my books. I didn't vote in his last RfA, mostly because in October I was just starting to take interest in this side of Wiki. With that said, I'd say let's go for it. --Martin Osterman 00:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
21. Kinda disappointed he self-nommed (I could name half a dozen people who'd probably be happy to nominate him), especially so soon after his last RfA. That said, he is a Top Bloke with a level head and the ability to shoot laser beams from his eyes, so I don't really have any choice in the matter. Support. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 00:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
22. Probably was good enough last time, just not active enough for people to see it. Under the circumstances, waiting over a month to re-nominate is plenty long enough. --Michael Snow 18:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
23. Support Because he's always been a nice guy to me, and we need more nice admins. karmafist 02:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
24. Strong support; oppose votes go against long-standing consensus that RfA renominations do not need to wait for arbitrary periods. Ambi 03:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
25. Support Seems competent and sensible enough to use admin tools for good. --Whouk (talk) 21:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
26. Support Martin 00:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
27. Support, seems like a good, upstanding Wikipedian. So why wait to give him the mop.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 08:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
28. Guettarda 17:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
29. Support. In this user's previous RFA, many opposed because The Land had been idle for a while and had a "low" edit count (hahaha). Now, people are opposing because The Land, after fixing those problems, presented the solution "too soon". In both RFAs, so far, not one person has opposed for any other reason besides these two. Nobody has been able to come up with any reason why this user could not make perfectly good use of the extra abilities. silsor 18:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
30. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 16:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC) 18:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
31. Close but not too soon for me to oppose. Hmm, that didn't come out right. El_C 04:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
32. Support per silsor. The Land had not a single oppose vote based on anything he did. He withdrew after a few days and waited almost seven weeks before renominating himself. He has shown fine judgment in biding his time and even if you think that an editor who has things to "fix" should hold off for 2-3 months to show improvement, that seems to be inapplicable here. -- DS1953 18:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
33. Support. That he was turned down recently doesn't mean he has to be turned down now. —Simetrical (talk) 22:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
34. Support as per Sjakkalle. Thryduulf 18:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
35. Support as per last time. Y0u | Y0ur talk page 00:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose RfA's should not be re-considered for 2-3 months --rogerd 03:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
2. Oppose, barely over a month since last RfA. Am opposing now because I don't feel I'll get guff now. Quentin Pierce 03:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
   • Sure you will. The candidate has made 500 edits since his last RfA. That gives us plenty of evidence of his responsibility or lack thereof. What else would we be voting on? Chick Bowen 03:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
     • this might be kind of stupid question, but why does it matter how long it's been since the last RfA for this user?--Alhutch 04:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
       • It allows an opportunity for the editor to demonstrate improvement on the points raised in the last RfA. --Durin 13:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
         • Durin's right-- however, he was opposed based on low time IIRC, making such an oppose ridiculous. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 02:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
           • Low edit count perhaps, but I don't think you can say low time about someone who started editing in 2004. --Michael Snow 18:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
             • Is 500 edits not enough to demonstrate what you want to see? Raven4x4x 06:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Nothing against the user, but let's not set a precedent of quick re-consideration bids. Take a little time to work things out. —thames 16:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
4. Oppose. For the reasons listed above, and the low edit count. ^BlankVerse 18:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
5. Oppose I do favor a longer waiting time between nominations, but I'll be glad to support next nom. Xoloz 21:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
6. Oppose. Too soon after last nom. Jobe6 05:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
7. Oppose, too soon after previous nomination. No evidence of having addressed the criticism mentioned in that RFA. Radiant_>|< 16:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

   What criticism? Am I missing something? -- DS1953 18:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

8. Oppose I feel pretty much the way the other opposers do, not enough time to see if this user has taken previous criticism to heart. Perhaps in the future I will support... but not now.  ALKIVAR™ 10:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
9. Oppose as self-noms should be spaced further apart. Will most likely support in future, but still too soon. Turnstep 19:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
10. Oppose, need a little more time since last RFA. HGB 01:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

• Neutral barely over a month since last RfA, would oppose, but I'd probably get guff for it. Quentin Pierce 22:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• I believe it should say ending December 13, not December 6, right?--Alhutch 19:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

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

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A. My main contributions would be janitorial, on AfD and Newpages. However, I will probably also increase the amount of vandalwhacking I do, and I've already encountered occasions when I would have found it useful to {{vprotect}}. I would also continue to act in an adminly fashion at WP:AfC, though hopefully there will be no need for admin powers on that page.

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

A. I have done, and will continue to do, improvement work on a whole range of economics topics, like Economic policy, Interest rate, Socialist economics and a number off others. In terms of wikiministrative stuff, I'm somewhat proud ofclarifying this point, which I think helped save a fair amount of stress and trouble.

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 not been engaged in any big conflicts, though I have had some people (like User:IndigoGenius) rather stressed at me. I don't think I've ever got more than mildly snappy, even when (like the Unguided Evolution deletion debate linked above) I have felt very angry. I am generally quite cool-headed under pressure, and not afraid to do things like ask difficult but necessary questions.

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

---

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

SoLando

final (28/0/0) ending 13:02 14:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

SoLando (talk · contribs) – Joel has been a Wikipedian since December 2003. In that time he has accumulated 5278 edits, of which 4410 are to the mainspace. His contributions have included an awful lot of vandal fighting, as well as exceptionally tedious tasks for Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history in addition to numerous good quality contributions to articles. I can't support his endorsement of Slipknot (see his user page), but I can recommend him as a great potential Admin. Leithp (talk) 13:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I humbly accept. I'm also inclined to agree with you about Slipknot - blame birthdays ;-) SoLando (Talk) 14:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Nominator Support. Obviously. Leithp (talk) 14:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
2. Support per nom - good admin in the making. BD2412 T 15:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
3. Support. Good contributor who will benefit from having admin tools. Carbonite | Talk 15:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
4. Support will be good admin --rogerd 15:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
5. Support per above. Izehar (talk) 16:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
6. Support. Will be useful as an admin. deeptrivia (talk) 17:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
7. Merovingian 17:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
8. Yeah. Will be good. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 17:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
9. Support, amazingly meticulous and dedicated. Will make a great admin! —Kirill Lokshin 17:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
10. Support of course.Gator (talk) 18:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
11. Support A quick look at last 300 edits looks good. Answers to questions are good. Therefore support is good. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk. 18:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
12. MEGA, ULTRA, Leithp and 10 others beat me to it, SUPPORT, In addition to being a meticulous and dedicated contributor and vandal fighter he's also a helluva cool dude. It is a honor to call him my friend and a pleasure to wholeheartedly support his elevation to adminship, for which he has clearly demonstrated his worthiness.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 19:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
13. Support Geoff/Gsl 20:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
14. Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 21:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
15. Support. No reason not to support a fellow editor that is committed to this project. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 22:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
16. Support - Devoted and reliable editor. Also, the comparison between your internet connection and "a one-legged turtle on sleeping pills" (question 1) was the best I've heard in a while. :) Sango123 (talk) 02:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
17. Support - Hahnchen 04:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
18. NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 05:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
19. Support Looks like a fine contributor.--MONGO 11:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
20. Support as per nominator. Hall Monitor 19:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
21. Support. I've seen you around, doing good work. -- user:zanimum
22. Support per nom. the wub "?!" 11:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
23. Support Martin 00:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
24. Support a very good and supportive editor -- Francs2000 02:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
25. Support. El_C 04:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
26. Support. Dan100 (Talk) 18:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
27. Support, HGB 01:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC).
28. Support, --негіднийлють ^{(Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS)} 10:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

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

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A. My desire to help in the efforts to fight the seemingly endless scourge that is the vandal would be greatly benefited by rollback, as I have an internet connection roughly equivalenet to that of a one-legged turtle on sleeping pills. I regularly observe developments at the Admin Intervention noticeboard and do occasionaly warn users, so I'd like also use the blocking feature. I'd also be interestered in scrutinising Special:Newpages to find any nonsense articles warranting speedy deletion. And, finally, I'd be able to edit the protected anniversaries pages to correct mistakes and make minor refinements. See Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries/October 30 for an example. SoLando (Talk) 14:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

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

A. Well, I have written many lengthy articles, many of which unfortunately suffer in the grammar department (I'm so sorry to my English teachers!). My present pride and joy has most certainly been writing an article on Richard Geoffrey Pine-Coffin, a relatively obscure paratrooper officer during the Second World War. Right now, I have to say that my pet project to completely rewrite every article in Category:The King's Regiment is also something I'm quite proud of. SoLando (Talk) 14:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

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

A. I don't believe I have. If there have been conflicts that I've been embroiled in, they've likely been resolved quickly as I don't see confrontation as an appropriate way to solving issues and grievances. Yes, conflict will always be inevitable in such a vast community-based project like Wikipedia, but if there's a way to solve problems without getting all 'net Rambo, then that should be preferred. Adhering to the Five Pillars of Wikipedia and m:Don't be a dick certainly can ensure that unnecessary conflict is avoided. SoLando (Talk) 14:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

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

---

MegamanZero

Vote here ending 23:15 13, December 2005 (UTC) (0/4/1) as of 04:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MegamanZero

This nomination is deliberately shown as a link rather than a transcluded page.

---

WhatWouldEmperorNortonDo

Vote here ending 21:14 12 December 2005 (UTC) (1/4/0) as of 04:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/WhatWouldEmperorNortonDo

This nomination is deliberately shown as a link rather than a transcluded page.

---

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

Brendanconway

final 30/0/0) ending 19:03 12th December2005 (UTC)

Brendanconway (talk · contribs) – I have been a Wikipedian since February 2005. I enjoy contributing to the project, both as an author of articles, especially on Irish and medical topics. I see fighting Vandalism as a key mission for Wikipedia. I also enjoy welcoming new Wikipedians. I very much believe in Jimbo Wales' maxim: "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge.That's what we're doing" File Éireann 19:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept the self nom.--File Éireann 19:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Yep, looks good enough. Support. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 19:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
2. Good edits, see nothing to oppose from this candidate. -Lunar Jesters 19:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
3. Support. Nary a crack in the shell nor a foul smell from this egg. BD2412 T 21:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
4. Support. Nice edits. Good luck. --NormanEinstein 21:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
5. Support. Good edits, cleanups, and attitude! xaosflux ^T/_C 00:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
6. Support I have seen this user around --Aranda ⁵⁶ 01:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
7. Support His edits are adding to the place. Very good candidate. -Refusetobesilenced 02:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
8. Support as per BD. Good egg. Hamster Sandwich 03:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
9. Support looks fine.--MONGO 06:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
10. Advanced Life Support. Solid editor. JFW | T@lk 07:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
11. Support no reason not to. Izehar (talk) 16:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
12. Merovingian 16:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
13. Support. —Kirill Lokshin 17:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
14. Support yup.Gator (talk) 18:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
15. Sure. Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 21:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
16. Support, Irish medic? fights vandalism? Writes for the Community Portal? Gets my vote! ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 02:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
17. Support good editor --rogerd 03:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

    Thank you all for your votes, I've just got in from the hospital (1.30 am), so I haven't had time to thank all of you in person yet, but I'm really honoured.--File Éireann 01:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

18. Support. Kill the vandals--kill 'em all! (joking) Matt Yeager 07:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
19. Strong SAR support! Blackcap (talk) 08:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
20. Even stronger SAR support. (sorry, couldn't resist that). Palmiro | Talk 12:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
21. Support, should make a wonderful administrator. Hall Monitor 19:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
22. Support - Time to hand him the mop. Sango123 (talk) 23:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
23. Support - hope we don't lose an editor in creating an admin. Dlyons493 Talk 21:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
24. Support. the wub "?!" 11:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
25. Support - gets my vote, has been very unbiased and helpful BBwoman1 16:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
26. Support Martin 00:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
27. Support, absolutely. Have been noticing his good work for a while now. Antandrus (talk) 20:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
28. Support. El_C 04:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
29. Everyking 13:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
30. Support, HGB 01:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC).

Oppose

1. Oppose. We don't need more admins. The AfD backlog is manageable; the quality of the articles due for deletion/merging is often not mission-critical (otherwise they'd have been speedied) and it doesn't hurt if articles due for keeping still have the AfD notice for an extra day or two. Nonsense articles are a problem, but most of the problematic articles are tagged for delete on sight, and are quickly handled by existing admins. Vandalism is not that serious; most vandalism that lasts longer than a few hours would not have been caught by anyone even if the rollback feature was available to every Wikipedian. I see no reason to support the addition of admins. It's nice, but not critical. 202.58.85.8 07:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC) Vote struck -- only registered users may vote at RfA. Xoloz 07:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

   There is plenty to administer on Wikipedia that is not included in your opposition vote. What makes you think your anonymous vote will be considered? JFW | T@lk 07:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

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

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A. Vandalism is one of the main problems on Wikipedia. I frequently add delete tags to nonsense articles, sometimes they are removed again before anyone gets around to removing them. I'm naturally a very tidy person at home, a mop and bucket would make me feel much better. I think the time I devote to fighting vandalism on wikipedia would be more efficient if I could remove nonsense pages on sight. I would spend a good deal of time cleaning and scrubbing at the articles for speedy deletion. I would be sparing with use of the blocking facility but would use it when necessary.

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

A. I have become very involved in Article Improvement Drive. I help to move on the old articles and make sure the new article is updated every Sunday (in collaboration with User:Litefantastic). I produced the new template that makes WP:AID more visible on the Community portal (template:aid-summary), and I am responsible for giving information on the new article at Community Portal each week . I have also contributed large numbers of articles about the west of Ireland (most not mentioned yet on my userpage). Recently, I have started to contribute articles on emergency medicine.

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 had minor conflicts only. In my line of work (emergency medicine), we are trained in conflict resolution. I always notice quickly if a dispute is escalating and quickly move to a sensible resolution, never imposing my views at the expense of others. I have, however, kept an eye on many of the disputes at Wikipedia, and feel many of them could be resolved more easily if both sides could be persuaded to step back from the heat of the situation. Wikipedia is at it's best when it evolves by consensus rather than by edit wars. I would only use sanctions such as blocking if all other attempts at resolution failed.

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

---

Canaen

Vote here ending 08:04 12 December 2005 (UTC) (0/15/0) as of 04:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Canaen

This nomination is deliberately shown as a link rather than a transcluded page.

---

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

Orioane

final (27/0/0) ending 18:59 12 December 2005 UTC (UTC)

Orioane (talk · contribs) – I'm nominating Orioane since he's done some good work at Wikipedia in the past, particularly in regards to the Bucharest article. He is helpful, friendly and I think he would use his administrator capabilities really well! Ronline ✉ 10:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:--Orioane 12:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Support, pending acceptation by the nominee. Dpotop 11:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
2. Strong Support I've seen him working on the Bucharest pages, Treaty of Trianon Vienna Diktat and others... He is fit to be Admin. He has a very good potential and we all admire his sytle. -- Bonaparte talk & contribs 11:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
3. Support. Alexander 007 18:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
4. Support - he seems to have good temper --Anittas 19:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
5. Merovingian 20:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
6. Support. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 21:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
7. Support. He's done a lot of good work on Romanian topics, and I think he would make a good admin. Even-tempered; can distinguish where he is expert, where he is merely clueful, and where he's out of his depth, and act accordingly; etc. Slight hesitation about breadth of experience in Wikipedia, but nothing that actively worries me. In the event that he doesn't make it at this time, we should re-nominate in a few months. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
8. Support. Uncke Herb 06:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
9. Support why not? Izehar (talk) 16:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
10. Support ditto.Gator (talk) 18:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
11. Support. BTW, I like your username. Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 21:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
12. Support Extremely good and hard work on Romania related pages. I'm particularly impressed with Culture of Romania. We need a good Romanian admin. - AdamSmithee 22:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
13. Support. Vandalfighters get my vote. We need as many as we can. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 22:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
14. Support --Aranda ⁵⁶ 04:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
15. Support Contributions look solid.--MONGO 11:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
16. Support looking good... Gryffindor 09:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
17. Very Strong Support- He is a romanian. His contributions are very good. We need him.--Boxero 11:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
18. Support We need more ops with knowledge about Romania. Tfine80 01:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
19. Support. —Kirill Lokshin 03:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
20. Support. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 05:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
21. Support Martin 00:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
22. Support. -- DS1953 04:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
23. Support Dunemaire 10:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
24. Support. El_C 04:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
25. Support - Sango123 (talk) 22:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
26. Support, HGB 02:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC).
27. Support: We can always use another steady hand at the wheel. Tomer^talk 02:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
28. Support: I have seen his work and appreciate his patience. He is all fit to be an admin. --avnp* 13:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. We don't need more admins. Most vandalism that lasts longer than a few hours would not have been reverted even if every Wikipedian, anonymous or not, had the rollback feature. 202.58.85.8 07:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

This is a proven vandal IP who has been disqualified and temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia for disruption of the Requests for Adminship page and its subpages and for continued WP:POINT violations. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 08:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

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

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A. As administrative activities, up untill now I've removed quite a lot of vandalisms from the pages I watch and from other pages vandalised by the vandals I've discovered. Also I've made some welcomings and recently I began chasing images with copyright violation. I certanly will continue these activities either way and will try to add other administrative measures (I am quite intrested in helping with moves) when time allows it.

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

A. I am quite found of the contributions I've made on the article about my city, Sibiu. It is my most cherished article and it has become one of the most serious article concerning Romanian cityes. I plan to continue developing it after the winter holidays when I'll be making some research. I improuved heavily the article about the Culture of Romania and that is, by far, the biggest contribution I've made to a single article. I am pleased with this article because I managed to syntethise a lot of information concerning a subject as complex as this. Also, as Ronline said, I tried to add my contribution to the Bucharest article and we had some very constructive discussions on the Talk page.

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 followed for a period the "war" that took place on the Moldovan language, but I tried not to intervene because the talks have degenerated into assaults and the discussions were quite crowded. Also, linguistics it is not my field of activity and I couldn't have helped with an expert POV that was needed there. despite this, I am quite found of helping the war extension on the Daco-Romanian page, where I helped created the first widely accepted version. Also, I filed a 3RR violation complaint for a user that was modifying the article about the Treaty of Trianon according to his POV, without discussing much on the Talk page. The user was banned for three days, and has since used sockpupeting to make the modifications. That article on a such a delicate subject, needs some expert contribution and I hope I can help by calming down users who have violent contributions.

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

---

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

Lbmixpro

Final: (18/0/1) ended 10:08 December 12, 2005 (UTC)

Lbmixpro (talk · contribs) – has been active in the Wikipedia community since September 24, 2004, with over 15 hundred edits under my belt. As a Wikipedian, I've made edits to many articles which range a wide variety of topics, as well as created a few. I have a solid understanding of Wikipedia's rules and regulations, as well as experience in procedures such as Peer Review, votes for deletion, and the dispute resolution process, to the level of WP:RFAr. As an admin, I would like to help control the troll and vandalism issues which is a constant threat to the credibility of Wikipedia. With my experience with Wikipedia, I would also like to help new editors get aquainted with the site. While administrator, I will be be responsible with my privilages and be held accountable for my actions. On a related note, I have been suggested adminship from users such as User:Marine_69-71, although I've been reluctant to apply until this time. LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 10:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 10:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Extreme Support LordViD 16:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
2. Merovingian 20:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
3. Support. Seems good. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 21:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
4. Support - I fully lend support of this user and I know how well he tried to help in the Emico situation below, which caused major stress to him and me. Hope your admin Lbmixpro! — Moe ε 21:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
5. Support 100% I recognized Lbmixpro ability to become a great admin a long time ago and I am proud to give him my vote of confidence. Tony the Marine 00:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
6. Support - worked well through a difficult problem, and is continuing to help. Dominick ^(TALK) 02:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
7. Extreme Support -Proven performance in battle. Conscientiously maintains civility and due processe while persistently progressing a dialogue to achieve a good article/neutral point. See INC talk page. May not have that much edit counts yet but will definitely be advantageous for wikipedia in the fight against trolls. --Jondel 02:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
8. Support contributions look solid.--MONGO 06:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
9. Support per above. Izehar (talk) 16:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
10. Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 17:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
11. Support per Jondel.--Alhutch 23:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
12. Support. —Kirill Lokshin 03:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
13. Support. --Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 05:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
14. Support. the wub "?!" 11:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
15. Support Martin 00:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
16. Support thought I had already --pgk^(talk) 20:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
17. Extreme Support He has dealt with issues in a transparent and honest manner, and I can state on my honour that his efforts have strengthened Wikipedia as well as improved my contributions. --Ironbrew 21:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
18. Support. El_C 04:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
19. Support Proto t c 12:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

1. Neutral, at the moment. I think this user is well-intentioned, calm, and has made some valuable contributions, but can see relatively little participation in either deletion or vandal-fighting, and his edits seem mainly concentrated around a few areas. Wouldn't take much for me to support, though. The Land 12:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• For the benefit of those with editcountitis: as of 10:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC) Lbmixpro has made 2114 edits. Unfortunately, Kate's tool is down, so I had to count them using XL. Izehar (talk) 13:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. We don't need more admins. Newbies can be assisted without admin powers. Same with trolls - if you face real problems, the admin noticeboard exists for a reason. Most uncaught vandalism would not have been caught even if every Wikipedian had the rollback feature. 202.58.85.8 07:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

This is a proven vandal IP who has been disqualified and temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia for disruption of the Requests for Adminship page and its subpages and for continued WP:POINT violations. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>}

Moved to comments section as per other candidates. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>}

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

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A. As I mentioned in the description, I would like to help control the troll and vandal issues with wikipedia, as well as assist new users in becoming useful contributers.

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

A. All the articles which I've made major improvements to, such as Christina Aguilera (which was peer reviewed), Sonic: Time Attacked (which was undeleted, and survived VfD thereafter), K-Meleon, and Tila Nguyen (which I have worked with the subject of the article in some of my contributions). I'm proud of my edits not only because of improving each article, but it also gives me a place to share my knowlege of a subject in a friendly, supportive enviroment.

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 am an active contributer to the controvercial Iglesia ni Cristo article. While editing that article, I have engaged in a Arbitration proceeding.

Further information: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Emico

Although there's been heated feelings, I've went through thick and thin to keep as cool as I can, to avoid making the situation worse by attacking back.

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

---

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

TShilo12

Final: (57/4/3) ended 18:27 11 December 2005 (UTC)

TShilo12 (talk · contribs) – TShilo12 (also known as Tomer) has been with us for years, and in that time he has amassed thousands of edits (I dont know precisely as kate's tool is down), and created many articles related to Judaism. TShilo12 is a fine contributor, and a helpful one too. He is also an NPOV warrior of note in mid-east related articles. I believe it is high time he was awarded the mop. Banes 13:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thanks, Banes. I humbly and gratefully accept. :-) Tomer^talk 15:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

In case Kate's edit counter never comes back to life, last I saw (a few days ago), my edit count was something over 7k, of which like half were to articles (which is what WP:1000 counts)... Tomer^talk 16:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

7245 total edits, 3426 in the mainspace, and as noted below, 2593 total are in one of the Talk: namespaces. [2] --Interiot 18:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Nominator Support. Banes 13:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
2. D'oh!, assumed he was one. Strong support, lots of great contributions, thoughtful and intelligent edits. Will be a great admin. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
3. Support Good User --Aranda ⁵⁶ 18:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
4. Support. Good edits, good answers. -- DS1953 20:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
5. Support. Well deserved! Ramallite ^(talk) 20:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
6. Support and I also thought he was an admin.--MONGO 21:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
7. Support. KHM03 21:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
8. Support, unlikely to abuse administrator tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
9. Support; most definitely. Antandrus (talk) 21:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
10. Hell yes!!! BD2412 T 22:33, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
11. Support; seems an excellent Wikipedian the few times our paths have crossed. I feel confident he would make a great admin. _└ ^UkPaolo/_TALK^┐ 22:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
12. Strongest Support Possible. He does a lot of work, and so what if a lot of edits are to user talk? He still passes the bar in other spaces, what, would you support if he had 500 LESS talk edits? User talk edits means he interacts well. But anyways why'd he wait so long to run? He supported my RfA 4 and a haalf months ago and he already had 4000 edits! Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 23:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
13. Support, with pleasure. A very good editor and a nice bloke. Palmiro | Talk 23:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
14. Support. Tomer's definitely worthy. Grutness...wha? 00:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
15. Support- JCarriker 00:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
16. NSLE _{(讨论+extra CVU)} 00:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
17. Merovingian 05:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
18. Support Banes is my new hero, and if he says so... plus, Tomer is a great editor. Smmurphy^(Talk) 05:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
19. Support, clearly. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 08:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
20. Support. User is a longtime and valuable contributor, and, after all, adminship should be no big deal. Crotalus horridus 15:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
21. Support good editor --rogerd 17:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
22. Support fine editor. Marskell 18:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
23. Support. Good editor, makes good use of Talk: pages. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
24. Support - Nice interactor (well at 95%). So I support. -- Svest 21:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up&#153;}
25. Strong support. Great editor, very considerate and funny, willing to seek compromise, and always able to lighten a tense atmosphere. He'll be a great admin. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
26. Support. Great contributor all around. HollyAm 01:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
27. Support, a fine editor who collaborates well with others. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 01:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
28. Support. Seems to be quite reasonable and mop-worthy. Carbonite | Talk 02:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
29. Support. —Kirill Lokshin 03:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
30. Support. Have seen some great contributions in discussions and in implementations. jnothman ^talk 05:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
31. SupportGood editor will make a good admin.--Dakota ^{t e} 07:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
32. Support seems to be a good editor --Orioane 08:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
33. Support. I have known Tomer since he came upon the scene, even though we do not agree about everything, nevertheless he has vast knowledge about many subjects. He is erudite and makes working on articles an enjoyable experience. IZAK 10:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
34. Support per nom. Izehar (talk) 16:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
35. Support Looks to have a good interaction with the community. Can not see a reason to oppose but, I see quite a few reasons to support. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk. 18:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
36. Support. One of those 'I thought he was an admin' cases, at least for me :) Mop'n'bucket power to him!--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
37. Who? Oh, Tomer! Definite support then! the wub "?!" 23:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
38. Support Plenty of talk page interaction, and uses edit summaries.--Alhutch 10:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
39. Support. Unlikely to abuse admin tools, likely to do good work. From what I remember, a little too much tendency to stir shit up for the heck of it on talk pages (I hope that's not a case of mistaken identity in my saying that), but I don't see that as having a bearing on being an admin, since none of it has been meanspirited. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
40. Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 17:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
41. Strong Support Much good work already, more to come I'm sure. FeloniousMonk 19:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
42. Support --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 05:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
43. Support. Good user who could well benefit from the mop and bucket. Ambi 11:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
44. Support A fine editor who actually explains what he is doing on the talk pages. gidonb 11:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
45. Support Go for it D'n 13:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
46. Support Fair and fine. Kuratowski's Ghost 16:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
47. Strong support. Solid editor who has displayed a good sense of fairness in all situations I have observed. -- Olve 16:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
48. Support AnnH ^(talk) 22:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
49. Support Gzuckier 00:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
50. Support -- Nahum 04:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
51. Support - agree with those who thinks that discussing edits is a plus. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 04:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
52. Support maayan 06:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
53. Support —Matthew Brown (T:C) 09:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
54. Oppose WTH Support I had to look too hard to find this user on the RFA page damnit!  ALKIVAR™ 09:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
55. Strong support - how'd I miss this before? Guettarda 17:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
56. Support - keep up the good work! Dovi 18:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
57. Free drugs! El_C 04:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Most of your contribs are to user talk pages.Chaz 22:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

   That is a very odd reason for opposing... NSLE _{(讨论+extra CVU)} 00:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

2. Oppose. Potential for abuse outweighs need. Rude and too closely tied to abusive wikiclique. Marsden 22:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

   Oppose. We don't need more admins. AfD's backlog is manageable - most articles that need to be deleted aren't so ugly as to be mission-critical, otherwise they'd have been speedied. Those that deserve to be kept can last a day or two with the AfD notice on them. Most uncaught vandalism would still go unnoticed even if every Wikipedian had the rollback button. Speedy deleting articles is not much of an issue - just tag and bag. The tagged articles are quickly deleted by our existing admins. 202.58.85.8 07:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

   This is a proven vandal IP who has been disqualified and temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia for disruption of the Requests for Adminship page and its subpages and for continued WP:POINT violations. --Orioane 08:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

   Oppose—this is some incredible invective here, [3] as cited by Sjakkalle below. I had had no prior interaction with him at all, and I got hit with this flurry of personal attacks. A sample: "Yes, I've never interacted with you, and I should say, "Yes, I've never had the utter displeasure of having to interact with you, thank the good Lord."... but seriously. GET A LIFE." Everyking 08:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

   • law #10 in action

3. Oppose for reasons stated. I'm not sure this user is ready for admin status.Gateman1997 20:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
4. Oppose per Gateman1997 Zeq 22:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
5. He'll make it anyway, but I'm still going to oppose based on the rude and offensive tone I see cited above and below. Proto t c 12:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral. The first time I saw Tomer it was on the Administrator's noticeboard making unfair (or at least excessively incivil) attacks at Everyking [4] . I also have a certain feeling that Tomer was quite rude towards those he disagreed with. I see some improvement over the past months, but I will prefer to sit this out. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
2. Neutral. The several incidents of incivility are a concern, and even when made apparently in jest (such as Tomer's recent comment re "hairy-chested Spaniards" on Spain's talk page), demonstrate some poor judgement on occasion. I'd also prefer to see less in the way of POV commentary on article Talk pages. However, Tomer's other work and interactions seem to be on the whole relatively ok, and has also shown willingness to mediate and be mediated. Hence the neutral vote for now.--cjllw | TALK 06:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
3. Neutral I cannot oppose, for the user's mass of edits and vocal support from respectable parties indicate he is generally of good character. However, I join with Sjakkalle in expressing concern over incidents of incivility. I urge Tomer, especially in his capacity as an admin, to exercise calmness and caution in making any analysis. Xoloz 19:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• Because you mentioned your edit count above, but mainly to test out my new tool, you have 7223 edits. Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Only registered users can vote on RFA,s. Unregistered ip users must use the comments section on RFA's.--Dakota ^{t e} 07:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Guys, anything else aside, that rant I cited in my vote is totally unacceptable. If he would apologize, and someone could vouch that he's behaved himself since then, then I could be convinced to withdraw my vote, but until then, absolutely not. I can't believe anybody is voting for him, unless they're unaware of the rant. Everyking 11:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • James, I registered my disgust with you on WP:ANI at the time because it's genuinely how I felt. I showed up on the page in question because of the conflict to which I referred in my response to question #3 here, and found your unqualified (by your own admission) support of incivil contributors to be counterproductive, inasmuch as you expressed (as anyone reading the full page upon which you offer the diff can determine for themself) support for basically "bad editors". Yeah, I readily admit, I believe there are "bad editors", in fact I'll go so far as to admit, I believe there are useless editors. At the time, I felt you were supporting, by your questioning of those opposing them, such editors. I readily admit that I am quicker to relegate such questionable editors to the garbage heap than you are, but have long since gained an understanding of your caution prior to doing so. I didn't apologize at the time, because I felt to do so would have unnecessarily dredged up what I regarded as insignificant wounds. (I reviewed, in detail, the many discussions between you and respected editors opposing your views, and decided the best approach was to just "let it go"...which is why I didn't respond to your opposition vote earlier. (In your case, I figured, let sour beans rot, and let the world move on"...) I realize your activities on WP extend far beyond your activities on WP:AN/I, as a result of my long-since subsequent study of your contributions. I wouldn't presume to lie and say that I'll agree with you nor, neither in the future, on how is or even what is a "vandal" nor on how to deal with a vandal, as defined by either of us. That said, however, I don't think that WP is strengthened by support or disapproval of a candidate based upon whether or not s/he'll agree with you on every or any particular issue. All of that said, you are correct to assert that the language I used in my initial interaction with you (which wasn't actually with you, but with the community as a whole, which probably makes it even worse), was completely inappropriate, and for that I apologize. Not only for my initial reaction, but for the approximately dozen responses I made wrt you that day on WP:AN/I. I realize the inappropriateness of my contributions during that rather vociferous exchange (in which, as it happens, you participated as I recall, not at all)...but feel at the same time that it's rather unfair to use that particular WP talk exchange as the one and only reason to oppose my nomination for adminship. Yes, I concede, I was incivil, but that can easily be dealt with if you're truly offended via User_talk (which you never did). At the same time, I feel, as I mentioned in my response to generic Q#3, I've figured out a rather effective method for avoiding becoming entangled in unnecessary irrelevant disputes (and no, by that, I'm not calling you a troll...just using Q#3 as a metaphor...) in the future. If you're willing to forgive my transgression, so be it. If not now, I hope you'll be willing to do so at some point in the future. Tomer^talk 11:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • OK, thank you. I withdraw my vote, then. Everyking 11:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

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

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A. I anticipate helping with all sysop chores, to the fullest extent my WP time allows, especially upon specific request of other users. It's one thing to say "I want to help clean up the backlog" (who doesn't?!), but in my view, monitoring vandalism, pernicious or relatively "harmless", is ever-so-slightly more important. As an example of administrative functions I would have performed previously had I had the tools, I have helped with the backlog on VfD/AfD before, closing clearly failed deletion nominations, and witnessed some pretty clear deletions that were quite overdue that I would have liked to have been able to delete, not because I'm particularly power-hungry, but rather to help release the time required for an(other, if I am promoted) admin to have done other things. As someone said to me recently..."So many articles, so little time!" I acknowledge that a backlog exists and am more than happy to help relieve what additional parts of it adminship permits me to. Reverting vandals is a more urgent task though, as is blocking persistent vandals. Reverts any registered user can do, with or without a "revert" button, but blocking persistent vandals and/or v/protecting vandalized/contentious articles requires additional buttons (or increased axs to a different part of the WM server system than non-admins have).

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

A. The two that come immediately to mind are fixing up Isla Sala y Gómez with Ratzer and my ingenious solution to the editwar at Lincoln. As small a thing as it was, another thing that I regard with particular satisfaction was the small rôle I played in overcoming the conflict at Nablus several months ago. Why? For Sala-y-Gómez, just look at what we did in under a week! (An amazing example of collaboration, in my humble estimation...keep in mind, this article is about a miniscule speck of rock, and how little has been able to be done to improve the article in the 4+ months since then.) For Lincoln, the 4 or 5-way editwar there had reached the point where it was the subject of an (abortive) RfC and with about 2 hours of work, I took it and turned it into something that the warring parties not only agreed to settle with, but liked better than the versions they were fighting over (cf. the long discussion on Talk:Lincoln). Not tooting my own horn, just saying, those are some of my more satisfying experiences on WP. The dispute on Nablus was satisfying because a few editors (including me) managed to hash out a compromise in a POV-based edit war. So, I guess, overall, what makes me happy is consensus-driven well-written neutral (i.e., NPOV) articles. Tomer^talk 17:44, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

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

A. Other than the content dispute on Apartheid (well catalogued on Talk:Apartheid and here), I have not, to my recollection, ever been in any editing conflicts on WP, except in order to try to help resolve editing disputes. If my memory is failing to serve me on that matter, I apologize...clearly I didn't regard any other conflicts to have been sufficient to warrant significant notice. That said, several other users have caused me stress on talk pages and several areas of pediaspace. At first I dealt with it rather poorly, trying unsuccessfully to reason with them. That was before I read WP:DFTT. Since then I've done my best to avoid this unhelpful practice. Unfortunately, trolls don't wear flags saying "I am a troll", so you have to sort of feel these things out... the trick is to not let yourself become embroiled in an inextricably toxic argument. As the adage says, "Never argue with an idiot...they'll drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience." The trick is to realize when you've been dragged down and then figure out how to extract yourself from the discussion as gracefully as possible (without resorting to ad hominem attacks or post hoc ergo propter hoc... although that can be fun :-p). Tomer^talk 19:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

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

---

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

JWSchmidt

Final: (25/0/0) ended 17:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

JWSchmidt (talk · contribs) – John Schmidt has been editing since 2003 but started in earnest in 2004. John was away briefly until this summer, and returned with a vengeance to knock science articles into shape. His work is best noticed in a number of tough scientific articles to which he has contributed in an exemplary way (e.g. RuBisCO, the most abundant protein on earth) and as instigator of WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology. He is active on the reference desk and patrols vandalism. In short: an all-round content-concious expert. Great admin material. JFW | T@lk 04:44, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I am willing to be an administrator. --JWSchmidt 17:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Multicellular nominator support. JFW | T@lk 04:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
2. Support I have seen this editor around. Good work! --Aranda ⁵⁶ 17:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
3. Support Good work. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 17:33, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
4. Support. KHM03 21:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
5. Support- JCarriker 00:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
6. Support. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
7. Support. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 03:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
8. Merovingian 05:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
9. Support, this user is unlikely to abuse administrator tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
10. Support, seems reliable. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 08:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
11. Support seems to be a fine addition--MONGO 10:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
12. Support seems like a trustworthy chap --rogerd 17:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
13. Support now with extra protein :). Thryduulf 22:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
14. Support great contributions and is often first to revert vandalism on some articles i have on my watchlist. David D. (Talk) 00:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
15. Support. —Kirill Lokshin 03:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
16. Support Izehar (talk) 16:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
17. Support Quentin Pierce 22:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
18. Support. utcursch | talk 05:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
19. Support. _ℑilver§^ℑide 07:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
20. Support -give him a mop :) Brookie: A collector of little round things 20:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
21. Support Is this what we do to valuable contributors now? Give them a mop? So be it. FeloniousMonk 19:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
22. Support. -- DS1953 00:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
23. Support. I've seen you around, doing good work. -- user:zanimum
24. Support Martin 00:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
25. Support. Seen this candidate here and there. Enochlau 11:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
26. Support. El_C 04:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
27. Support Proto t c 12:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. AFAIK, you don't need admin powers to clean out categories. There is no speedy deletion backlog at all, thanks to tag and bag, and it doesn't hurt if it takes a couple more days to keep or delete AfDed articles. It's good that you offered to help tackle vandalism on the science articles, though. If you intend to actively patrol these articles and not just dump them all on your watchlist, I may move my vote to neutral. (If you just watchlist them, vandalism will likely slip through - most uncaught vandalism would have gone uncaught even if everyone had the rollback feature.) 202.58.85.8 07:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

This is a proven vandal IP who has been disqualified and temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia for disruption of the Requests for Adminship page and its subpages and for continued WP:POINT violations. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 08:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I hope you realise that as an anonymous editor your vote is unlikely to be weighed. You seem to be mistaken about patrolling a watchlist. RC patrol misses quite a lot of more-or-less subtle vandalism to specialist articles, and I would not be patrolling vandalism on my watchlist as intensively if I had no use of admin rollback. Your comments about AFD are also incorrect - this is one of the busiest parts of Wikipedia and frequently the subject of backlog. I hope you do indeed revise your vote. I also note you have been voting "oppose" on a number of other people on RFA for different reasons. JFW | T@lk 07:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I took the liberty of removing the # from your comment, Jfdwolff--I assumed that, as nominator, you were not voting to oppose. Chick Bowen 19:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I used #: which creates an indented comment without resetting the counter on a numbered list. JFW | T@lk 19:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I know, but Lbmixpro's comment, which was indented by ::, created a start-over and gave your comment a number. Chick Bowen 20:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

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

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A. I have recently tried to start helping the community by performing some housekeeping. In particular, I set a goal for myself of doing vandalism patrol on 0.1% of Wikipedia, particular basic science articles. I have already participated to a small extent in a few decisions about page deletions and I will be able to become more involved with this sort of task. I am involved in an effort to better organize the proteins category and I am willing to help with backlogs such as cleaning up large categories. --JWSchmidt 17:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

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

A. I started the Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject with the hope that it will be a useful foundation for developing high quality biology-related articles. It makes me very happy when I can put effort into an article such as RuBisCO and then have that article attract an expert editor such as User:ARP. I am pleased when I have made contributions to articles such as Helicobacter pylori and it is very satisfying when Wikipedia has such an article in good shape prior to a news event such as the awarding of a Nobel Prize for discovery of the medical importance of Helicobacter pylori. I am glad that I had a chance to learn how to start the article Molecular structure of Nucleic Acids as part of the Science pearls WikiProject because I think it is important for Wikipedia to have some articles that deal with how science is actually done, not just what the results are. --JWSchmidt 17:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

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

A. My interests are mainly in biology. Two topics within biology that generate conflict are evolution and the use of animals in research. At the Ape article, there was a dispute about using the term "ape" in reference to humans. This dispute was where I learned about the "3 reversion rule". While almost all of my effort in that dispute went into discussion on the talk page, I did learn not to participate in "gang reversions" where several editors sequentially revert another editor. I've learned the futility of revert wars. I am devoted to the idea that Wikipedia editors can resolve disputes by research, citing sources, and discussion.

I have become involved with a dispute about the use of animals in research (at Animal Testing and related pages). I think this is the kind of dispute involving points of view that can be dealt with by good research and citing sources. I hope that Wikiversity (See the Wikiversity Core Courses Initiative) can come to be a Wikimedia project that will promote good research practices by Wikipedia editors and in so doing help improve the quality of Wikipedia articles and calm disputes between Wikipedia editors.

Some disputes about biology-related articles are very mild and easy to resolve by discussion: a recent example was at Kanzi. Once in a while the Carl Sagan article can generate a certain amount of conflict, and I have learned not to make knee-jerk assumptions that all editors who have complaints against Sagan are religiously-motivated. I have learned that when a dispute arises, it is wise to make sure that the exact nature of the dispute is made clear before rushing to resolve the dispute. I do sometimes venture into more contentious political articles. I was recently disturbed that a question I asked on the Judy Miller talk page provoked the suggestion that I was flirting with slander. I think that my style of editing/writing and practice of citing sources is good enough to protect Wikipedia from such charges; I would certainly hate to bring discredit to Wikipedia by inserting some bogus information about someone. I do think it is inevitable that Wikipedia will ruffle some feathers. In my view, public figures should expect to have their actions discussed, analyzed and probed by Wikipedia.

There is a biology-related Wikipedia article where I have recently learned some lessons about the questioning of public figures by Wikipedia editors (see: Talk:Rosalind Franklin/Archive02, Talk:Rosalind Franklin/Archive03 and Talk:Rosalind Franklin#How important were Rosalind Franklin's data). When I first read the talk page for the Franklin article I was startled by the section heading that said "Watson and Crick stole Franklin's work". I think it is important that Wikipedia do a good job of describing the controversy over the ethics of how Watson and Crick obtained Franklin's data. I have participated in extensive discussions about this while also reading extensively on the topic. I purchased and read the Maddox biography of Franklin and I intend to buy and read Wilkins' autobiography. I have made only minor edits to the Franklin article while educating myself. I have learned that it is constructive to learn about a POV that I find myself in conflict with before I try to edit an article that I feel unfairly pushes a POV that I do not agree with. --JWSchmidt 17:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

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

---

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

Pathoschild

Final count:(23/0/0) ended 01:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Pathoschild (talk · contribs) – This is a self-nomination. I have exactly 2134 edits as of this message^[5], with an estimated 90+% edit summary usage within the past two months^[6]. I only joined the Counter Vandalism Unit today (after meeting some CVU members through IRC), although I've ocassionally RC patrolled since I became active on Wikipedia. I'm acting as informal mediator at Talk:Traditionalist Catholic, and founded the WikiProject on User Warnings. I typically alternate between several types of contributions, from RC patrol and the WikiProject to copyediting and archival. See the Questions for the Candidate section below for admin-related goals.

1. The edit count was obtained by pasting a dump of my edits into MS word on one line each, and using the Word Count feature to obtain the number of lines. The document used is hosted on my site (edit_count.doc, 1.87MB).
2. The edit summary is just an estimate. As far as I know, the only automated method to count this is Kate's tool, which is down.

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Self-nomination, accepted. ;) // Pathoschild 02:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Good User Good vandal fighther --Aranda ⁵⁶) 02:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
2. Support First encountered user during the founding of the user warnings project, good stuff. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
3. Support Takes the initiative - nice to see! Brisvegas 05:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
4. Support His answer to Question 3 is probably the best I've ever seen, and his thoroughness in obtain his own edit count shows ingenuity, and respect for the RfA process. Bravo! Xoloz 05:54, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
5. Got my support, yeah. Seems very crafty. ;) ナイトスタリオン ✉ 09:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
6. Cue adminship cliche. NSLE _{(讨论+extra CVU)} 11:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
7. Support Astrotrain 12:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
8. Full support. FireFox 15:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
9. Support no good reason not to. Izehar 16:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
10. SupportYes, indeed. Banes 16:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
11. Support: Good user. Excellent work on Userpage warnings. Endorse for LART. Wikibofh 16:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
12. Strong Support Great guy, would weild the mop wisely! --негіднийлють ^{(Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS)} 21:28, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
13. Merovingian 05:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
14. Support good editor--rogerd 18:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
15. Support sounds good. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
16. Support - Has a solid record, good grip on policy, and impressive replies to the questions below. Sango123 (talk) 00:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
17. Support. —Kirill Lokshin 03:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
18. Not that strong Support --Adam1213 Talk + 07:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
19. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 15:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
20. Support per above. Izehar (talk) 16:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
21. Support Quentin Pierce 22:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
22. Support --pgk^(talk) 08:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
23. Support I keep seeing Pathoschild in IRC en-vandalism, should make good use of the tools. Alf ^melmac 10:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
24. Support Martin 23:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

#Oppose. We don't need more admins. Vandals are often blocked quickly, and if they aren't, admins are quickly notified via IRC or the admin noticeboard. The open proxy backlog can be handled by existing admins (although it's good you offered to help). And I don't see a serious immediate need for categorising protected templates. 202.58.85.8 07:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC) 202.58.85.8 is a vandal. If anything this should be counted as a support. --Adam1213 Talk + 07:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

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

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A. The more obvious sysop chore is the blocking of vandals, since I often warn vandals and report them for administrator intervention. I'm also interested in blocking open proxies (see User:Ral315/Vandalbot, Template:Blocked proxy), particularly after my December 2nd efforts against an open proxy multiple-IP vandal. Admin access will also allow me to categorise templates and pages that have been protected against vandalism or editor conflicts. I often spend time making contributions other than my usual, and I see no reason not to extend that to other admin chores.

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

A. I see Wikipedia as an entirely collaborative effort, so I see no more value between one good contribution and another. However, I am satisfied with the turn-around and progress (if slow) editors at Talk:Traditionalist Catholic have made under my informal mediation. I am also pleased with the progress made by the WikiProject on User Warnings, an ambitious project to categorise, standardise and rewrite user warning templates.

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 take Wikipedia's ideal of consensus to heart, and never attempt to impose my will or opinion. If I believe I have consensus behind me, I prefer discussion to revert warring. If the user persists, I ask an admin to protect the page until an agreement or consensus is reached. Thus, I've never had any major edit conflict that I remember. I personally see wikistress as undue lack of objectivity as an editor, although other editors undoubtedly have different editing philosophies.

In any hypothetical future conflict, I'll step back and consider our positions. Does either of us have consensus or agreement? If not, then persistance is POV pushing. I'll invite the editor to discuss with myself and other editors, protecting the page if he continues to revert despite the disagreement of the editors disagreeing.

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

---

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

Firebug

Final (17/12/2) ended 06:06 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Firebug (talk · contribs)— I have been a Wikipedia editor since late March 2005. During that time, I have worked extensively in RC patrol and VFD/AFD, in addition to adding contributions to numerous articles. My recent experience in RC patrol and vandalism fighting has brought me to the conclusion that I need the keys to the broom closet at this point. It sometimes takes hours for obvious nonsense articles to be deleted after being tagged, and vandals often continue to vandalize (after warning) for some time before the overworked admins are able to read WP:VIP and block them. Should I receive adminship, I intend to continue article contributions, RC patrol, and vandalism fighting, and to only use administrative powers in those cases where community consensus is clear. Firebug 19:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

• Obviously. Firebug 19:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment I don't think it's a coincidence that about five people came in to vote against me right after Jimbo protected Alan Dershowitz with the admin-only editing proviso. This is exactly the kind of politicization of the admin role I was talking about when I said that was a horrible idea. Firebug 22:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. I note about 1295 edits, fairly well distributed (nice work on templates, and in AfD). Yep, this'un is ready. BD2412 T 19:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
2. I agree. Support. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 19:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
3. Merovingian 01:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
4. Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 06:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
5. Need more admins. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-3 19:01
6. Support. Excellent job on spotting and reporting rv's and POV's. Aucaman 06:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
7. Support. I like his edits.--YHoshua 21:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
8. Yes. El_C 00:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
9. Support. The more vandal-fighters and banners, the merrier. Matt Yeager 01:21, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
10. Support. We need more vandal fighters - not everyone needs to focus primarily on writing articles. Brisvegas 04:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
11. Support. Excellent mix of Wikipedia-namespace and article-namespace contributions. Great mission statement. Crotalus horridus 15:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
12. Support - Long time, no see! Good luck Firebug. -- Svest 21:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up&#153;}
13. Support. Being an expert on fair use is not a requirement for adminship, being prepared to discuss with others is a requirement and Firebug has indicated he is willing to do this. I see no reason to oppose based on this, and I've not had any problems in my interactions with him meanign that I am happy to support. Thryduulf 22:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
14. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 15:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
15. Support Izehar (talk) 16:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
16. Support, Pavel Vozenilek 18:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
17. Support, good vandal fighter. the wub "?!" 19:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose, with regret. While User:Firebug seems to be an excellent vandal-fighter, I am concerned about this editor's stance on Image:Janet Jackson Nude Sunbathing.jpg. User:Firebug, after User:Extraordinary Machine tagged the image as lacking proper copyright information, made this edit, which pasted a number of images to User talk:Extraordinary Machine (accidentally, User:Firebug fixed it quickly), with an argument that seemed to be "Other people have failed to follow Wikipedia:Fair use, so there is consensus to not do so". The lack of familiarity with wiki-markup, and lack of familiarity with Wikipedia:Fair use are of less concern to me than the fact that the user's response was to attempt to argue that other problematic cases meant that Image:Janet Jackson Nude Sunbathing.jpg must also be okay, rather than immediately researching the issue and attempting to minimize any risk of copyright infringement. That attitude concerns me. Jkelly 20:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

   I have had this image deleted in accordance with community consensus, since several other editors stated that they felt it was unnecessary for the article. I do respect the need to follow copyrights, but I do not believe that User:Extraordinary Machine is correct when he states that every fair use image needs a specially written paragraph describing in detail why this particular use qualifies. I pointed out that this is not, in fact, Wikipedia practice, and gave as examples several fair use screenshots that were prominently placed on high-traffic, important articles. My position is that the various templates (e.g. {{film-screenshot}} describe most of the criteria for fair use, and that extensive essays on each individual image are not needed. We would literally have to delete 90% or more of the fair use images on Wikipedia if Extraordinary Machine's position were taken seriously. I am left to wonder if this was really a content dispute in the guise of a copyright issue, because my screenshots from Knight Rider have aroused no such controversy. (They are all included in articles and contain a sentence-length explanation of where they came from and why they are needed, as well as the appropriate template.) I'll be happy to discuss this issue further on my Talk page or on any forum where these policies are discussed. Firebug 20:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

   Extensive essays, no. But Wikipedia is vulnerable to serious trouble in the area of copyright and we must become better about our claims of fair use. In general, citing precedent is fine. But in this particular area I think it doesn't work. Chick Bowen 05:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

   Writing detailed rationales is part of Wikipedia practise: Wikipedia:Image description page#Fair use rationale. That some, indeed many images do not have such rationales does not excuse the writing of them elsewhere. -Splash^talk 03:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

2. Oppose per JKelly. In the final analysis, I actually think Firebug was probably right about the fair use claim (which stems from the content's fame as widely-discussed news item, and doesn't require attribution to the holder if attribution to the disseminating news service is given. However, I think Firebug's argument was less than thoughtful; that, in combination with the low edit count, tips the balance to a "better-safe-than-sorry" vote. I will happily support in a few months, and I'm sure Firebug will be much more deliberate with copyrights after this issue. Xoloz 06:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Way too low an edit count 1) for us to make an accurate judgement on their suitability for adminship and 2) for Firebug to have the knowledge of the ins and outs of the Wikipedia that an admin needs. ^BlankVerse 16:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
4. Oppose, worried about depth of knowledge. Fair use is fairly obscure in terms of what I'd like an admin to know, but I'd want them not to make statements that are incorrect (such as rationales not being Wiki practises) because it belies not having read up properly before pronouncing. -Splash^talk 03:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

   Oppose. We don't need more admins. Most vandalism that goes uncaught would not have been caught if everyone on Earth had access to rollback. Most clear vandals are blocked immediately, and thanks to tag and bag, we don't need many admins for tackling speedy deletes. The AfD backlog is small, and it never hurt Wikipedia to have an article deleted a day too late or have its AfD template removed a day too late. 202.58.85.8 07:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

   This is a proven vandal IP who has been disqualified and temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia for disruption of the Requests for Adminship page and its subpages and for continued WP:POINT violations. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 08:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

5. Oppose for now. Too few edits.Gateman1997 20:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
6. Oppose. I can't support someone who a deletes a benign and self-evidently true statement like this by calling it "original research": [7] An adminstrator should know better. RJII 07:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

   Per Wikipedia:Cite sources: "if you add any information to an article, you must cite the source of your information". (Emphasis in original.) Saying that "there is a possibility that a private alternatives to the USPS monopoly on normal letter delivery could be profitable and net tax contributors" requires a source, or else it must be removed under WP:V. Furthermore, none of this has anything to do with the use of administrative powers. This was a content dispute where the use of such powers would be clearly inappropriate. Firebug 23:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

   Stating something so something so trivial does not constitute "original research." There are plenty of other benign and trivial statements in the article but you chose that one to delete. This shows POV pushing on your part by choosing to interpret Wikipedia's "original research" policy to an absurd extreme. And, that has everything to do with being an admin. RJII 15:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

7. Oppose. Sorry. JKelly and others raise some good points. Just try to keep up editing and make sure you always use edit summaries, and I will support you in the future. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
8. Oppose - He chose to edit war on the wrong side of the meta-template problem, and was extremely rude to me in the process. I have no doubt that he wants adminship just so he can wield a bigger stick. Also, he called this vandalism... -- Netoholic @ 18:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

   Not to be too critical, but don't you think that something that happened so long ago should have been forgiven and forgotten by now? Just seems a little odd to base your vote on something that happened like 7 months ago. Oh well, I guess it is your perogative. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

   No, it may have been a while ago, but this user took a long break after July, returning only on Nov. 23 -- a scant 10 days before posting this request for adminship. His recent article contributions are mosrtly courtesy RC patrol (to get votes here). His earlier contribs usually center around controversial articles and POV disputes. -- Netoholic @ 19:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

   Fair enough. Was just wondering, is all. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

   My views on the meta-template issue are well-known, so there is no point in rehashing them here. I think the best response is that from the Arbitration Committee: "On Wikipedia:Meta-templates considered harmful (now called Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates), Netoholic was arguably completely technically correct — but he interacted so negatively with others that he actually convinced people he was not. His dismissiveness of concerns even when told directly he was running roughshod over others, his apparent assumption of bad faith, and his use of revert wars to insist on it being described as a guideline (when it became clear it would not become policy) are all examples of interactions that contributed to this problem." [8] It bothers me a great deal when someone attempts to ride roughshod over consensus, whether using edit warring or admin powers. I assure you that I have no intention of using admin powers as a "bigger stick"; this would be an example of the type of behavior I have opposed since joining Wikipedia. As for Xiong's user page, it is generally not considered acceptable to blank another user's page, and I do not feel that warning Netoholic to avoid this conflict was inappropriate. Firebug 23:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

   I like how you said you didn't want to re-hash, but then spent over 100 words doing just that. And, um, I didn't blank his user page - I replaced a template that wasn't supposed to be used on a user page. I'm not sure which more clearly shows that you aren't ready to be an admin -- your attitude or your lack of attention to detail. -- Netoholic @ 23:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

   CAREFUL... WP:NPA is close. Let's just tone it down a little bit. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 16:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

9. Oppose. No evidence to show that he has reformed from his earlier, rub-you-the-wrong-way ways. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 21:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
10. Oppose - seems to be too POV. Rangerdude 03:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
11. Oppose - A number of encounters with this user have made me uneasy. Also, his very first edit [9] shows prior knowledge of Wikipedia, and I'm concerned about the several-months-long gap until November 23, but then asking for adminship within nine days of returning. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
12. Oppose, as per SlimVirgin, and all of the fair use talk. -- user:zanimum

Neutral

1. Neutral, low edit count, so eh. Quentin Pierce 21:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
2. Neutral, See a bunch of template issues you've gone through on your talk page (Thank you for not blanking them!) but don't see that you've ever used template talk pages re: your templates. xaosflux ^T/_C 00:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments

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

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A. As stated above, I intend to use administrative powers largely for RC patrol, such as deleting articles that clearly meet the stated criteria for speedy deletion, and blocking persistent vandals. I will also assist in closing AFD nominations as and when needed.

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

A. I'm especially pleased with the contributions I have made on Nintendo Entertainment System and its related articles. I have strong technical knowledge of the NES hardware, and I was able to add important information such as the section on hardware failures (the infamous blinking red light) and what causes them. In general, my contributions are eclectic, covering a very wide variety of interests, from politics to pinball. While I can't point to one specific article as my masterwork, I have performed small, incremental improvements in many of them.

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

A. Like most other Wikipedians, I have had occasional content disputes, both with good-faith users and with POV pushers. In most cases, discussing the issue allows a sensible compromise to be reached. In extreme cases, I will seek community consensus via methods such as an RFC. There were two cases in which I and several other users had to take individuals to arbitration for persistent violation of NPOV and personal attacks. This is a very unusual occurrence, and I would not wish to act unilaterally in such cases.

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

---

YHoshua

Vote here ending 18:48 December 9, 2005 (UTC) (0/6/6) as of 03:45 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/YHoshua

This nomination is deliberately shown as a link rather than a transcluded page.

---

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

NSLE

Final (71/1/2) ended 06:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

NSLE (talk · contribs) – I'd recently met NSLE, on Vandalism IRC, and always thought he was an admin. I've seen him a lot on AfD, always seems to have sound judgement. He's always courteous, and I've never seen him lose his cool. Good use of edit summaries, and he's got 2,040 edits to his credit at the time of this writing. He's always active it seems in the RC Patrol room, and I for one, would love to see more active admins there ;] --негіднийлють ^{(Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS)} 07:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I met NSLE recently in regards to the Eddie Segoura incident, and if it weren't for him, Eddie would have been seen as a policy violator rather than as a poor newcomer who didn't know what was going on. He almost was, but NSLE was the guiding force in making sure his mistakes were clarified to others and to Eddie so we could all move on. If that's not adminship personified, I don't know what is. karmafist 07:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I gladly accept this nomination, it is an honour. NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 07:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. Great guy, per me ;] --негіднийлють ^{(Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS)} 07:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
2. Support per that second, handsome nominator. karmafist 07:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
3. Strong Support per nomination. Very great guy, would be a great admin. -- RattleMan 07:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
4. Support, yeah. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 07:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
5. Strong Support Absolutely, fine editor. I also noticed the recent kindness Karmafist mentioned, and agree that it shows the best adminship qualities. Xoloz 07:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
6. Support good egg for sure.--MONGO 08:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
7. Support --Adam1213 Talk + 08:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
8. Rock on--Sean|Black 09:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
9. Merovingian 12:52, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
10. Support after getting to the bottom of it all, but note that IRC is not Wikipedia. Proto t c 12:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
11. Support - He's not one already? --Celestianpower ^hablamé 13:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
12. Support ∾ Thought he was an admin. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 13:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
13. Support if he's not an admin, he should be one. Izehar 13:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
14. Support. I usually look for a minimum of three months here, but NSLE is a fast learner. I've seen him everywhere; he knows what he's doing, and will make a great admin. Owen× ☎ 13:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
15. Support - I sense that the force is strong in this one. BD2412 T 14:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
16. Support Per all of the above. Banes 17:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
17. Support LordViD 18:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
18. Support Astrotrain 18:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
19. Support, I know him! I know him! Great user, assumed he was an admin just because I was too lazy to find out if he was or not. Quentin Pierce 21:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

    Also, I'm expecting my payment soon. Just letting you know I didn't forget. Wait...I mean no shady emails and talk messages going on here. Quentin Pierce 21:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

20. Support Good User --Aranda ⁵⁶) 21:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
21. Support FreplySpang (talk) 21:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
22. Support Good janitor, give him the big push broom! xaosflux ^T/_C 00:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
23. Support Handled the EddieSegoura incident quite well. Definitely worthy. --Wikiacc (talk) 01:14, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
24. Support good editor. --Vsion 02:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
25. Support I was also quite impressed with how he dealt with Eddie --Rogerd 02:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
26. Support great editor. Olorin28 03:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
27. Support Seen him/her around on IRC frequently. Johann Wolfgang 03:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
28. That's hot. Mike H. That's hot 06:15, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
29. ^ Copyright vio, ok Mike? Miss Hilton will see u in court. N.E way, Support. Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 06:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
30. Support. —Wayward ^Talk 07:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
31. Support. Seen this user around before. :) --Andylkl ^{[ talk! | c ]} 07:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
32. Support Good anti-vandalism work, should use mop well. Alf ^melmac 07:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
33. Support Handled things very well with Eddie. -Colin Kimbrell 08:15, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
34. Support Good vandal fighter in training. :) --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 10:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
35. Support Some very high quality edits and being a vandal fighter without sysop isn't fun (I'd like to see your rv edit summaries be rvv when referring to vandalism, but the rollback function should help). Despite short term, already a familiar face. jnothman ^talk 13:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
36. Support Good work. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 14:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
37. Support --tomf688^{talk} 14:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
38. Support Good contributions. One minor concern I have is that almost all edits in the project namespace are for AfDs or RfAs. Branch out a little... Mindmatrix 18:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
39. Support. I'm frankly amazed at how much he's done here in such a short time. Being a bit of a tropical cyclone enthusiast myself, I've seen much of his work, and it's good stuff. I also know him from outside Wikipedia, and while I'll freely admit that we've had our differences on occasion, I also know that he is well suited for the job. Pedriana 21:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
40. Support. El_C 00:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
41. Support. Redwolf_24 05:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
42. Support. He's acted like an admin whenever our paths have crossed. He should stop pretending. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:24, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
43. Support. per nom.--Dakota ^{t e} 07:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
44. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 13:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
45. My watch stopped, that's why I'm late support.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 16:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
46. Support awsome guy! Vulcanstar6 04:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
47. Support --pgk^(talk) 07:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
48. Support, NSLE is a good editor. — JIP | Talk 08:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
49. Support. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
50. Support: good editor, will very likely be a good admin! --JoanneB 11:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
51. Support, good editor. --Terenceong1992 12:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
52. Support. Good contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
53. Support, per nominator. Crotalus horridus 15:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
54. Support. Edit history seem reasonable, no cause for concern. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
55. Support. I could've sworn you were an admin! :o Mo0[talk] 23:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
56. Support. Every contrib that I've seen from him has been quite good. Carbonite | Talk 02:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
57. Support, how come I hadn't seen this one? Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 05:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
58. Support εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 15:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
59. Support per above Izehar (talk) 16:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
60. Absolutely. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 22:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
61. I suppose Even though you left the harsh "Screw you" edit summary on Wikisand and blocked me, I have found it in my heart to support you here. Acetic Acid 06:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

    You had that coming! :P NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 06:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

62. Support AnnH ^(talk) 10:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
63. Support. the wub "?!" 19:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
64. Support Good egg. Probably not crazy. (The second sentence is comedic relief). Hamster Sandwich 06:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
65. Support. PJM 06:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
66. Support. Bluefox 07:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
67. SNFA. The Land 10:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
68. Extreme wossname support. Likes all the right football teams. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 00:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
69. Support. -- DS1953 01:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
70. Support - Gladly. Sango123 (talk) 01:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
71. Support. But Arsenal rocks Liverpool's socks! – ugen64 02:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Late vote:

1. Yes. NSLE's good.Go for it!Tan Ding Xiang 陈鼎翔 04:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose based on these diffs [10] [11] [12]. Revert someone's changes to their own user page, when what they are posting is neither a personal attack nor against Wikipedia policy, is both poor etiquette and newbie biting-y. I don't care what possible sockpuppet of who he might be. Proto t c 12:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC) Hmm. I should have researched this one a bit more. Withdrawn. Proto t c 12:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. We don't need more admins. NSLE's dedication to reverting vandalism is highly commendable, but as we can see, adminship is not critical for this. Most vandalism going uncaught would remain uncaught if everyone had the rollback feature. AfD backlog is not critical at this time - if and when it appears, we can always start voting support on new RFAs. Vandal blocking is often quickly done, and if it isn't, an admin is always on hand and easily contacted. 202.58.85.8 07:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

This is a proven vandal IP who has been disqualified and temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia for disruption of the Requests for Adminship page and its subpages and for continued WP:POINT violations. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 08:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

1. Oppose, because Candidate is A. Already going around and thanking users for voting on his RfA prior to it closing, which I find to be poor form, and B. actually using a template to do this, and C. Not even bothering to type a user's name in, but using {{PAGENAME}} instead [13]. I know BD2412's already going around and thanking users, but it at least seems like he's bothering to personalize each comment he makes, as opposed to just importing a templated form letter. I know this is probably being anal and nitpicky, but I feel administrators should have a strong understanding of policy, civility, and especially "wikiquette", and to me such actions make me question the latter pretty heavily. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 01:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

   What exactly is wrong with pre-thanking? Secondly, why are you questioning this when countless others have used "templated form letters"? Thirdly, I'm not the first to use {{PAGENAME}} ([14])... Anyhow, I thank you for taking the time to vote, and will keep what you said in mind. NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 02:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. It is a great honour? Great, do we really need more Commonwealth English-speaking admins on Wikipedia? Good grief. ;) Matt Yeager 01:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

   Yes, I speak Commonwealth English, as do most people from former British territories ;) NSLE _{(讨论+extra CVU)} 01:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

   What's wrong with speaking English like it's supposed to? I might just as well ask, do we really need more Merkin-speaking admins? — JIP | Talk 08:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

2. Neutral: I'm neutral about this person right now. Had a few rough encounters, but if we get along maybe next time My vote with be positive. I'm hope to build My own reputation so I can try for this by Passover in April. -- Eddie (Talk to Me) 04:22, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• I have only been on the Wiki for about 10 weeks, and understand if I get opposed due to lack of time spent on the Wiki. I've got almost 450 Wikipedia-space edits, last I checked, and about 800 mainspace edits. NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 07:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• While I realize I've yet to bother delving much into the matter of contributing to Wikipedia (I'm still doing some research on my hometown of Breaux Bridge, Louisiana at my local university archives so I can add something of substance on the subject), I feel that my personal experiences with NSLE are worth sharing. I've met him through various internet communities including Particracy and NationStates and he is one of the most warm, cordial, helpful, and personable people I've come to know. His dedication to community-building and level disposition will no doubt be a great asset to the Wikipedia project, and he comes with my highest recommendations to you all. AngaelBoi 07:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

  If that's the case, then go on and add your support to the list above. LordViD 09:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

  I was talking to AngaelBoi on IRC on a different channel, and I communicated to him that with his very low edit count (this was his third edit!), his vote would likely be discounted. As such, he offered to post a comment instead. NSLE _{(讨论+extra CVU)} 09:52, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

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

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A. I'm in the vandalism channel on IRC often, and often revert vandalism by hand. I'll fully help out in closing AfDs, and will use my power to block vandals when I see that they've repeatedly committed an offence after being warned with {{test}}. I've also got quite a bit of time on my hands, and would help with the backlog on certain areas.

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

A. I created Hurricane Nora (1997) and Typhoon Longwang, and am part of two Wikiprojects (Tropical Cyclones and A1GP), and am very happy with both articles. I've also played my part in the EddieSegoura case, which I'm pleased to say has been closed after a long while.

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 tried to explain to the very best of my ability to EddieSegoura that a few of his edits had violated WP:NOT and various other Wikipedia policies, however, I do not feel that anyone has caused me stress. I've only been caught in a revert war with Stirling Newberry, and he accused me of asserting wiki ownership, and of behaving in bad faith. I must note that my reverts were back up by Jdorje and Titoxd, who himself was undergoing an RfA at that time. I tried to talk it out with him on our talk pages, but it ended when he gave up as the few of us (more than the two mentioned users) proved that there was consensus for the certain disputed text to be in the way it was.

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

---

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

SCEhardt

Final (23/0/0) ended 05:55 10 December 2005 (UTC)

SCEhardt (talk · contribs) – SCEhardt has been with us on Wikipedia since January 2005. In that period he's made around 3000 edits. I discovered him putting speedy tags on unsourced images... looking over his contributions and talk page, he seems trustworthy enough to be given admin tools. It would be good to have more admins that deal with images. Coffee 02:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Accept! -SCEhardT 03:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Beating-the-nominator-to-it support, deserves it. NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 04:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
2. Support, as nominator. :) Coffee 04:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
3. Support, as neither nominator, nor beating-nominator-to-it regular voter. BD2412 T 04:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
4. Support --негіднийлють ^{(Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS)} 06:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
5. Support as neither nominator nor beating-nominator-to-it voter nor witty third voter nor fourth voter with a polychrome signature. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 06:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
6. Support -- SCEhardt has made a lot of valuable contributions, especially in the area of images. Coffee beat me to nominating him. :) WarpFlyght 07:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
7. Support we need more people who have the power of delete to clear the backlog of no source images. SCEhardt has shown himself to be capable of this task. I have little fear he will abuse it.  ALKIVAR™ 08:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
8. Support Proto t c 12:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
9. Merovingian 12:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
10. Support he does indeed seem trustworthy for admin tools. Izehar 13:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
11. Support Astrotrain 18:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
12. Support Quentin Pierce 21:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
13. --Aranda ⁵⁶) 00:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
14. Support Good image work --Wikiacc (talk) 02:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
15. Support Will be a good addition to the admin ranks --Rogerd 02:21, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
16. Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 06:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
17. Support Great contributions. deeptrivia (talk) 16:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
18. Support. Kirill Lokshin 22:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
19. Support. El_C 00:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
20. Support. Thunderbrand 02:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
21. Support Izehar (talk) 16:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
22. Support - PRueda29 ^Ptalk29 23:15, 06 December 2005 (UTC)
23. Support. -- DS1953 00:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

• Oppose. We don't need more admins. Images are being deleted fast enough - indeed, so fast that we now have users bitching about this to the mailing list. An admin is usually on hand to tackle requested moves, and it doesn't hurt if an article's at "the wrong name" for an extra day or two. Thanks to tagging and bagging, we speedy articles quite fast already. And as SCEhardt has noted, vandals aren't exactly easy to find these days. And when they are found, there's always an admin online who can be contacted to block them. (Just go to the admin noticeboard or IRC.) 202.58.85.8 07:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

This is a proven vandal IP who has been disqualified and temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia for disruption of the Requests for Adminship page and its subpages and for continued WP:POINT violations. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 08:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

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

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

I would anticipate helping with correcting or deleting 'no source' images, working on requested moves, and going through the speedy deletion category. I would also place temporary blocks on vandal IPs, although thus far I have not come across many persistent enough to warrant blocking.

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

I've contributed numerous photos that I think improve both the informative and aesthetic value of the articles. Examples include Atlantic Station, Centennial Olympic Park, and many food articles. I have also spent time working on disambiguation link repair and image license issues.

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?

The largest disagreement I have been in unfolded on the Talk:Twix page about the inclusion of an ingredients list in the article. In any conflict situation I try to remain objective and work toward a satisfactory compromise.

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

---

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

Luigi30

Final (42/16/2) ended 00:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Luigi30 (talk · contribs) – I have had much experience with Luigi30 in Wikipedia, and some interaction with him on IRC. He has been around since about March of 2004. He has proved himself to be worthy of adminship, with a plentiful supply of edits and a good attitude. I notice that he had an earlier RfA that didn't succeed, possibly because it was a self-nomination, and a second one that I'm not sure of how it failed. I'd be happy to nominate him. Here's to you, Luigi30! :-) --WikiFanatic 22:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination below this line:

Extreme Lesbian Accept Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 23:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nominator, if he accepts, that is. --WikiFanatic^{Talk Contribs 16:48, 1 December 2005 (CST)}
2. Suh-port Jobe6 02:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
3. Mild Support responces were a bit short but a good user, third time the charm --Jaranda(^{watz sup}) 02:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
4. Support voting thing is fandangled, needs to be fixed, since its just a redirect. But whatever, good user, so I support. Quentin Pierce 02:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
5. Support, been here long enough and done enough to know how to use admin tools. BD2412 T 04:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
6. Support, mop will be in good hands, I think. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 06:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
7. *Blink* *Blink* you mean he's not already an admin?!?!?!?! Support of course  ALKIVAR™ 08:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
8. Sure! --Merovingian 12:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
9. Support Absolutely. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
10. Support seems good to me. Izehar 13:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
11. Support, unlikely to abuse administrator tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
12. Need more admins. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-2 14:47
13. Support, and damn the editcountitis. Ral315 (talk) 17:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
14. Support. A good editor, a reasonable fellow, an asset to Wikipedia, a deserving mop-wielder. Also, editcountitis is evil. Lord Bob 18:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
15. Support Satisfied with the answer to my question. He's been around for a long time -- he's got a LAW, for goodness' sake. :) Xoloz 18:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

    Not just any law, a law quoted in an RFAr! Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 19:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

16. Yes, please - low activity level or not, good, long-term editors shouldn't be shackled if they want to do sysoppy things. Lupin|talk|popups 20:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
17. Support Users should not be shackled to their edit count nor to their activity level, he'd use the admin powers well. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 21:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
18. Support as per all of the foregoing. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 21:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
19. Support He will be a good admin --Rogerd 02:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
20. Support no reason not to. MONGO 02:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
21. Support. Being relatively inactive is not a good reason against adminship. We most definitely do not demand that our admins put their lives on hold for Wikipedia; likewise, there is no required quota for admin actions: any help is a good help. We should look to the quality of the user and whether adminship can help them help Wikipedia in what they do manage to do on Wikipedia. - Mark 15:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
22. Support. I like his edits.--YHoshua 21:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
23. That's hot. Mike H. That's hot 21:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
24. "'''Support'''. $user is not already an admin?!" – ABCD^e✉ 00:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
25. Support on the basis of some of the oppose votes being among the most stupid yet seen. Ambi 14:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

    I think that comment is completely uncalled for. Also, note that since this RfA began three days Luigi has made one edit outside of this RfA or his userspace. Carbonite | Talk 16:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

    And this would have what to do with his ability to use the mop and bucket effectively? Ambi 07:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

    Someone's who's as inactive as Luigi could have difficulty (due to time constraints) responding to questions about users they've (un)blocked, pages they've (un)protected or (un)deleted, or AfDs they've closed. I'm not looking for a lot here; just enough activity to know he wouldn't be a "hit-and-run" admin. Less than one edit a day isn't quite enough. Carbonite | Talk 11:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

26. Support I quote his law alot lately. Luigi's a guy worth trusting with the mop, IMO. karmafist 02:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
27. Support It's no big deal, right? Plus, the Everyking situation below seems silly. We need admins. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
28. Support, it's time he finally became an admin. — JIP | Talk 08:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
29. Support regrdless of User:Durin's point below. Sorry not everyone is as wikipediholic as some of us. Please no more editcountitism. Even User:Kate, the creator of the tool, finds it somewhat wrong as she was also denied adminship on the basis of not enough edits (correct me if I am wrong). Enough of the RfA cult. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 15:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
30. Support to counteract remarkably stupid oppose votes noted below. There is no requirement that an admin candidate spend any particular amount of time editing, and rate of edits is certainly not a valid metric of appropriateness for an admin candidate. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
31. Extreme heterosexual man support --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (mmmmm chocolate!)} 17:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
32. Infrequent editors can be admins too. TacoDeposit 18:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
33. Support The important thing is that he will use his power well not often.--Sean|Black 21:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
34. Support--block some vandals for me. Matt Yeager 00:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
35. I'll support. -User:Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 04:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
36. Support a trustworthy user. Hoping especially to counteract Everyking's blackmail attempt below. Offering to withdraw his Oppose vote for the price of an apology when the percentages are tight is ... [sorting through vocabulary ... no ... no ... not that word, this is not an RFC on Everyking ... no ... good heavens, not that one ... no ... no ... no... ] ... is wrong, IMO. Bishonen | talk 04:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
37. Support So what if he didnt have many edits in the past month. Cobra 07:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
38. Support, of course - David Gerard 15:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
39. Strong support. Will not abuse the tools; nay, will make Wikipedia better. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 19:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
40. Support - thoughtful and conscientious in my experience. FreplySpang (talk) 22:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
41. Support. Edit count not indicative of abilities to be an admin. He seems to know what he is doing--Shanel 03:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
42. Support. Would make a good admin, IMHO --негіднийлють ^{(Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS)} 12:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Activity level is, for me, just too low. 21 edits in the last 30 days, and overall less than 2 edits per day average since your last RfA, where there were a number of people concerned about participation level. Kate's tool is down right now, so I can't see if there's a bunch of deleted edits to your credit. Your use of edit summaries has improved since your last RfA (66% since last RfA), but it's lower than I like to see. --Durin 14:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

   I've been too busy with school to edit in the past couple weeks. You shouldn't oppose me just because school is stressful and eats my time. Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 15:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

   I would have no problem with that if that were in fact the case. School most definitely should take priority. However, in the same time period that you made 21 edits over 30 days, you made more than 1900 comments on IRC. If you had more interest in the Encyclopedia, I would have no problem supporting you as an admin. --Durin 14:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

   Because it's faster to make quick comments on IRC than it is to edit. Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 04:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

   Durin, you're crazy. What the fuck does IRC activity have to do with the wiki? --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (mmmmm chocolate!)} 17:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

   Please be more civil. Thank you. I stand by my vote. I've explained similar votes before. I see no reason to explain my vote to someone who is intentionally being antagonistic. --Durin 17:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

2. I agree with Durin, the activity level is way too low. Going back 100 edits takes us to 26 September 2005. Going back 500 edits takes us to 9 May 2005. This isn't about his total edit count (not even sure what it is), this is about his level of participation. Carbonite | Talk 15:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

   Also, needs more experience with policy. For example, he nominated several schools for deletion on the mistaken belief that it was policy to delete middle schools as non-notable. [15]. Carbonite | Talk 13:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

3. Not even 150 edits since his last nomination. —Cryptic (talk) 15:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
4. Oppose as above Astrotrain 18:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
5. Oppose Low activity level Olorin28 03:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
6. Absolutely not. Made a false accusation against me and tried to get me sanctioned for it. Everyking 06:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

   Could you provide a link to this accusation? Raven4x4x 07:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

   I think he's talking about [16], where I reported he reverted Ashlee, and Arbcom unanimously agreed with me, so his reason is a blatant lie. Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 15:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

   It was a misrepresentation of the situation. Anyway, accusing me of lying seems rather poor conduct for an admin, so I also oppose for that reason. Everyking 05:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

   But you were lying. Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 05:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

   That's not making it any better. How about an apology? I will withdraw my vote in exchange for an apology. An admin ought to be able to recognize his own mistakes. Everyking 06:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

   His position was supported by the Arbcom, so there was no mistake, and no apology should be necessary. Raven4x4x 07:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

   He knows what the reality is. He can apologize or not apologize, but he knows it was wrong and he knows his accusations here are wrong. Beyond that, I don't care very much. It was a small incident a while back. But it gives me a very poor opinion of him, and I have never seen him doing anything else to counterbalance that impression, so absent an apology there's no way I'd feel comfortable withdrawing my vote. Everyking 08:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

   My accusations are not wrong. If you say my accusations are wrong, you're saying the Arbcom is also wrong. Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 14:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

   Everyking, do you have proof that Luigi's allegations were wrong? Saying "he knows what the reality is" is all well and good, but it's not a compelling arguement when Luigi has the Arbcom on his side. Raven4x4x 02:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

7. Oppose as per Durin's point. Dmn 12:53, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
8. Oppose per Cryptic, and short answers to the questions below. Turnstep 19:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
9. Oppose per Durin AKMask 03:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
10. Oppose as per Carbonite and Durin. Silensor 21:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
11. Oppose. Luigi30 has just nominated four school stubs for deletion, with the only deletion rationale given being "Not Notable". It is hard to think why he should have done this unless he is either lazy, inexperienced, or given to acting in bad faith. Whatever the reason - and there may well be one, though I can't imagine what - I really don't think he's ready for adminship. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lux Middle School, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mickle Middle School, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lefler Middle School, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irving Middle School.) — Haeleth Talk 23:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
12. opppose because of what haeleth says Yuckfoo 00:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
13. Oppose, user has been mildly disruptive as of late.Gateman1997 20:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
14. Oppose. Committment is not a just a word. Show me you are serious by participating actively. Then, I will support. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 22:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

    Uh... how is hundred edits in 3 days not participating actively? (Ταλκ) 17:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

    Well, a good portion of those are to this RfA or your mistaken AfDs. Look, make a few edits a day for a month or so and you'll pass without a problem. Take some that time you usually spend on IRC and work on the project a bit. It just seems to me that this RfA and your candidacy for ArbCom are more for the perceived prestige of a title than a chance to do additional work. I have nothing against you, but we've both been here about the same length of time (over a year) and I can't recall ever seeing a edit of yours outside of your RfAs. Carbonite | Talk 17:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

    That's because you don't normally see newpages patrol edits. They're usually deleted along with the article, going into /dev/null. I've speedied 30 or 40 articles in the past 3 days, but you don't see that. Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 18:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

15. Oppose. Short answers, coupled with less edit activity do not give me confidence; better-safe-than-sorry vote. --Gurubrahma 10:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
16. Oppose I'm not comfortable with the AFD work, a couple nominations that could have been avoided with a quick Google search Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hoss (album), Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stavros_Niarchos_III. He just doesn't seem to have put much effort into them. Other nominations have very little in the way of reasoning/rational. The comment "Because it's faster to make quick comments on IRC than it is to edit" above makes me wonder where his focus is. IRC isn't Wiki but we are a encyclopedia first and a community second, spending most of his time on IRC rather than working on Wikipedia makes me concerned about priorities. Rx StrangeLove 05:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

    The articles looked like your standard garage band vanity and personal vanity, respectively, when I AFDed them. I don't google ones that look like blatant vanity and have no assertion of notability. Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 12:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral as per Durin's remarks; 1,500 edits total, minimal activity since last RFA, and a fair use of edit summaries. Will support in the future if participation improves. Hall Monitor 18:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
2. opppose Neutral the mass afd of 4 schools right in the middle of the most constructive discussions for a compromise in a long time seems a little counter productive and not a move that it likely to be good with regard to gaining a consensus. Not really an admin-like move. Lugio was this an honest mistake, have you not been following recent school AFD's? David D. (Talk) 01:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

   It was a mistake. I didn't see that schools were supposed to be merged instead of AFDed. It was an honest mistake which I probably shouldn't have made. Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 04:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

   OK I'll switch to neutral. As an admin you need to have eyes in the back of your head, so be careful not to wade into a situation like schools before reading all sides of the argument. For your information there is no merge consensus, that is the compromise we are trying to broker. It is a slow process, that is why you got jumped on. Sorry if it was too blunt. David D. (Talk) 04:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• More edit summaries please. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• New question posted below. Xoloz 04:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• A question for those who oppose on the basis of "low activity" (I've asked this before but not gotten an answer I understand): Given otherwise evidence of enough experience participating in Wikipedia, what is the value of a "particularly active" editor; or how does not having much activity reflect to the detriment of an editor? Demi ^T/_C 19:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I would like a candidate to have at least a moderate level of activity before supporting him. At the very least, I would like to see the activity level rising, not dropping to less than one edit a day over the last month. Adminship should be for those already active in the community, not as incentive to become more active. Just my opinion, though; other oppose voters may have quite different reasons. Carbonite | Talk 20:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. We don't need more admins. 202.58.85.8 07:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • This is a proven vandal IP who has been disqualified and temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia for disruption of the Requests for Adminship page and its subpages and for continued WP:POINT violations. --Orioane 08:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The above comments have been moved from the Oppose section to the Comments section so as not to screw up the numbering of the legitimate votes. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 12:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• 1659 edits as of this comment. Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 14:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

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

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A. I would help with RC patrol, blocking repeated vandals, and using the good old Mop and Bucket(tm).

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

A. I made it my job for a month to comb Wikipedia:Requested Articles of blue links. I also have done quite a bit of stub categorization and a few spoken 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. The worst conflict I've been in is Everyking accusing me of "digging" for edits about Ashlee Simpson by him. It ended in a clarification of his ArbCom case, where my position was fully supported.

4. You're a Wikipedia vet, and some Wikipedia vets are quick to use WP:IAR to justify actions some consider harmful. What is your view of WP:IAR as it relates to admin activity?

A. IAR applies when bureaucracy causes horrible delays in acting on problem users. It applies when convoluted rules must be ignored to continue proper operation and keep problems from getting out of hand. (Will expand when have more time)

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

---

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

Awolf002

Final (27/4/1) ended 23:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Awolf002 (talk · contribs) – I am a member since February 2004, and contribute regularly. I decided to request adminship since I am currently the main contributor to Current science and technology events and I now need adminship to archive it monthly. Awolf002 22:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Self nomination. Awolf002 23:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Support unless someone makes a bot to perform the archival. — David Remahl 05:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
2. Support, user is unlikely to abuse administrator tools, reasons for opposition are weak at best. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
3. Support. Excellent response to my question. If a Ph.D. wants admin privileges to do some specific tidying, it's fine by me. Xoloz 08:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
4. Support, unlikely to abuse admin privileges. Let him do his job. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 08:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
5. Support. Good editor. If he doesn't want to use the admin privileges it is his choice. Tintin 13:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
6. Support seems a valid reason. Izehar 13:52, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
7. We are an encyclopedia first, a community 2nd. Wikipedia namespace edits are not necessary to make the encyclopedia great. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-2 14:49
8. Support Users don't have to be uber-active, in my mind, to warrant having the tools necessary to complete the jobs that they see themselves doing. I believe that every user has a niche that they fit into, and if this user has found their niche, then more power to them! --Martin Osterman 16:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
9. Support. The candidate may not expect to use admin powers often, but is clearly a good contributor and can be trusted with them.-gadfium 18:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
10. Support. See my comments below. -- DS1953 19:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
11. Yes, please - the objections below are mild and some would say not particularly meaningful, as DS1953 says. Lupin|talk|popups 20:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
12. Support as per DS1953's comments, and my own expansion upon them. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC) (edited 20:19, 4 December 2005 (UTC))
13. Support Candidate has shown to be trustworthy, any small amount of admin duties this candidate does will be less that another admin will have to do --Rogerd 02:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
14. Support experts should be welcomed here.--MONGO 02:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
15. I really don't see the problem with people who focus on articles and plan to use their admin privileges very infrequently. Restraint is, after all, something quite a few of our existing admins could improve upon. --Michael Snow 03:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
16. Support. The user explained perfectly clearly his lack of project edits--he is only requesting admin privileges for one specific function. He's obviously trustworthy, and he does indeed need to be an admin to perform the current events archiving, so I don't see the problem here. Chick Bowen 05:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
17. Support Easy call. Trustworthy editor who needs the tools. Rx StrangeLove 05:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
18. Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 06:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
19. --Aranda ⁵⁶) 16:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
20. Support This is a good editor, and not every administrator needs to be perfectly well rounded. –Joke137 17:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
21. Support. El_C 00:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
22. Support, clearly a "trusted user" who could make a more effective contribution with the admin tools. DS1953 sums it up well. Palmiro | Talk 16:28, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
23. Strong Support per DS1953's comment regarding tools below. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
24. Support per DS1953. WikiFanatic 21:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
25. Support. He has made a good case that admin tools will help him to build a better encyclopedia. Carbonite | Talk 15:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
26. Support. Seems like a good editor who can be trusted. Also, I agree with Palmiro's and DS1953's arguments below- this isn't meant to be a "big deal". --G Rutter 15:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
27. Support per DS1953's comments below. the wub "?!" 19:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

#Oppose Good science editor but I dont like his responces especially number 1 and I also dont see this user very active in Wikipedia namespace which is a must for me --Jaranda(^{watz sup}) 00:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

#Oppose per Aranda56. --WikiFanatic^{Talk Contribs 20:12, 1 December 2005 (CST)}

#Weak Oppose as above, you have less than 25 Wikipedia-space edits in the last six months or so, that's quite poor. If you just ramp it up slightly, I think many of the opposers would gladly defect to support. NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 02:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

1. Oppose per above. Quentin Pierce 02:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
2. Oppose Only chore listed would be a once a month duty, not a heavy contributor. xaosflux ^T/_C 03:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

   Oppose per the above, sorry. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 06:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC) changed my vote per 08:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

3. Oppose- as above Astrotrain 18:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
4. Oppose as above Olorin28 03:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose. Admin tools are not required just to archive pages. Administrators are supposed to work on a lot more things than just moving pages. If you want to become an admin for a once-a-month duty, I seriously advise that you reconsider.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 16:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC) Changed vote to neutral.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 14:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment: is there a set of requirements for what an admin must do? Do admins have a quota of tasks to perform? There is no limit to the number of admins, so why shouldn't someone who is trusted by the community (and crucially, nobody has suggested that this candidate isn't) have the tools if he can help the community with them, even in a restricted field? After all, it's meant to be "no big deal". Palmiro | Talk 16:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

1. Oppose. The power to block users and delete articles is by definition a big deal, and we don't need more admins. As others have noted, Awolf isn't even offering to handle admin jobs. 202.58.85.8 07:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

This is a proven vandal IP who has been disqualified and temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia for disruption of the Requests for Adminship page and its subpages and for continued WP:POINT violations. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 08:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral. Admin tools are not required just to archive pages. Administrators are supposed to work on a lot more things than just moving pages.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 14:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• Why do you need to be an admin to archive Current events pages?-gadfium 00:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

When trying to archive the Current event page to its respective month the "move" operation tries to overwrite the exisiting page, which is a redirect. This is no longer allowed for non-admin users. Awolf002 04:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

You should be able to move a page over the top of a page which only redirects to the page being moved and which has no edit history. December 2005 is a redirect to Current events with no edit history. November 2005 in science does have a history, but it's all your work, so presumably such redirects in future will not.-gadfium 08:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, if practice makes perfect I should not need to edit this page before the "move". Still, each time I mess up I will come running to an admin, again... Awolf002 12:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• New question posted below. Xoloz 01:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• We often refer to the admin tools as a "mop and bucket." I think a better analogy is a Swiss Army knife. Here we have a good, valuable and long-time editor coming to us and saying that he needs a pair of pliers and a Phillips screwdriver. We tell him that we have the tools he needs but that they are combined with other tools and that he doesn't really need an ice pick, pocket knife, tweezers or fish scaler (and consequently he may not have shown that he knows how to use those other tools, even though he has shown very good judgment in other matters). Therefore, despite the fact that we have a bottomless supply of Swiss Army knives, he should keep struggling to do his job without the two tools he needs. I'm sorry, but that makes no sense at all to me. -- DS1953 19:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • As stated above I concur with this comment, and I find it dismaying that so many people are still opposing. The way I see it, giving him admin tools will have a positive effect on the project. Maybe only slightly positive, but who cares? Denying him admin tools means he will continue to have to ask the help of another admin to do this task which he is perfectly capable of and trustworthy to do (is anyone disputing this? I don't see it if so), time they could have spent doing those tasks that he does not have interest in doing. There is absolutely no requirement that admins engage in every task they are capable of, nor should there be. There is no quota, and so promoting him does not deny a place that could have been taken by someone who will more efficiently use the tools; I see no reason to not promote. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

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

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

As indicated I plan to help with archiving Current events pages in a monthly basis. I may consider other chores, if asked or they come to my attention.

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

I am pleased with helping to bring biographies of important scientists to WP. I also learned a lot during this (ongoing) work.

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 few 'spats' here and there. I try to focus on the issues regarding the article in question and to ignore attacks or grandstanding. I also do feel fine when voted down or persuaded by a good argument.

4. As of now, your responses to the above questions are a bit brief. Please consider expanding them, if possible. Please share your view on WP:IAR, for one thing, to help us understand exactly how much you plan on doing with admin powers?

Alright, I see that I might be an "unorthodox" candidate, since I do not seek "power" or "status" with my adminship. All I like to do is keep on working and improving WP, which I did with no problem up to now without adminship. However, with the latest restrictions on "move" operations I decided to request this privilege, so I can keep on serving the community. Serving is what I thought a candidate for adminship is striving for and that is my intention.

When you check my contributions you will find that I regularly revert vandalism on the pages I watch, trying to be nice to newbies at the same time. This can be done with no special powers and so (as many others do) I have served in this work and will do this in the future, whatever the outcome of this request. My first answer was meant to show my openness to new "chores" that would require special powers, of which I might be unaware.

Regarding "rules" in WP, my philosophy is to follow them as "precedent" as long as the outcome does not interfere with the goal to improve and expand WP. I approach these precedents with the assumption that somebody thought about them and that there are good reasons for them. If they clearly interfere with obvious progress, I would first try to find consensus for changing them, and most likely not just charge ahead. Being bold is good for article text and lively prose, but not necessarily for making or breaking rules.

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

---

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

Aranda56

Final (56/22/6) ended 23:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Aranda56 (talk · contribs): I voted neutral for Aranda56 before because I thought Aranda needed some more experience. That experience has come. Aranda's a frequent contributor, whether it be on cleaning up vandalism, welcoming users, participating on [blank]s for [blank], or just plain building an encyclopedia. Third time's the charm. karmafist 22:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Yes! I accept the nomination thank you. --Jaranda(^{watz sup}) 22:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Obligatory Nominator Support karmafist 22:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
2. Support per nom (and because Aranda56 with admin tools would be a good thing for Wikipedia). BD2412 T 23:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
3. Support εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
4. Support. Looks good enough by now. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 23:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
5. Support with pleasure Tedernst | Talk 23:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
6. Support Looks good! --негіднийлють ^{(Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS)} 23:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
7. Support good vandal fighter, general household waste remover, could use a mop. Alf ^melmac 23:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
8. Support Per last time. Regarding spelling, JAranda is well aware of his limits, and I imagine knows what are good things for him to do, and what aren't. He's a great janitor, however, and I'm impressed by his willingness to discuss and learn. Humility and devotion = good admin. Xoloz 01:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
9. Support NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 02:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
10. Support no reservations.--MONGO 02:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
11. Support was very positive even when I opposed him last time round. Dlyons493 Talk 02:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
12. Support Good vandalism reverter! Don't forget the importance of User_talk comments on vandals when speedily cleaning them up in the future! xaosflux ^T/_C 02:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
13. Support Great activity and reverting vandalism. Olorin28 03:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
14. Edit Conflict Support. I was neutral before, due to the multiple self-noms, but since another established editor has nominated him this time, I think that's taken care of. He's a great, dedicated editor, and people like him who are very good at reverting vandalism are people that we need in the admin ranks. He also seems willing to learn about how to improve, and he's willing to help other editors. He knows his limits, and I think he'll use his admin powers wisely. --Idont Havaname 04:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
15. Support -pgk^(talk) 07:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
16. Merovingian 12:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
17. Support I don't forsee abuse. Izehar 13:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
18. Now, if I call proper spelling "the submission to the tyranny of tradition", I wonder how many would still rate it so highly. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-2 14:55
19. Support His grammar is no worse than his detractors'... :) --TimPope 18:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
20. Support. Its empowering to know one's faults and work to overcome them. I've run across JAranda several times, and believe the user will continue to do good work. Time to give them a mop. --Syrthiss 18:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
21. Full Support. Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 20:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
22. Support. Grammar nazism is bad. If you see a grammar or spelling mistake, stop complaining and fix it yourself. Guanaco 21:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
    • 1) One cannot fix edit summaries. 2) It is rude to edit non-article edits by other users (e.g. this AfD), which is what we are talking about. Turnstep 21:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
23. Support. I've gone through Aranda56's contributions for the last several weeks. I see a good understanding of WP policy and a desire to improve things. Chick Bowen 22:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
24. Strong Support Enthusiastic, an asset to Wikipedia. Will make a good admin (will I get de-sysoped because that's sentence fragment?)--Sean|Black 23:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
25. Support - Hahnchen 04:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
26. Support my English is even worse!  Grue  08:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
27. Support from a spelling and grammar nazi. "This should be no big deal." — Jimbo Wales. —BorgHunter (talk) 16:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
28. Support. FireFox 18:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
29. Support, unlikely to abuse administrative tools. Generally mpressed with his handling of this nomination and the previous two. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
30. Support --Adam1213 Talk + 23:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
31. Support. El_C 00:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
32. Shocked SUPPORT He's not one? I'm shocked... -- PRueda29 ^Ptalk29 03:05, 04 December 2005 (UTC)
33. Support Much improvement lately.. I've noticed a change in the grammar for the better. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 07:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
34. support he really removes a lot of the vandalism on here so we should help him with the rollback tool Yuckfoo 08:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
35. strong supportI hope she will use the power as admin especially for those vandalising in an right extremist way (fascists) the page vienna award. Bonaparte talk & contribs 13:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
36. support per nom. --Dvyost 17:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
37. Strong support - I was sure I'd already supported... Oh well, better late than never. --Celestianpower ^hablamé 17:19, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
38. Support per nom and above. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 17:23, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
39. Support vulcanstar6 dec 4, 05 12:06
40. Support. Can use some maturity, but so can we all. Dedicated vandalism-fighter who needs the tools. --Nlu 23:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
41. Support- JCarriker 00:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
42. Support, Anthere's English isn't fantastic either! (no disrespect meant to Anthere, she's great) Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 00:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
43. Support per Redwolf24. Great user, I've always liked you and thought you would make a great admin, Aranda56. You'll go places, trust me. :-) WikiFanatic 02:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
44. Support - your fixed your "vandalism" mistake mentioned below very quickly. You are obviously committed to the WikiCause - go for it! Brisvegas 02:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
45. Support, seems OK to me. — JIP | Talk 08:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
46. Support. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
47. Support - Good luck! -- Svest 22:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up&#153;}
48. Support. The extra responsibilities of an admin require courtesty, fairness, and a willingness to help. They don't require better spelling and grammar than would be required of ordinary editors. AnnH ^(talk) 02:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
49. Support - a good user -- Francs2000 02:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
50. Support. Good contributor, I agree with AnnH. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
51. Support, excellent contributor. --Terenceong1992 10:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

    Support εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 15:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC) Encyclopedist voted twice --Aranda ⁵⁶ 20:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

52. Support, good vandal whacker. I thought I had done this before, but apparently I hadn't. Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 02:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
53. Support. Already a great vandal whacker, the mop and flamethrower will make him even better. Not perfect, but then who is? the wub "?!" 18:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
54. Support. This user does a lot of good work, like fighting vandalism. Though Aranda should make an effort to be clear and offer to clarify things when communicating with users, I don't think poor writing skills should necessarily preclude adminship. delldot | talk 01:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
55. Support Active fighting vandals and no matter what some people think that is a huge problem and I think Aranda would be a huge plus in that cause. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 04:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
56. Support -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 22:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. I'm refactoring my comment after some discussions elsewhere, to make my reasons for opposition clearer.
   1. I strongly object to unverified sock puppet accusations toward new users, whenever they occur. Equating newbies with puppets may not directly be an act of biting the newbies, but it helps to promote the harmful AfD culture of newbie-biting.
   2. He generally has a lack of perspective on the Wikipedia community as a whole, because he's too focused on AfD.
   3. During this RfA, Aranda referred to a good faith contribution as vandalism and reverted it. I'd expect admins to be more careful than that. Everyone makes mistakes, but everyone should also be accountable for their mistakes.
   4. Aranda has become quite emotionally involved in this request for adminship; I don't believe that he will be able to keep a level head in future conflicts, something that I expect from every admin.
   5. An objection that is less important than all my other objections is that I'm worried by his poor usage of English. It hurts his credibility. Admins are in some sense the face of Wikipedia, and they need lots of credibility, in every form that they can get it, to be able to fulfill that role. I would be more forgiving if he didn't have English listed as a native language.

   Yes english is my native language and I do read english perfecly, but I admit that I'm horrible in spelling and writing in English so it makes this harder for me. I need tutoring in that.--Jaranda(^{watz sup}) 00:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

   I assure you all, Ralph Wiggum has been dispatched to rectify the tutoring situation.karmafist 08:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

   "Me fail English? That's unpossible!" —Lifeisunfair 16:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

2. Oppose Aranda is a really, really, nice person... but rspeer makes a very valid point. Admins are supposed to be an example of wikipedia to the community at large; as such, admins should at least be able to spell and punctuate properly (I'm not as big of a grammar nazi since we have british, australian, american, etc... grammar rule systems in place here). It is rather hard to take someone seriously when their signature includes "watz sup" as a link to their talk page, and when they are spelling quite atrociously. Sorry Aranda, I'm glad you know you need help, but I just don't feel making you an admin is a good idea at this point.  ALKIVAR™ 08:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

   If you are going to oppose someone because of poor grammar, I have to point out that nationalities should be capitalised: British, Australian, American ;) --TimPope 18:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

   Please re-read my post above Tim; I said I am not a grammar nazi, merely a spelling and punctuation nazi :)  ALKIVAR™ 08:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

3. Oppose Proto t c 12:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

   Is there a reason for your oppose vote, Proto? We're WP:NOT a Democracy here...karmafist 19:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

   I also dislike votes without a reason, but to be fair you should ask about the 15+ support votes above that also have no reason given. :) Turnstep 21:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

4. Oppose. His intention to delete "vanity articles" and the like is worrying when he nominates AFDs like "nn roadcruft d". --SPUI (talk) 14:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

   By the way, [17] may be a good example of an article he would have wrongly deleted, depending on where one stands on deleting vs. salvaging. --SPUI (talk) 14:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

5. Weak oppose because of lack of submission to the tyranny of tradition. Aranda is a pretty good editor, and if he were a great editor I'd support regardless, but I'm just pushed over the edge by the poor English. Lord Bob 18:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
6. Oppose per SPUI. Jobe6 20:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
7. Moderate Oppose. It's taken me part of an afternoon to come to a decision on this one. Unfortunately, I cannot in good faith vote Support. I agree with many of the reasons that have been given in this section. Perhaps it's just me -- I have a penchant for trying to make sure that I am understood and that I understand people -- but the colloquism style that this user chooses to employ in his pages makes me a tad uncomfortable. We hold Admins up with high and mighty standards -- proper grammar and word usage is among those standards, in my mind. My apologies to Aranda and to Karmafist. --Martin Osterman 20:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
8. Oppose. Martin's comments perfectly summarize my feelings. --NormanEinstein 21:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

   Honestly I just dont know what to say. My english and grammar has always been poor and I'm starting to think thats its impossible to become a admin because of that.I'm honestly trying to do my best with my bad grammar skills but I just cant fix it good enough. --Aranda ⁵⁶) 21:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

   Look, the more you write, the better your english will get. Looking through your edits, they seem to be mostly reverts and general cleanup stuff, maybe you should just take some time off that and just try to write, add content. Read through your prose again, see what can be omitted and what should be expanded. I really can't believe you when you say your english writing will always be poor. - Hahnchen 23:32, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

   Honestly, I fail to see the relevance - as a non-admin, he can edit just as much, and his grammar/spelling is no less important. However, Aranda hardly needs to have perfect English to roll back vandalism, block a vandal, close an AfD, or speedily delete a nonsense page. If he can be trusted to do those things, that ought to be the end of it. BD2412 T 02:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

   But there would be times when he would have to explain why he decided a particular article was nonsense, or why he decided to block a particular user, or why he discounted some of the contributions to an AfD. Templates don't cover the details of particular situations. Perfect English isn't necessary for this but there are times that Aranda56 is very hard to understand. (As RxStrangeLove notes in his vote following this one.) oops, forgot to sign, sorry. This was me at 15:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC). FreplySpang (talk) 19:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

   I would explain when another user ask me to but in a short, simple, and understandable way --Aranda ⁵⁶) 17:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

   No offense, but the above reply is barely understandable. I'm not making fun of you, but your comments often are difficult to comprehend. —Lifeisunfair 17:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

   Honestly I don't know what to do. Alot of the stuff I write looks understandable in my opinion but I guess it's not to most.--Aranda ⁵⁶) 17:21, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

   If you started editing and writing content it would help you. Other editors will correct your writing as necessary and you can learn from those edits. Slowly but surely you will notice the mistakes you are making. I suspect one mistake (I make this mistake too) is you don't proof read before you post. Above you wrote "I would explain when does insidents occur when they ask me ", are you really telling us that this looks comprehensible when you reread it? David D. (Talk) 21:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

9. Oppose I hate to say this, but this "I also voted delete because I dont know if its exists" kind of bothered me, if someone doesn't "know" about something maybe further research or not voting might be more appropriate. The second to last sentence in the sock explanation (I normally vote the opposite of what annons do unless its something true) is confusing and doesn't show a lot of thought. Good vandal fighter/attitude...a little more focus and I'd love to support next time if this doesn't work out. Rx StrangeLove 06:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

   Opps my bad english skills again :p. Wow! I acually said that. I really need to work on my english I'm not making any sense --Aranda ⁵⁶) 06:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

   Oppose. I don't have one overwhelming reason but the sum of the comments in this section and the fact that there are so many spelling and grammar errors in his answers to the questions in this RFA leaves me with the distinct impression that Aranda acts quickly and without sufficient attention to the results. I do expect more of an administrator. I'd like to see some improvement before giving him the tools. After reflection, moved to neutral. -- DS1953 07:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

10. Oppose Dmn 12:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

    Is there a reason for your oppose vote, Dmn? We're WP:NOT a Democracy here...karmafist 19:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

11. Oppose. Aranda56 has been doing good work, and I hope he feels welcome to continue making these valuable contributions, but his problems with communication make me reluctant to give him more power. It's hard to tell how well he thinks things through, because he doesn't explain his thinking clearly. FreplySpang (talk) 15:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
12. Oppose. I hate to hold someone's poor English skills against him, but I'm compelled to do so. An administrator must be capable of dealing directly with other users (to discuss his/her administrative actions, explain how the site operates, et cetera). Jorge's relative lack of communication skills would prevent him from properly carrying out these responsibilities. I would be willing to tolerate some typos and misspellings, but Jorge's misused words and unintelligible syntax are likely to confuse (or even offend) fellow editors. —Lifeisunfair 16:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
13. Oppose per false accusations of sock puppetry and false reverts of vandalism and general lacking of WP:AGF. Not to mention existence of multiple accounts, self nominations, and this being the 3rd such self nomination. We don't need admins that act like that. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 18:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Wait, what? Are you claiming that Aranda56 and Karmafist are the same person? When it comes to apparently unfounded accusations, that's far worse than anything Aranda56 has done. rspeer 19:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC) Struck my objection to Zordrac's comment, now that it's cleared up. rspeer 21:53, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I was referring to Aranda56 being nominated and Jaranda replying. It seemed very odd. I have crossed that now. I thought that Aranda56 was admitting to having multiple accounts. It was not an accusation. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 19:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
        • But how could this be my third such nomination I only had two self nominations in which I withdrew not long after. And Jaranda is my old sig by the way--Aranda ⁵⁶) 19:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
14. Oppose. I'm sorry to oppose but there are three reasons I have to do this. Firstly, I have severe misgivings about nominating someone with such bad grammar, as per User:Lifeisunfair above. If Jorge showed even a small inclination to improve this would not be an issue but he seems to wear it like a badge of honor. After freakofnurture had cleaned up some of the bad grammar he changed it back with the following edit summary I like my old version better thanks anyways kept some of your editing though (specifically look at what he did to the section ==What I Do Here== on line 67). At the end of the day this is a resource for the whole world. The lingo that Jorge uses is fine in his neighborhood where all the locals have grown up with the slang but how will users without English as a first language deal with such poorly constructed sentences? Secondly, I am also worried by his reaction to stressful situations. He seems particularly susceptible to baiting from vandals. Will this overreaction happen when he dealing with difficult editors? Thirdly, Jorge seems to want adminship too much. His first two unsuccessful nominations were self noms, the last one being less than one month ago. In my opinion Jorge needs more time to get to know all the ins and outs of editing. He spends a lot of time fighting vandals and that is great, but it is only through editing that he will learn how to collaborate with other editors and learn how to deal with the more subtle differences of opinion that appear when editing pages. David D. (Talk) 21:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Re: I've explained the quitting insident in quistion number 3 but let me explain to you clearer. I got personaly mad on User:Curps thinking that I had something to do with a sockpuppet incident which wasn't true but I came back a few days later. Also about the my user page I didn't like some of those edits that were added it wasn't my style, but I did understand that some of the edits were helpful and kept them and also I'm willing to learn any help with my grammar as I've learned alot the last few days. And as for the eagerness part of the adminship. Yes I admit that I'm a little eager for adminship and the last self-nom was a bit more than a month ago. --Aranda ⁵⁶) 21:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I didn't noticed the line 67 part while reverting and I've fixed it --Aranda ⁵⁶) 21:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Great, that is definitely a step in the right direction. I noticed you say you are 17 and bored in the worst school on the planet. This is even more reason for you to start editing content. Pick some areas that interest you and start creating articles. Start doing some research on the internet. Learn how to separate the wheat from the chaff with regard to source material. Try checking out text books and using those to help you improve articles. All of this will help you do better in school, not just grammar but knowledge too. When you leave school you will find that the experiences you gain from editing content at wikipedia will be far more important to your intellectual development than fighting vandals. Try it out I have confidence you can do it well because you have the one thing that critical for success, enthusiasm. I will not change my vote for now but would definitely be more supportive if you show improvement with regard to adding content to the encyclopedia. Please don't let these comments deflate your enthusiasm, that is your best asset. David D. (Talk) 22:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I, too, noticed Aranda summarily reverted my edits to his his user page. While I do admit I might have gotten a little carried away with the layout, I was only trying to improve the image he presents himself to other users, in an effort to support his nomination. I had planned to vote support until I read the inappropriate edit summary referenced in my neutral vote. While I refuse to edit war with a user over his own page, or oppose him outright on such grounds, this event does confirm my lack of support for Aranda's nomination. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 07:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I reverted all the edits at first as I didn't like some edits that were in my page like ==The suspiscious vandals go to prison! ==, and the overload of WoW templates. But I did kept most of the edits though eventunally. --Aranda ⁵⁶ 15:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
15. Oppose, although somewhat reluctantly. For one thing, it still seems a little soon after he nominated and withdrew himself from two previous RfAs, the last only a few weeks ago. I'm not horribly concerned about the spelling and grammar (as he says on his talk page, he attends the "worst school on earth", so that may be the cause of it! :), but I do expect a little more care to be taken. If he were a non-native speaker of English that would be one thing, but the mistakes show either a knowing willingness to not use proper English (such as the talk page, which would be fine if it was confined there), or they show he does not want to spend the time to improve things. Looking over his edit summaries ("uptated", "sppedy delete", "acually") I can only surmise it is the latter, as you manage to spell these words correctly at other times. The spelling and grammar alone would not make me vote delete, but the fact that on the one hand you seem to want the adminship badly, but on the other can't be bothered to take a little extra time to write things properly (especially on important pages such as this very AfD), combined with some of the other concerns voiced above, makes me vote oppose at this time. Turnstep 03:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree that sometimes I type too fast especially while using edit summarys, but honestly I try to do my best too learn proper english. I just recently copyedited the best I can to my abilty my whole RFA with the advice some users gave me in this RFA and in IRC in which I nevered learned before. By the way my last RFA was a month ago ;). --Aranda ⁵⁶) 04:23, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
16. Oppose based on the language skills seen no only in past edits, but on this RfA... basic sentence structure frequently gets mangled. This is not what we should be putting forward as one of our Admins. AKMask 03:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
17. Oppose English Wikipedia does NOT need another emotionally unstable admin. Sorry, kid! Probert 03:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

    I think that comment breaks civility. Would you like to have someone call you 'sonny' or 'boy'? --Syrthiss 03:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

    I've been called worse! =) Probert 03:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

    That's no surprise. Nice cheap shot and your vote should be discarded.--MONGO 06:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

    Oh, gee, should it? Give it your best shot! =) Probert 09:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

    I honestly don't understand that comment, yes I have quitted once and came back before after getting mad over a comment, but I would never do that silly stuff again and I'm not emotionally unstable as far as I know :p --Aranda ⁵⁶ 04:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

    Oppose. We don't need more admins, and if we did, I doubt we would need ones with poor English. Our admins should be impeccable - we have 600,000 editors to choose from, and I see no reason why we should nominate those who aren't the very best. 202.58.85.8 07:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

    This is a proven vandal IP who has been disqualified and temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia for disruption of the Requests for Adminship page and its subpages and for continued WP:POINT violations. --Orioane 08:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

18. Oppose Too soon after last self nom, aslo quitting because of a comment is very questionable in admin behavior. What if you got into a dispute of somesort, would you user your powers to win? I can't be certain fromt he asnwers given. Cobra 07:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
19. Oppose for now. Not enough time since last RFA.Gateman1997 20:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
20. Oppose. Not yet, maybe later. Mike Twynham 08:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
21. Oppose. I am so sorry, but I oppose for now. Geneviève 21:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
22. Oppose for the time being. Keep at the vandal-whacking and take a shot writing some articles. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 22:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral, because of Bad English....I mean because of poor writing on wikipedia, as in "Im" instead of "I'm", etc. Quentin Pierce 02:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
2. Neutral: Text on a wikipedia page can always be changed later, to clean up grammar, spelling, etc. Unfortunately, edit summaries like the one on Recruitment seem to be permanant, though I am likely guilty of the same things, so I cannot justify opposing solely on those grounds. I would support if the incident mentioned by Rspeer had been less recent. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 23:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
   • Freakofnurture got a point everyone makes mistakes in Wikipedia and one mistake can not lead to a strong oppose. --Aranda ⁵⁶) 23:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
3. Neutral for the time being. I'm less concerned about grammar and more concerned about wrongly attributing contributions as vandalism. Silensor 00:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
4. Neutral : I have no opinion on this user as an admin in general. I would like to point out that bad grammar and spelling is not so important to an encyclopedia as it is to a dictionary. In an encyclopedia it's more important to get the facts right, than it is to get the spelling of those facts right. :-P Kim Bruning 07:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
5. Neutral. Good potential. Will support in a month or two, after concerns raised by oppose votes can be addressed by Jaranda. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 03:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
6. Neutral. I don't have one overwhelming reason but the sum of the comments in the "Oppose" section and the fact that there are so many spelling and grammar errors in his answers to the questions in this RFA leaves me with the distinct impression that Aranda acts quickly and without sufficient attention to the results. I do expect more of an administrator. I'd prefer to see some improvement before giving him the tools. I think that in the situations that administrators often encounter, being able to express themselves clearly and with authority is critical to resolving the situation. In those situations, poor writing can lead to misunderstanding, a lack of credibility or both. If he gets the tools, I would hope that he realizes that with his level of writing skills, he should leave those situations to admins who are better equipped to handle them and he should concentrate on those functions where the ability to express oneself clearly and credibly to another user is less critical. -- DS1953 19:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• Opposemoved from oppose; anon IPs may not vote: I'm not concerned with the quality of the candidate's english. I will oppose Mr. 56 for lacking the decency to reply to comments left on his talk page. Yes, Aranda knows what I'm talking about. Ask him. Bye. Mr. 172 here 15:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• I've removed the Ralph Wiggum image--please do not use fair use images on project pages. Thanks. Chick Bowen 17:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• I've reverted the Recruitment edit in which I did wrong and fixed the annon comment to make it flow with the article. --Aranda ⁵⁶) 00:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify my comments a bit, so I make my position pertinent. As an administrator, I am aware that one has other duties besides simply working on articles. If I were simply basing my decision off of this, I'd give him a thumbs-up and tell him to go for it. HOWEVER... Admins are often called to mediate (whether they want to or not) and work side by side with the community using their tools to help better Wikipedia as a whole. It's like an actual paying job, in a sense. If a visitor comes to a company and sees people dressed nicely, then their view of that company is likely positive and improved. If they see people dressed sloppily, they're not as likely to think as positively. Using a common phrase, "A good first impression is everything". Our admins do tend to act as the first impression for people who either a) join Wikipedia or b) are new to Wiki and are dealing with Administators for the first time, be it in resolving a problem or working with the user. It is for these reasons that I made my vote. Perhaps I'm old-fashioned or eccentric, but this is what I see. If you have questions or anything, please feel free to ask! --Martin Osterman 04:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

You do got a point but even with my bad grammmar I still could meditate and will do those types of things when Im called upon. I understand and read english perfectly as I only have bad grammar and spelling skills in which I learned some since this RFA has started. Ex:whould to would I learned that in my RFA. I would still forfill those types of duties and Im going to try to make the best for Wikipedia as possible --Aranda ⁵⁶) 04:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't call into question your ability. I have little doubt that you have the ability to mediate disputes or do other Admin-related duties. While I may sound vain, one of the things that I am most concerned with in an administrator is image. When you enter the workforce and apply for a job, particularly a high-paying well-to-do job, the interviewer is going to be quite concerned with how you dress, how you talk, and how you act. If you do not impress upon him/her that you know how to do these three tasks well, then you will likely not get the job, even if you are very qualified for it. If you go see a lawyer, you expect the lawyer to look as professional as they should be, because their image is supposed to reflect the professionalism we attribute to someone who spends so much time learning the law of the land. If we are entrusting administrators to have greater tasks, thereby causing the community to observe and view them more than before, then don't we want them to put their best foot forward so the community (and thereby the world) can see how professional they are? I mean you no disrespect -- these are just my concerns and issues. --Martin Osterman 04:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• My view on all the spelling and grammar oppose votes. I know that this is a encyclopedia and I know that its obvious that you need grammar and good english wrting skills for it. As most users might have noticed, my grammar and spelling skills are not very good and I'm willing to learn as I'm still trying to get rid of how I type here in wiki like for example you= u. I know most users like perfect or near pefect english when voting in a RFA or make exceptions when english is not his or her first language. There are many of those users out there and most of them have done an exceptional job cleaning out wikipedia from vandalism, etc. But I dont know why I have to be opposed for bad english skills. I could do the same stuff that all regular admins do. Its probaly true that I cant help with spelling mistakes and stuff but I still could revert vandalism, delete a nonsense page, settle a dispute between two users. This is the free encyclopedia not the he's not good in his english oppose vote. People don't need admin powers to write a article. Adminship is mostly about respect and honor and helping clean up some of the hardest tasks not fixing typos. That is my view of this. I wont be back in this RFA unless they are any new quistions for me to answer. Thanks for listening --Aranda ⁵⁶) 08:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Spelling is no reason to vote oppose unless it is deliberate which it is not I would recommend a spell checker to solve this problem. "Work smarder and not harder and be careful of yor speling. " murphy's laws --Adam1213 Talk + 23:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Poor spelling isn't the only issue. Some of Jorge's comments are incomprehensible. When users question his administrative actions (blocks, rollbacks, protections, deletions, vote closures, et cetera), how will he communicate with them? —Lifeisunfair 00:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Spelling and grammar are pretty important things in today's world. See my above comments for my comparison, so I don't repeat myself. :) --Martin Osterman 04:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I will try my best to communicate with those users --Aranda ⁵⁶) 00:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• I have cleaned up my responces the best to my abilty. --Aranda ⁵⁶) 02:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Hmmm.. suddenly accounts with onlly a few edits within months suddenly appear to oppose.... Also spelling.. this isn't about editingship, but adminship, where spelling is not really much relevant. (I'm not even a native english speaker) -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 23:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• Yes I'm suspectious on a couple of votes in there. 2 of the users that opposed has less than 100 edits when they opposed and another one has less than 100 edits also. And 2 other users barely has 100 edits but haven't edited in a long time, oppose me rather rapidly and left. Too suspectious. --Aranda ⁵⁶ 23:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• After the past week, I suspect strongly that Adminship is about to become a more public job than it has before. That is the primary reason for my Oppose vote. It's not just spelling, though, but grammar as well. As for the accounts suddenly popping up -- I can't really say; I, myself, only started (sporadically) voting for RfAs about a month ago. --Martin Osterman 23:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, you do got a point. But about those users suddenly popping up is rather suspectious. Both of those users last edit was October 11th, their userpage style is the same, and they haven't edited another RFA or any other page after that so it's way too suspectious. --Aranda ⁵⁶ 23:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

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

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A. I would mostly be closing AFDs in which I normally do already, but the delete button would be nice for vanity articles etc. I would also clear out the AFD backlog very often. The rollback button will be very nice as well as my internet connection wont read the godlight-mode script and I had do the reverting manually. I would also use the block power very wisely to deal with vandals.

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

A. I have create several articles. Some good like Manny Mota and 2005 Sanriku Japan Earthquake, some stubby like Paola Rey and some just plain bad like List of Sports Flops. I also normally do cleanup sports articles and articles on rap artists. And I am currently trying to make the Steve Nash article into a featured article but with my bad grammar skils its hard.

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

A. Yes I have been in a couple of conflects before and I admit I've reacted quite bad over them. One example was during the Mexican G vandal spree in which the vandal was using the same AOL ips that I use, and Curps thought I might have been connected with it and I became quite upset over it and quitted for 4 days, blanking my user page and all that stuff not that long ago but I should've known better so please forgive me in that insident. I also got into a couple of edit wars with SPUI when he was closing AFDs with out a valid reason and I've reverted it. But other than that and a few isolated conflects with vandals nothing else really.

4. If you look at my opposition, I object very strongly to two edits you have made in the past 24 hours: you made an accusation of sock-puppetry that is apparently unfounded, and you referred to a good-faith contribution as vandalism. How do you justify these edits? rspeer 20:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• I admit that the vandalism revert was a mistake but everyone does makes mistakes but I don't understand the first one about the newbie biting. I would never bite newbies and all those annon users who voted keep in that AFD, in my opinion were socks and it's also unusual that a user first edit was a sockpupperty filled afd like the one in the game afd. I also voted delete because I dont know if it's verifiable. --Aranda ⁵⁶) 20:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • That's circular reasoning - that the new users are socks because the afd is filled with sockpuppetry. You're spreading a misconception that leads to hostility toward new users. So I must oppose your adminship, because it's my opinion that this promotes newbie-biting (I've retracted an overly harsh comment where I equated it to newbie-biting itself). Note that I'm not opposing you because you voted delete and I voted keep - that would be really petty and pointless! You can vote anything you want. rspeer 04:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• I will never, never, bite newbies that's my honest word. Look I just dont want to start a conflect with you, but I never said that the new users were socks in the first place in that AFD or in my responce. I've said that they could be socks giving the timing of that AFD. --Aranda ⁵⁶) 05:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

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

---

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

Extreme Unction

Final (44/13/2) ended 23:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Extreme Unction (talk · contribs) – Extreme Unction has made 900+ edits since August, and shows no sign of stopping. He's also very knowledgeable on the subject of a) internet communities and b) legal aspects thereof. Recently, he started poking around AFD, and the rest of his contributions show a good balance. He also claims that he's also seen all the worst already. Time to give him a mop and bucket, to prove him wrong ;)  grm_wnr Esc 14:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, and thanks for the vote of confidence. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 15:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. The first support comes free with the nomination. -- grm_wnr Esc 16:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
2. Support. I would have liked to have nominated Extreme Unction. This user caught on extremely fast, and has been doing cleanup work and showing that he has the knowledge of Wikipedia policy and temperament for adminship since he started. When you look at his low edit-count, take a look at the quality of the edits and I think you'll agree that he's earned our trust in a fraction of the time it takes most users. As he says in question 3 below, he has shown a high tolerance for the abuse of other editors, and has handled conflict with calm and rationality. Let's give this user the tools that will help him continue to dazzle us. —Cleared as filed. 16:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
3. Support Not many edits, but beign an admin is supposed to be no big deal so...Gator (talk) 16:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
4. Support per CaF and Gator. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 16:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
5. Support. Has a strong understanding of online communities; good editing record; plenty of user interaction. The Land 16:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
6. EXTREME UNCTION SUPPORT. (Sorry. Someone had to do it.) Another one I was thinking of nominating myself. Has the personality and experience to do this well, caught on to WP quick, and wants to do the grunt work. Works for me. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
7. Support. A good guy, and the experience (and maturity) described in Q3 will be a great asset to Wikipedia. FreplySpang (talk) 16:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
8. Support - wow 900 user talk:vulcanstar6 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.178.87 (talk • contribs) 00:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC) (UTC)
9. Support - love your sig by the way. FireFox 17:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
10. Support, and damn the editcountitis. Ral315 (talk) 17:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
11. Ξxtreme Support Izehar 20:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
12. Quick Make Me A Table! Support karmafist 21:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
13. Support Good user in AFD --Jaranda(^{watz sup}) 21:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
14. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 23:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
15. Support NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 02:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
16. Support, user is unlikely to abuse admin tools. AFD issues don't bother me, the existing rules about who can do what closures are rather foolish anyway. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
17. Merovingian 12:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
18. Support. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 14:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
19. Need more admins. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-2 15:00
20. Support. First of all, after reading his response to Splash, I have to definitely leave a Support vote here. (No, it wasn't the Wile E. Coyote quote that did it, but that was nice) I don't think that someone should be punished in an RfA vote if they realize their mistake and openly and honestly admit that they were wrong. Too many editors, it seems, are not willing to do such a thing. If he's learned his lesson, let's give him a chance to do the job that he wants to do. This person looks like someone who has the potential to be very beneficial to Wikipedia. --Martin Osterman 16:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
21. Support I've never seen such good responses on an RFA. Joke137 17:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
22. → Support per Martin Osterman in particular, and all of the above in general. BD2412 T 19:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
23. Support. I was on the fence about this because of the low edit count and dabbling in arcane stuff like closing AfDs (OMG STANDARD LEVEL USERS CAN DO THAT?!??!!), but he recognizes his mistakes and is very well spoken in response to criticism. --Syrthiss 19:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
24. Support Everyone makes mistakes, no reason to hang the man over one.... --негіднийлють ^{(Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS)} 19:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
25. Support work with ISP's impressive and may prove beneficial.--MONGO 03:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
26. Support, firm grasp of policy. Think he's too green? Then ask yourself this: do you trust him to ask before he does something he's unsure about? I know I do. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 07:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
27. Support. Good answers, concerns about editcount and AfD closes seem minor to me. -Colin Kimbrell 07:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
28. Support. Very competent and ambitious editor, willing to learn from mistakes. Bishonen | talk 20:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
29. Support. Not a troll, vandal or idiot; well-intentioned, committed and rational. Less than X months experience? Less than Y edits? Please. Let's not pretend like Wikipedia is so difficult that only an intensive and long-winded study could give you the necessary experience to do the admin thing with care. For some people, this might be true. Those don't become administrators. Many more qualify than some might think, though. JRM · Talk 21:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
30. Support. El_C 00:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
31. Content matters. Supprot. JFW | T@lk 20:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
32. Support. Very helpful in dealing with AfD of a new article. Nolamgm 21:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
33. Support. He may have a relatively low edit count, but per Bishonen he seems competent and ambitious. No doubt ISP abuse skills would help the project, too. His recent explanation regarding an AfD convinces me that he does have the required understanding of the process. _└ ^UkPaolo/_TALK^┐ 22:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
34. Support, seems like an alright user, and has a reasonably good understanding of AfD. I'm fine with non-admins closing non-consensus AfDs, and I think he does a good job with it. JYolkowski // [[User talk:JYolkowski|talk]] 23:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
35. Support, I've seen him around, and he seems OK. — JIP | Talk 08:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
36. Good article edits, good comments, and since when can non-admins only close keeps? I must go look at history of Wikipedia:Deletion process. - brenneman^(t)(c) 13:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Since 13 June 2005 apparently. I didn't see any talk page action about it, and I must admit, this seems pretty silly to me, even though Rossami is about as far up my tree of respect as it is possible to go. - brenneman^(t)(c) 13:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
37. Changing vote to Support per information contained in vote #36. There's nothing to show that he won't make a good administrator even with a lower than usual edit count.Give him a mop and bucket--Dakota ^{t e} 19:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
38. It takes something to make me vote. Extreme is a great guy. Note to others: there's no better way of getting me to support than opposing solely on the basis of vote count or account age. I was chosen as an admin after just five months, and Extreme seems happy to do the work, so why not let him? Do you really think he's going to abuse the tools? If not, you should support, because we need all the admins we can get. [[Sam Korn]] 22:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
39. Support. the wub "?!" 18:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
40. Support - not a vandal, troll, asshole, sockpuppet, or idiot, and most of the oppose votes do not give me any reason to oppose. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (mmmmm chocolate!)} 13:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
41. Support - I like this fella's style :) -- sannse (talk) 13:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
42. Support - He's been doing good work, and I see no signs that he is hotheaded, unreasonable, or other warning signs. I have every reason to believe he'll do just fine as an admin. Nandesuka 13:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
43. Support - For great justice. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 15:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
44. Support. -- DS1953 15:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The following votes were received after the voting deadline.

1. Support. Yes it's early but Extreme Unction has shown himself to be of administrator material. I am confident that if he is lacking experience dealing with non-AfD situations, he will quickly gain it and be able to use his admin powers wisely. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 17:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
2. Let me first state that I've been extremely impressed by his contributions. I very rarely support a candidate with less than 1000 edits, but I almost did here. The reason I'm not is because I think he could use another month or two. I am a bit concerned that he's been closing AfDs as no-consensus. I think it's great for non-admins to close obvious "keeps", but it's up to an admin to decide whether there's consensus or not. In a month or so, I will strongly support. Carbonite | Talk 16:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

   I've switched from neutral to support based on the candidate's handling of this RfA. Carbonite | Talk 19:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. It pains me to oppose, since I assumed he already was an administrator when I first interacted with him, just two days ago. That interaction was over his close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Better Off Dead (Soundtrack), where he stated that the merge was already complete, and so the article should be reconsidered for deletion. However, at the time, the merge target contained only "The soundtrack for Better Off Dead was produced by Robert Hine", and the merge source had not been made into a redirect. Most importantly, the GFDL only allows us to delete merged articles with very great care. Like how to deal with vandalism, the authorship requirement of the GFDL is something that every administrator needs to understand thoroughly before they get their extra buttons. I'd be happy to support, or even nominate, once he has some more experience, since he's clearly on the right track. —Cryptic (talk) 19:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

   Not to argue with your oppose vote, but I mention in passing that most users who come through RFA are never even queried on their knowledge of GFDL requirements, although it is obviously an important issue. The way I see it, Extreme Unction, by virtue of this experience you bring up, actually has more experience and knowledge on the subject than many RFA candidates and possible new administrators. —Cleared as filed. 19:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

   Maybe so regarding the GFDL, and had that been the only problem I wouldn't have commented; but the other two irregularities with the close (the article not being redirected, and only a sentence of it being merged) still show that experience with Wikipedia overall is a factor. —Cryptic (talk) 19:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

2. Oppose I must join Carbonite in his concerns, but I share them a bit more strongly. I, too, thought you were an admin, because I've seen your "no consensus" closes before. I think you do a good job, but those closes leave a bit of a bad feeling, so I think more time is needed. Xoloz 01:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Some misunderstandings of things are ok, we all make them. But that particular one comes up quite often on AfD (several times a day, probably), and a duly experienced editor would already be aware of it. The fact that he is closing AfDs is good, but he shouldn't be closing no-consensi because that's what admins are for, and trusting their judgement in such things is part of why we have RfA. (Wikipedia:Deletion process is also very clear on the matter; presumably the editor hasn't read this document.) I would like to see a convincingly firmer grip on procedure and policy, particularly in this area since he indicates interest in adminning it and its closely related deletion processes. I would also like more than a few hundred edits to judge consistency and style by (don't start on me). Also, anecdotally, Extreme Unction has only very recently come to my attention: at the risk of sounding self-centered, I see most good RfA candidates long before they turn up here and I was quite surprised to see his name and more surprised to see he is in fact clear of 3 months. I am drooling at the thought of having an ISP's abuse admin as a Wiki admin in the future, however. We should give him m:Checkuser access now, probably. -Splash^talk 02:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

   Just to clear things up, so that you, the gentle reader, will only think of me as a partial moron instead of a complete one, let me say that my sin was indeed one of ignorance, rather than of willful intent. Up until a week or so ago, I assumed that only admins could close out AfD discussions after the appropriate time. Then I noticed someone closing out an AfD discussion whom I knew to be not an admin. "SO!" thought I, "If he can do it, so can I! Obviously, I can't close out any AfD discussion which requires the actual deletion of an article, but obviously I should be able to close out any discussion which doesn't require actual article deletion."

    

   You see my error. It was so "obvious" to me what my options were that I failed to do due diligence and check to see if my interpretation of events was congruent with the reality of the situation. But no, it wasn't until today that someone mentioned to me "I didn't think non-admins were supposed to close out 'no consensus' votes. I thought they were only supposed to close out clear 'keep' votes."

    

   Oops.

    

   This is especially embarassing to me because this sort of thing is what I do for a living. I, of all people, should know better. But, to quote Wile E. Coyote, "Even a supergenius can have an off day." Mea culpa. Mea maxima culpa.

    

   I recognize that I am most assuredly torpedoing any chance I have of succeeding this RFA by admitting my poor judgement and laying it bare for all to see, but I'm big into "full disclosure." And, as I told grm_wnr when he asked if I was okay with him nominating me for RFA, "I'm pretty sure the nomination won't succeed, but the comments from the 'Oppose' votes should be edifying and educational." And so they have been, for which you folks have my sincere thanks. Please rest assured that mistakes I have made in the past will not be repeated in the future, whether I have mop and bucket in hand or no. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 03:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

   Your disclosure reaffirms my already-present respect for your abilities, and is very appreciated... but, I still think a little more wait is good, so that you can learn even more about the wonderous wonders of policy around here. I will strongly support in two months or so, though, and nom. you, if you wish (and if it's even necessary.) Xoloz 04:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

4. Oppose, <6 months and <1000 edits. I'm also concerned that the user's best contribution to Wikipedia was an argument in an AfD discussion.Proto t c 14:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
5. Oppose. Not quite enough edits and most of them are afds . Need to get around more here. There's more than afd. Vandal fight, spread your edits around and try again in a couple of months you'll get it then.--Che Perez 17:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
6. Opppose for now, needs more experience. Will gladly support if and when this person is renominated. Silensor 00:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
7. Oppose Needs more experience --Rogerd 02:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
8. Oppose as above Olorin28 03:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
9. Oppose. Way too low an edit count 1) for us to make an accurate judgement on their suitability for adminship and 2) for Extreme Unction to have the knowledge of the ins and outs of the Wikipedia that an admin needs. ^BlankVerse 16:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
10. Oppose freestylefrappe 01:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
11. Oppose as above: needs a little more experience. See no reason not to support next time, however. Turnstep 19:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

    Oppose. Not quite enough edits, will support next time.--Dakota ^{t e} 01:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

12. Oppose due to lack of experience.Gateman1997 20:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
13. Oppose at this time due to experience criteria, but I certainly do encourage this editor to keep contributing. Jonathunder 04:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Eh, I wanted to support, but I saw the reasons for opposition, so I must remain neutral. Quentin Pierce 02:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
2. It's simply a matter of time and edits than the person or the person's actions. I hate to see the insane artifact of "inclusionist" and "deletionist" dragged into RFA, and I believe it has been. For me, there is solely, "argues and deliberates according to existing policy" and "does not." If the former, I don't care about "loves [topic]" or "hates [topic]." The rest of the reasons against ring hollow, for me: Welcoming is something that we should do, but some folks are excellent at it, and some folks not. Those who are, should do it. Those who aren't, maybe not. (Imagine me as the welcomer. About as cuddly as a caltrop.) Some people should tag images. Some shouldn't. What is requisite in an admin, to me, is awareness of policy, willingness to build consensus, unwillingness to go cowboy when policy is confining, and poise. ExtremeUnction has shown all of those, but there hasn't been enough time yet to vote for or against, IMO. Geogre 14:39, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• Hasn't been here long enough only 900 edits. There are only 28 entries on his talk page and no history of welcoming visitors, nothing much but afd. He should have known administrators are the only ones who can decide whether there is concensus or not. Might possibly have a quick trigger finger on deletes with admin powers. My finger twitches longingly over the AfD button, however(on one of his votes). → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 15:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC) Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Jewish_bankers" and the nominator's comment on his talk page.As per our IRC conversation, here it is: Your own private RFA subpage. Make the most of it ;) grm_wnr Esc 14:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC).---219.93.174.106 07:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[18] Welcoming ApolloCreed

[19] Welcoming Paulcleveland

[20] Welcoming Axoplasm

[21] Welcoming Beyondcapricorn

[22] Welcoming Ajaykpaul

[23] Welcoming 68.194.225.154

[24] Welcoming Prisoner627

I'll probably never be a one-man Esperanza, but I have welcomed new users in the past, and will continue to do so in the future during my RC Patrol rounds. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 13:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. We don't need more admins. RfD's backlog is much smaller than it appears because most proposed RfDs haven't got any votes. MfD's backlog is also rather small, and if you think it needs handling, admins are very easy to contact. 202.58.85.8 07:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

This is a proven vandal IP who has been disqualified and temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia for disruption of the Requests for Adminship page and its subpages and for continued WP:POINT violations. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 08:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Moved from oppose to here. - brenneman^(t)(c) 13:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

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

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion is a well-travelled path, and gets all the admin glory. While I will no doubt dip my hand in AfD discussions and closures if accepted, I will almost certainly spend a lot of time amid the less travelled regions of Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion, and similar areas. These areas have serious backlogs, and I will do my best to help clear them out.

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

A. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/False Doppler (2nd Nomination) would be the single contribution I have made to Wikipedia of which I am most proud. My comments there speak for themselves, and I am pleased that I was able to thwart a bad-faith nomination with a little investigation. Adjunct (beer) and Leo Gallagher are also personal favorites.

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. To clarify the comments made by the person who nominated me for adminship, I am an abuse administrator for a large regional ISP. I have, for the past 9 years, made my living excising cranks, hackers, spammers, and other various ne'er-do-wells from the ISP for which I work. This experience has provided me with an unusually high tolerance for provocation. I rarely find myself in conflict at work, even with people who hurl all manner of hyperbolic accusations and legal threats my way, because I simply don't let myself become provoked into conflict. If I am interacting with someone who is trying to provoke a fight with me, and I give them a fight, then I've allowed them to control the flow and the tone of our interaction. And in my line of work, that's always a bad thing.

So I have not been in full-blown conflict mode with anyone here at Wikipedia, simply because I don't allow myself to enter that mode. It's irrational, unproductive, and generally not worth the effort. I don't anticipate this viewpoint changing at any point in the future.

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

---

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

Tedernst

Final: (15/8/3) ended 07:06 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Tedernst (talk · contribs) – This is my second self-nomination. I was asked to withdraw the first one (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tedernst) due to lack of experience at Wikipedia. I agreed. Since then, I've dabbled in different areas of Wikipedia, with most of my edits coming while disambiguating. I've built up quite a watchlist and I revert vandalism whenever I see it. I hope I've shown through my work that I am an asset to Wikipedia already. I believe my work here will be even more effective as an administrator (primarily with reverting vandalism and perhaps blocking users, though that would be rare for me). Tedernst 07:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Tedernst 07:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Thryduulf 09:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC). I see no reason to hinder your desire to help with the janitorial work, here. Thryduulf 09:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
2. Yeah, support. It was mainly length of time here that foiled the last bid. Tedernst is still keen and has shown dedication to the 'pedia, so go for it. Grutness...wha? 09:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
3. Support, should be fine with admin tools. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 09:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
4. Support No problem.Gator (talk) 13:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
5. Support Looks good! ;] --негіднийлють ^{(Reply|Spam Me!*)} 15:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
6. Support FireFox 17:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
7. Support no big deal...I'm not inclined to think you'll vapor lock and turn into a lousy contributor in another month, and see no reason to discourage you from continuing to be a good contributor by making you run for a third nomination.--MONGO 20:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
8. Support Izehar 20:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
9. Support εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 23:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
10. Merovingian 12:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
11. Support: unlikely to abuse administrator tools, reasons presented for opposition to date are not compelling. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
12. Support these oppose votes are stupid and do not have a legitimate rationale. freestylefrappe 01:18, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Nor, one could argue, does yours. :) Turnstep 19:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
13. Support per Mongo. Why get in the way of someone who wants to fight vandals more efficiently?--Alhutch 01:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
14. Support Has been staying cool under provocation. Susvolans ⇔ 18:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
15. Support. Go forth and block some vandals. Matt Yeager 05:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I don't think any RfA should be re-considered in less that 2-3 months. --Rogerd 17:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
2. Oppose Its been barely over a month, too soon especially for a self nom and you seem over eager for admin status. Plus you have yet to reach the 3 month mark. Also while you have a high edit count, over 4000, i dont really see any one edit with real content adding. While im saying that dab and link repairing arent bad, they are not enough in my opinion to become an admin. Your on the right track, maybe have someone else nom and I will support then. Jobe6 20:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
3. Oppose I must admit that Tedernst is a very good dismbig link fixer and gives always an edit summary. Still after going through the edits made between the nominations I noted that: 1) last 3 Afd votes were made on 10 November, 5 November, 4 November 2) ~94 % of edits between nominations are on Stub-sorting tags, dabs, fixing link order -tags -- all minor edits and lastly 3) during the month November 39 reverts, ~1/day (rough count of rvv and revert Edit summaries) were made. Although a huge jump in edits has been made between the self-nominations (650 - 4000), most of the edits have been minor and little participation to AfD, NA or RC can be noted from his editing pattern. So I wouldn't say that he "dabbled in different areas of Wikipedia" between the nominations. Also I support the opinions of Rogerd and Jobe. feydey 00:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

   When I say I dabbled, I mean I tried out different places to see where my work-style really fits. I found disambiguation to be the place it fits most. I don't go looking for vandals, but because I now have 3000+ pages on my watchlist, they come to me. I respect your right to vote however you wish. That said, I don't understand why people vote against editors that don't work in all areas. My opinion is that people should work where they feel the most comfortable and if the admin tools will help at all, they should be given, unless someone doesn't have a track record or has shown to be irresponsible. I'm not asking you to change your vote, just letting you know how I see things. Tedernst | Talk 16:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

   Well the area that you are working in doesn't necessarily need admin powers. A vandal fighter for example could be greatly helped by admin powers. Someone who regularly participates in AFD would also have good use of these powers. Jobe6 05:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

   Okay, not needing the admin powers is a totally different argument. I'm not sure why someone not needing the powers is a reason not to give them the powers, but now I understand a bit more where you're coming from. In 3 or 3 years from now, I doubt I'll be a vandal fighter, so if that's the standard, then perhaps we ought to forget the whole thing. That said, I revert one or two or so, vandals per day and it would be nice to be able to roll back. I also would like to help with page moves, and I need to be an admin for that. Tedernst | talk 16:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

4. Oppose per feydey. Quentin Pierce 02:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
5. Oppose only because last nomination was just over a month ago, per RogerD. March '06 will bring my support, if that is even necessary. Xoloz 07:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
6. Oppose Too soon. Proto t c 14:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
7. Sadly oppose. If this RfA had come at a slightly later date, perhaps after the start of the new year, I would gladly give an accept vote. However, after doing my research and looking at things, I have to cast my vote as it is. Give yourself some time, do some more work, and come back in March or April -- I'll probably change my vote then! --Martin Osterman 16:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
8. Oppose as being too soon (both in total time and since last RfA), and the concerns of Jobe6 above. Turnstep 19:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
9. Oppose. We don't need more admins. Most abusive users are blocked quickly, and if they aren't, admins are easily contacted. Most vandalism that slips through wouldn't have been caught if every user had the rollback button. 202.58.85.8 07:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

This is a proven vandal IP who has been disqualified and temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia for disruption of the Requests for Adminship page and its subpages and for continued WP:POINT violations. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 08:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral per Jobe6 --Jaranda(^{watz sup}) 20:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
2. Neutral ditto -- Francs2000 02:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
3. Neutral, has clearly more experience now, but I'd still want to wait a bit longer before supporting. — JIP | Talk 10:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• Just a couple more thoughts. Everyone has a right to vote however they like. That said, I don't understand what will change in a month or 3 or 5 or 15. I asked this after my first RFA and never really found a satisfactory answer. Have their been examples of "admins gone bad" thought could be correlated to their lack of experience in terms of time when promoted to admin? If adminship is "not a big deal," then what will change with more time? Either way, folks, I'm going to continue doing what I can. Just seems to me that the more tools each of us has, the better the encyclopedia will be overall. Tedernst | talk 20:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't think anyone with time concerns is worried about admins "going bad." It's simply a matter of ensuring the user knows their way around well enough. The idea is that an admin should have a certain familiarity with WP policies and procedures, and lots of experience editing articles, using talk pages, resolving conflicts (or at least watching some from the sides), etc. Using a minimum time is a rough rule of thumb some of us use as one of the factors in deciding on whether to support adminship. Hope that helps. Oh, and I also don't subscribe to the "no big deal" thing, at least not as far as some of the frequent support voters do. :) Turnstep 19:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Okay, so then do we have any examples of admins misusing their powers because they didn't know the relevant policies well enough? And can we correlate that misuse to a certain (small) amount of time here prior to becoming admins? Forget about my RFA for a moment. Should this really be a criteria? Of course we want admins that have been involved and have worked stuff out with people. Yes, yes and yes. My question is, does the time criteria get us what we want? Tedernst | talk 23:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, the 'time criteria' is the best we have right now. If you know of another way, short of giving an exhaustive quiz to every applicant, we're all ears. :) I think it is safe to say that everyone has a 'time criteria', the only difference is in how long it is and how relatively important it is to each voter. Turnstep 20:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• keep up the good use of edit summaries! :-) Alhutch 01:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

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

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A. Reverting vandalism would be much easier with admin tools, so that's my short, easy answer. Also, blocking the occassional user (anons, I mostly find) that repeatedly abuse their editing priviliges, would be another tool I'd use, though sparingly, as I don't come across people all that often with test4 on their talk page. Perusing the backlog page, I could see myself helping with the requested moves. I've moved a few pages already, though they didn't need an admin as the destination didn't exist yet. In fact, I'll go check that backlog page now to see if there are some I can help with as a non-admin. Tedernst 07:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems admins are definitely necessary for these moves in the backlog. I thought perhaps there would be pages there that an editor simply didn't know how to move using the move function. That doesn't appear to be the case. Tedernst 07:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but now that I've spent a bit more time there, there are ways I can be useful, even as a non-admin, in spite of the instructions. So I'll spend more time on requested moves no matter what happens with this RFA. What a learning experience! Tedernst 08:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

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

A. I'm not so much pleased with particular articles, but with classes of edits. I've spent a lot of time bringing disambiguation pages in line with MoS:DP which I feel is important because it improves the usability of Wikipedia. Doing disambiguation link repair (WP:DPL) is where the majority of my edits have come, and I feel that's quite helpful to the end user as well. If they already know the content of the link they're clicking, then it's easy for them to navigate through a dab page, but if they don't, then having the link go directly to the right place is essential. When I'm doing a whole bunch at once, I can get familiar enough with a subject to know which is which. Tedernst 07:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

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

A. This week I had difficulty with the Maxwell page. I felt another editor was treating me quite poorly. I'm happy with my response, however, as I know this person is also a human being and so I reached out on that basis. The other person came up with a very creative solution that leaves us both happy. The Congo page is another where there's been some disagreement. Currently my work on that page doesn't display as it's been reverted. I'm working on the talk page to resolve that one. Tedernst 07:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Interestingly, I'm having some difficulty right now with Witten, Witten (disambiguation) and Witten, Germany. I'm feeling stressed which indicates to me that I need to step back. Anyone want to help? Tedernst 16:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

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

---

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

Thebainer

Final count:(46/0/0) ended 00:00 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Thebainer (talk · contribs) – Thebainer is one of those Wikipedians who seem to have been around since the mists of wiki time; in actuality, he has been with us (as a registered user) since October 2004. In that time he has made many comprehensive contibutions, with much of Wikipedia's coverage of Australian law, politics and (specifically, Indigenous) history owing to his work. At the community level, bainer is extensively active and demonstrates a sound knowledge of policy and good practice. Moreover, as can be seen from his contributions, he is a prolific 'welcomer' and imparts invaluable advice to newbies and 'oldies' alike. I'm sure that most will be surprised, as I was, that bainer is not already an admin; it's about time he was.Cyberjunkie | Talk 00:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept. --bainer (talk) 01:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Strong Support as nominator, --cj | talk 00:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
2. Support. Snottygobble | Talk 01:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
3. Support Geoff/Gsl 02:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
4. Strong support. I'm surprised he isn't already an admin - having recently met the chap, I can report that he is a dedicated and enthusiastic editor, with an excellent knowledge of the wikiverse. Cnwb 02:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
5. Support - jaw drops, cliche kicks in. BD2412 T 02:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
6. Support. Worked hard on Australian articles in particular. Capitalistroadster 03:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
7. Support MONGO 04:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
8. Support -- I'm surprised he isn't already an admin. - Longhair 04:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
9. Support December's dawn brings a beauty crop of new admins. Xoloz 05:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
10. Support, unlikely to abuse administrator tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
11. Support. Good editor. Xtra 05:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
12. Support. Good contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
13. Support. Should've been an admin months ago; I really should check to make sure people like him actually get nominated when they deserve it. Kudos to Cyberjunkie for seeing that that happens. Ambi 08:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
14. Support. Them Aussies are taking over. Uruguay, then the Windies, next... Wikipedia! Grutness...wha? 08:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
15. Support. Now that I have met Bainer and he knows what I look like, it may not be wise/safe to vote against him. Fortunately, he is a very good contributer who will probably be an excellent admin. --Roisterer 08:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
16. Support. Will make a good admin. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 09:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
17. support, valuable editor  ALKIVAR™ 10:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
18. Support. Good contributions and helpful discussion. JPD 10:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
19. Support. Glad to support someone who was very helpful to me when I first arrived. Ben Aveling 11:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
20. Support. Another talented Australian editor. Darwinek 12:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
21. Support He welcomed me here and has substantially written/contributed to a majority of Australian law, ecspecially edits, designing info boxes and always being helpful. --Never29 13:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
22. Support. Kirill Lokshin 14:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
23. Support. FireFox 17:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
24. Support good edits. Izehar 20:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
25. Support We need more of Australia, gets my support :-) Gryffindor 20:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
26. Merovingian 22:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
27. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
28. Support --негіднийлють ^{(Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS)} 23:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
29. --Jaranda(^{watz sup}) 02:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
30. Support Quentin Pierce 02:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
31. Support - per nom. Cheers -- Ianblair23 (talk) 04:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
32. Support Proto t c 14:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
33. Support Astrotrain 18:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
34. Support! Chuq 01:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
35. Support Thanks to Cyberjunkie for bothering to check whether the editors we value every day have actually been made an admin. --Scott Davis ^Talk 09:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
36. Support. El_C 00:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
37. Support per nominator. Sarah Ewart 02:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
38. Support. --Bhadani 12:03, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
39. Support as above. pfctdayelise 14:21, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
40. Support. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
41. Support.good editor.--Dakota ^{t e} 19:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
42. Support. Looks like he'll use tools well. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
43. Support, looks good. Silensor 21:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
44. Support. I've seen him around the place, good contribs. Enochlau 22:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
45. Support. A very interactive, hard-working Wikipedian. Brisvegas 02:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
46. Support per nominator. the wub "?!" 18:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

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

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A. Dealing with vandalism is something I would like to do more of, and the rollback feature would help me expand patrolling past the confines of my watchlist. I would also be interested in helping out at pages such as Requested moves, and anywhere else my help is requested.

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

A. I started the WikiProject Australian law, and I have made a number of contributions to articles in that field, such as Commonwealth v Tasmania. I've done a few biographies on Australian politicians and other personalities, Juanita Nielsen for example. My favourite articles are the ones for which I've had the opportunity to do some historical research, such as Myall Creek massacre and Batman's Treaty. Writing new articles is certainly my favourite wiki-activity.

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 was peripherally involved in the Internodeuser arbitration, mainly as a third party who tried to resolve the dispute. I've also tried to step in to resolve a few debates between editors, on Talk:Armenian Genocide and Talk:Batman's Treaty, for example. I much prefer to resolve issues on talk pages before they spill over elsewhere and it becomes necessary to explore other avenues. I don't tend to generate much conflict myself.

• If anyone has any more questions, then please add them. --bainer (talk) 01:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

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

---

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

WikiFanatic

Final count: (58/12/0) ended 01:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

WikiFanatic (talk · contribs) – (formerly known as WikiFan04) has been a Wikipedian for almost two years now, and has shown he will be a good admin. Objections from his previous failed RFA have since been addressed. Unfortunately for all you editcountitis sufferers, editcount is currently down. Wikiacc (talk) 01:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC) (although this alternative gives a total combined edit count of about 1400 edits) --Wikiacc (talk) 20:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Wow. I got nominated. I accept! :-) --WikiFanatic

Also, to editcountitis people out there, I have more than 550-odd edits. Counting my edits as WikiFan04, my count is more around 1.3k (1,300).

Support

1. Support, obviously pending answers to questions. NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 01:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
2. Support You're not allowed to beat the nominator to it! (**blocks NSLE indefinitely**) --Wikiacc (talk) 02:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
3. Support of course. MONGO 02:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
4. Support. This user has greatly improved as a community member and I think he's ready for the mop and broom. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 02:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
5. Support Good User --Jaranda(^{watz sup}) 02:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
6. Support Good user, active on IRC and would make a good admin. Will be easy to contact when an admin is needed. I think WikiFanatic will make a really good admin. Have a look at WikiFanatic's contributions and you will find many reasons to vote support like me. Also it would help if WikiFanatic could delete pages as WikiFanatic is involved a bit with closing afd's --Adam1213 Talk + 02:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
7. Support Hey, he nominated me. One good turn deserves another. He's improved a vast amount over the past few months, and he's always on IRC to help anyone who needs it. His only real weakness IMO is that he's too nervous, but after this start I think that'll be changing soon. karmafist 04:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
8. Support, this user is unlikely to abuse the admin toolbox. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
9. Support --pgk^(talk) 07:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
10. Support yeeeah. Grutness...wha? 08:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
11. Support. Good contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
12. Ayup. Good contributions. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 09:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
13. Support looking good, but ramp up the editing a notch would ya?  ALKIVAR™ 10:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
14. Support. Kirill Lokshin 14:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
15. Support. FireFox 17:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
16. Support - ooh, how exciting! --Celestianpower ^hablamé 20:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
17. Support who cares about edit counts? Izehar 20:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

    Give that man a cigar! Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 20:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

18. Support. What the heck. You opposed me (the only one to do so), but Im not one to hold a grudge and I believe that you can do it. Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 21:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
19. Support I don't care how long he's been an editor or how many edits he has I have interacted with him quite a bit both on the wiki and on IRC and I trust him not to abuse the extra tools if given to him. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 22:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
20. Merovingian 22:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
21. Support Tedernst | Talk 23:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
22. Support εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 23:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
23. Support Everything seems in order ;] --негіднийлють ^{(Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS)} 23:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
24. Support; Despite low edits, WikiFanatic has shown his dedication to the project, and improved significantly since the last time he was up for nomination. After talking to him on IRC, I have no objections to speak of. Ral315 (talk) 02:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
25. Need more admins. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-2 15:03
26. Support. Never been a fan of editcountitis. Quality over quanity. --Martin Osterman 16:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
27. ZOMGSupport —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 01:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
28. That's hot. Mike H. That's hot 06:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
29. Support, yup. -- RattleMan 07:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
30. Support. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 10:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
31. Support Definately. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 17:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
32. Support as per Ral315. Hamster Sandwich 21:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
33. Support. El_C 00:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
34. Support. Robert ^{T | @ | C} 16:38, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
35. Eh, sure. We had a long conversation on IRC about what he does, what he's done, and what he can do, and I'm persuaded. DS 01:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
36. Support as a person, I know he can be annoying at times(especially on irc), but on wikipedia, He is perfectly capable of handling the admin tasks he's requested. Many of the oppose'ers are going on his edit counts or his actual edits. granted, they may not always be perfect, but for doing basic cleanup of people who put "OMG WHAT A FAG" on pages and closing AfD's I find him perfectly fit for doing so. --Appleboy ^Talk 05:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Sorry, what? Did you just say "Many of the oppose'ers are going on [...] his actual edits?" Please see comments.
      brenneman^(t)(c) 01:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
37. Support. AngryParsley ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
38. Support! Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 21:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
39. Support Just saw how quickly he created the Wales interview transcript, his other contributions are good too. Jacoplane 23:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
40. Support Support. Contribs show no obvious signs of insanity, and reasonable judgement on AFD cases. Dedicated and enthusiastic, and not overly involved in controversy and so on. --Fangz 00:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
41. Support. We're always in need of more young, knowledgeable, admins. Good times. --Liface 00:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
42. Support - after a small interview with WikiFanatic, he appears to be capable of this administrator position. The best of luck to him. —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 01:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
43. Support. We need more admins, not less. —Guanaco 01:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
44. Support. For a dedicated contributor to become an admin should not be a big deal. Stop worrying about it and be a good admin. silsor 01:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
45. Support. Evil Monkey - Hello 01:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
46. Support. WikiFanatic has improved a lot since I last looked over his contribs. WikiFanatic does have a few personal issues which have led to some issues relating to civility and interpersonal relations, but generally and for the most part he is a very good, well-meaning fellow, even though he does have (as we all do) our darker moments. Indeed, he has worked around those issues to an exemplary degree in recent times. He has, as evidenced by his contributions, done good work around the wiki on many occasions, and has more recently demonstrated a good level of responsibility and judgement. I do think that, since adminship is such a minor matter, it would be quite wrong to deny this user administrator privileges. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
47. Support Looking over his contributions, looks like he makes good, helpful edits and would make a good administrator. --W.marsh 02:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
48. support, needs to RC patrol even more tho :P --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 02:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
49. Support - no compelling reason to oppose. Lupin|talk|popups 02:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
50. Support - Dolpins 03:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
51. Weak Support. I said I would support him several months later if he didn't flip out in the interim, and here we are. So... --Maru (talk) Contribs 05:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
52. Support Definitely. KerathFreeman 06:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
53. Support He's a good user on the other wiki I go to. --Color Printer 21:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
54. Support Same with me, good user on other wiki, awesome guy in general, very responsible..etc. Homestar Lover
55. Support Strong edits, and same as the users above me. --Lunar Jesters _(talk) 22:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
56. Support Long history on Wikipedia, likely to use admin tools effectively. Warofdreams talk 17:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
57. Support. the wub "?!" 18:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
58. Support, knowledgeable and helpful user, exactly what an admin should be. --YixilTesiphon ^{Say hello} Consider my Wikiproject idea 00:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

• The Ghost of Boothy. OOOOOOHHH!!!!

  lmao Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 04:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

  damn someone beat me to it :(  ALKIVAR™ 10:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

  That's just plain disrespectful. Ral315 (talk) 17:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

  Somebody needs to grow a sense of humor...karmafist 18:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

It is not like he is lying, Boothy's behavior toward Wikipedia and its contributors (including myself) was un ultraje!εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 23:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

On an unrelated note, I removed the picture, since it's fair use only, and we have no legal right to post it here. Ral315 (talk) 02:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

God, now you're resorting to legal threats in order to make Wikipedia a blander place. Way to go. karmafist 07:52, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

That is not a 'legal threat', any more than deleting copyright images or requesting fair use rationales are legal threats. We are not legally permitted to use fair use images on pages such as this, so could you please tell me what was so wrong with removing it? Raven4x4x 09:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

A few things Raven

1. That was ultimately put up there to help ease the nerves of the candidate, who everybody on IRC has learned is incredibly anxious about this. After that picture, he was not anxious anymore, or at least less anxious since he spit out his tea unto his leg and no doubt had 1st degree burns to deal with rather than feeling worried about what has largely become an honorary process except in cases where a candidate is obviously not qualified.
2. If Ral had said "that breaks copyright under United States Code 'x'" or some International Copyright Treaty or something, I would have no problem. He didn't. I asked him on his talk page as well. Nada so far unless he responded there. I am not an expert on GFDL or CC or any of that, but if Ral is, I'd like him to enlighten the rest of us so he's not trying to pull a red herring so he can't say "Oh, that's copyright infringement" whenever there's something there he doesn't like, which seems to be anything joyful from my previous experiences with him. Being vague here is closer to censorship than trying to protect intellectual property
3. Why is it a big deal otherwise? Several people laughed. Boothy was responsible for his own actions and eventually become an urban legend on RFA, and he no doubt understood the consequences of his actions since he had tens of thousands of edits before eventually getting an indef ban. That picture was not malicious, it was a joke at the expense of his WP:POINT vio.

Proto below has good advice at the end, but I detest situations where people try to fearmonger their viewpoint through (in this case with Ral and the copyright situation/morality police) If he explained the former and said something "I respect your opinion, but I ask you to please remove that picture", I'd do so. I'll wait a bit to see if this happens. karmafist 17:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

And he just did #1 here while I was waiting. Thanks, Ral. Please, say what you said there off the bat in the future with similiar situations. Share your knowledge. karmafist 17:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Picture aside, contributions like the initial one above are both immature and petty. Again, just let things lie. Proto t c 14:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

My apologies Karmafist for my rather terse comments, and further apologies for the lateness of this reply. I too should have pointed you in the direction of the appropriate rules, rather than simply assumed you knew them. Raven4x4x 11:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

That's ok, I could bitch and moan about how parody is covered under U.S Fair Use(which is true, to my understanding), but I stopped because getting into an argument with Ral and Proto about it. Arguments are generally unproductive, and especially here since my goal was to calm WF down and that didn't seem to work all that well. I prefer being constructive rather than argumentative when I can. You might want to check this in regards to it.karmafist 23:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

1. Oppose - 1355 edits in over 18 months is not very much. I don't care if he's active on IRC. IRC is not Wikipedia. Proto t c 17:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
2. Oppose - exactly what I was thinking, too little edits in over a year and a half. Quentin Pierce 02:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

   The relatively low edit count relates to a period of about three months during my WikiFan04 days where I made practically no edits. This was because I was too busy in life to edit for a while. There's nothing I can do about those three months now. --WikiFanatic^{20:39, 1 December 2005 (CST)}

   Furthermore, Wikipedia:Editcountitis states that "...it [edit counting] is not a reliable way of telling how experienced or worthy an user truly is..." It's true. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 02:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

   Then it's 1355 edits in 15 months, which is still low. If judgements about someones suitability are being made via chitchat on IRC, I might start opposing more RFAs. Proto t c 12:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

   A lot of policy is discussed on IRC, Proto. Not all of it is senseless, meaningless "chitchat". --WikiFanatic^{15:45, 2 December 2005 (CST)}

   Have a look at the edits from the username that WikiFanatic used to use as well. Also I dont see any problem with that ammount of edits. 15 months is long enough --Adam1213 Talk + 05:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

3. Oppose - I just don't think he's ready yet. He's still going around with this "Well ... did ... to me, you should do ... to ...." stuff.. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (mmmmm chocolate!)} 19:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
4. Nothing about my interactions with this user, who is an IRC regular, suggests that he is adequately prepared to handle the mop and broom. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
5. Having examined this user's contributions, they do not achieve the level required of adminstrators. For example, on History of Mississippi. While this was two months ago, and later edits show he now understands the basics, I am simply not seeing enough to convince me. - brenneman^(t)(c) 03:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
6. Weak oppose. It feels to me like we are applying a lower standard to WikiFanatic because he is active on IRC. I'm sure he's a nice guy, but that feels really, really ethically wrong to me. We've rejected admin candidates with more edits and experience, and I feel like WF is getting a pass here because people like hanging out with him. We should judge people based on their contributions on the wiki, not based on whether we enjoy hanging out with them on a chat system. Collegiality is important, but I don't see the standard being reached here. Sorry. Nandesuka 15:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

   Wikiacc didn't nominate me because of IRC. And if you look at my answers to the questions, I didn't mention IRC. I've created over 20 articles, have reverted vandals, and have patrolled RC in the past. WikiFanatic 18:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

   I wasn't going to mention it, but I did look at your answers to the questions. They were very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very short. Nandesuka 03:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

7. "What Tony Sidaway said." J. Jones 16:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MARMOT (talk • contribs)

   What interactions, MARMOT? The ones where you called me a "gay boy fag"? WikiFanatic 17:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

   "No comment." MARMOT 19:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

   I believe that's close to the only interaction we've had, MARMOT. WikiFanatic 20:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

8. Oppose due to lack of experience, needs more time. Silensor 21:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

   Are you serious? I had 3 months and about 1050 edits when I became admin. I'm doing fine. I agree with not making him an admin, but he has plenty of time and edits. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (mmmmm chocolate!)} 23:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

9. Clearly a well-meaning and enthusiastic contributor, but unfortunately a bit unpredictable. The bulk of my experience with WikiFanatic has occurred on IRC, from which he is regularly banned for being a mild pest. I have no doubt that he has the potential to make a fine administrator, but he seems not to have reached that point yet. — Dan | talk 23:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
10. Oppose as per Phroziac. FreplySpang (talk) 07:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
11. Oppose as per brenneman. -- JamesTeterenko 06:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
12. Oppose Not enough edits. And IRC is NOT Wikipedia. Probert 12:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

• Neutral for now. Despite low edits, WikiFanatic has shown his dedication to the project, and improved significantly since the last time he was up for nomination. But I'd like to talk to you on IRC sometime this week before I support. Ral315 (talk) 17:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Changed vote to support, see above. Ral315 (talk) 02:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• As noted, Wikifanatic was formerly known as WikiFan04. The change to a different username was not done using change username functionality though, so if the edit counter tool comes up you may think Wikifanatic only has 594 edits. This is erroneous. Wikifanatic+WikiFan04 edits = 1355, and he's been editing since the ides of March, 2004. Maybe he's the soothsayer? :) --Durin 14:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Etu Brute, thus dies Caesar :) Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 22:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

WikiFanatic says: "Everyking's shaking his rattle!" [20:08], #wikipedia J. Jones 20:12, 4 December 2005 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MARMOT (talk • contribs) 20:12, December 4, 2005

• Some caveats: First, I tend to be conservative when recomending someone for promotion, so my default position is oppose. Second, I try not to look at the other votes before I examine the nominee's contributions, prefering to make my own way. So that's exactly what I did here, began with oppose and looked for a reason to change it. When I then examined the support recomendations, however, I was a bit disturbed. Several mention IRC explicitly and one (as I've noted above) comes right out and says that they aren't going by "actual edits" of the candidates. This isn't intended to malign the candidate in any way, simply echoing Nandesuka's concerns. The mailing list isn't wikipedia, nor is IRC.
  brenneman^(t)(c) 01:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• WikiFanatic, I'm noticing some support votes from editors who are not very active on Wikipedia (in addition to many votes from editors who are.) I'd like to know if you solicited votes on another wiki, a forum, or other website, and if so, could we have a links to places where you did this? I pass no judgments about whether that's inappropriate or not, I'm just curious to see how you framed the issue. Thanks, Nandesuka 22:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I didn't solicit votes from anywhere. The editors are from another wiki (no, I'm not giving the link), but all I said was "I'm running for admin! Yay!" and they all vouched to support. I didn't solicit any votes. WikiFanatic 23:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

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

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A. I would delight in helping out with closing out AfDs that have reached a verdict of "Delete" (I have already closed out some "Keep" discussions in my Wikipedia career). I would also appreciate helping to block vandals, and I might do some RC patrol.

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

A. I'm pleased in the articles I've created, such as WestCOT and Samkon Gado. I've also created a few as an IP (Kurt Busch, EA Sports and Hideki Matsui, and yes, I did create those.)

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 never been in a major edit conflict, other than possibly a few sockpuppet template reverts. I was in a minor one with Rktect, too, about rope stretchers, I believe.

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

---

cookiecaper

Vote here ending 00:03 8 Dec 2005 (UTC) (5/10/0) as of 03:45 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/cookiecaper_2

This nomination is deliberately shown as a link rather than a transcluded page.

---

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

BD2412

Final count: (183/0/0) ended 00:07, Thursday, December 8, 2005 (UTC)

BD2412 (talk · contribs) – BD2412 is a great Wikipedian. He has been here since February and since then has amassed a whopping 32,763 edits! He participates a lot in VfD and has written (or participated in writing) many law-related articles which have reached a quality that I envy. He is civil, intelligent and I know that he would use his SysOp rights very carefully. I'm sure he would make an excellent administrator. Izehar 00:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Note: edit count is 34,178 as of 14:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC), per my update with this alternative to Kate's tool. Prodego^talk 14:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: With gratitude to Izehar - and everyone else who has offered - I accept this nomination, and hope for the approval of my peers. BD2412 T 00:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. No fair jumping the gun! Support -- DS1953 00:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
2. I've found BD2412 to be very reasonable and helpful, even if he does spend an unhealthy amount of time at AFD. We can certainly use more lawyer Wikipedians, though how one can find time to make 30000 edits and still pass the bar is a wonder to me. Dragons flight 01:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

   Oh, that's not all that unique an accomplishment...  ; ) Postdlf 01:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

3. Strong support. An excellent editor. I thought he was an admin already. Mushroom 01:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
4. Even stronger support. Didn't think he was an admin, but knew he should be. All due apologies to the community for not having nominated him sooner myself. Tomer^TALK 05:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
5. Support, with no reservations. Jkelly 06:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
6. Massive Support BD2412 has been unfailingly one of the very best of the good eggs. Admin this one fast, before he changes his mind...Hamster Sandwich 16:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
7. Strongly Support Everything above clearly sums it up. Prodego 17:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
8. Support, Why not!?

   I Am Ri¢h!^{My Rich Contributions}/^{My Wealthy Talk}

9. Support. I kid you not, I came to this page via Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/nominate as I was preparing to post BD's nomination at 00:00 GMT, about 15 minutes from now. Hall Monitor 23:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
10. Support No problems here. Good editor. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 00:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
11. (after edit conflicts) Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
12. Support Wow, just wow. Okay, I'm leaving again. Quentin Pierce 00:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
13. Lukewarm support in expectation of an extremely easy passage. Tintin 00:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
14. Universal support - Is this an April-Fool's Day or a December's one?!! I've always thought BDA was the president of Wikipedia! -- Svest 00:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up&#153;}

    Hey now, don't get me confused with this guy! Would've been a regular riot if I'd waited until next April 1 to accept a nom, though. BD2412 T 16:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

    I didn't mean the king! But really, as Tito comments just an inch below; I was like this guy has always been an admin! -- Svest 23:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up&#153;}

    I am not sure about the record of support votes ever gotten by a candidate but I guess that it would be around 208! Don't ask me how I got that number! -- Svest 20:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up&#153;}

15. (after five edit conflicts, this isn't funny!): Oppose, not enough edits. No, seriously, Strong support, extremely active Wikipedian, has a ton of substantive edits to the Project namespace, and I seriously thought he was an admin when I was a newbie. Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 00:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
16. Support - Excellent and dedicated contributer. Sango123 (talk) 00:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
17. Support; he's not one already?! Kirill Lokshin 00:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
18. Cue (yet again) I thought he was an admin support. SoLando (Talk) 00:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
19. Strong Support; he's a ridiculously dedicated editor who I've seen around, and been impressed by, many times. For months I've thought this was long overdue. --Idont Havaname 00:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
20. Summa cum support - Without a single reservation. FCYTravis 00:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
21. Support I thought he already was one. --Wikiacc (talk) 00:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
22. Support. NatusRoma 01:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
23. Support vote is a no-brainer Dlyons493 Talk 01:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
24. Support - I thought he was an admin already too. Cookiecaper 01:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
25. support he is a good person Yuckfoo 01:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
26. Support, good guy. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
27. Support I don't believe he isn't an admin. NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 01:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
28. Strong support Absolutely. Robert ^{T | @ | C} 01:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
29. Support; been impressed by this one for a while now. Antandrus (talk) 01:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
30. Support seen this user around doing good things. And so many edits!!!--Alhutch 01:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
31. Support Will make a fine admin --Rogerd 01:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
32. Strong Support of course. Great work at AfD! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
33. Seriously, not an admin?! Andre (talk) 02:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
34. Support This is only a formality, and a long overdue one at that. This will greatly enhance Wikipedia's quality level.--MONGO 02:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
35. Support. Looks like Christmas came early this year! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
36. Geesh. Take a few hours off and look at the Support pile already. --hydnjo talk 02:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
37. Speedy Support Just close this already and promote him a perfect canditate for adminship --Jaranda(^{watz sup}) 02:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
38. Strong support. Can't believe he isn't... etc. Cnwb 03:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
39. Support. Look ma, a bandwagon! Can I jump on? Huh huh please? Thanks! —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

    No. Mom 07:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

    Wah! I never get to do anything fun. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

40. , without a second thought. Splash^talk 05:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
41. Easiest RFA decision ever. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 05:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
42. Oppose I will leave Wikipedia if he gets admin! zomg cabal! erm...I mean.....Support, for obvious reasons. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (mmmmm chocolate!)} 05:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
43. OH MY GOSH, BD's becoming an admin! Super-super-super-super-super-super SUPPORT Yeah, I sorta think he's qualified.  ;) Xoloz 05:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
44. Support, I guess I can't really add much other than to say that I also very much respect BD's judgment and look forward to his help in admin tasks. Dmcdevit·t 06:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
45. Support I thought he already was an admin. --TheParanoidOne 06:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
46. Support. Absolutely. Excellent contributor to the encyclopedia and the community. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
47. Support, just piling up here :) Lectonar 07:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
48. Support oops, I'm too late.  Grue  07:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
49. Support --pgk^(talk) 07:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
50. Oppose. He wouldn't stand when I offered to nominate him (pout). Grutness...wha? 08:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC) oh, all right. Support, then.

    For the record, Grutness was the first editor to extend such an offer, and more than six months ago at that. BD2412 T 16:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

51. Support – =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
52. Support. Hey, I honestly thought he was one already. I've had much positive experience with him. He's a sure candidate. — JIP | Talk 08:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
53. Support - I too must join the "I thought he was one already" bandwagon. Lets see if he can get 100 support votes - he sure deserves them. Thryduulf 09:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
54. Support - a very familiar name, a very deserving name. Barneyboo (Talk) 09:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
55. Oh my god you're not an admin yet support. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 09:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
56. I plead the fifth err I mean support.  ALKIVAR™ 10:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
57. Disambig Support. - Darwinek 12:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
58. Supreme support. One of those names that pops up everywhere. --bainer (talk) 12:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
59. Support: This has been a looooong time coming. He is the epitome of deserving. I've joked with him before that he kept delaying a nomination so that he could set the record for most supported nomination. I suspect the joke might become true. 59 support votes in ~13 hours. Wow! --Durin 13:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
60. Support Hiding talk 13:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
61. Oppose. 32000 edits in 9 months is silly, I want proof that he isn't some editing-machine... Bah, see as though it's nearly the holidays, I'll Support. Rje 14:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
62. Support we don't always have the same view, but this guy is a great contributor and will use the mop wisely. Alf ^melmac 14:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
63. Strong Support! - I've worked with this editor on Pizza delivery Always helpful, always easy to work with. I'd love to see him get the mop! ;] --негіднийлють ^{(Reply|Spam Me!*)} 15:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
64. Strong Support - Why did you make us wait so long? ;-) Now we have to figure who will take your role as the best non-admin at en.wiki. NoSeptember ^talk 17:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

    I'm inclined to say Kappa. BD2412 T 16:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

65. Support! He has essentially been doing admin work for longer than many admins, and doing a fine job at that. Owen× ☎ 17:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
66. Support. Insert lawyer joke here. --Deathphoenix 17:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
67. Speedy promote and delist from RFA. Silensor 17:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
68. You're not? I could have sworn you were. Wow. Ral315 (talk) 17:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
69. It's 'bout time Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
70. Support.It's time Looks like a good choice. It's time.--Dakota ^{t e} 17:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
71. Support. FireFox 17:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
72. —Cryptic (talk) 19:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
73. Support. --Kbdank71 19:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
74. Support Why havent I supported yet? The old clichè, I seriously thought he was a senior admin. Great guy, great editor, (will be) great administrator. Banes 20:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
75. Support. I think he will be a fair admin. Also, I see his name everywhere. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
76. Support So many edits?? wow, just based on that alone you get my support, good luck. Gryffindor 20:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
77. Support Very worthy. PJM 21:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
78. Michael Snow 21:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
79. Extreme "Sorry I'm late" support - How could I have missed this? --Celestianpower ^hablamé 21:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)support -
80. Yeah. Yippee, I'm 80! JFW | T@lk 21:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
81. Duh BD2412's so good that I don't need to tell you how good he is, so i'm going to talk about Chewbacca. karmafist 21:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
82. Support. Seems like good admin material, and I've encountered this user many times while reverting vandals. Wait, that didn't come out right... Honestly, another person who I already thought was an admin. :/ --Syrthiss 21:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
83. Speedy promote per all above. — Phil Welch 21:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
84. You have got to be kidding me. --Merovingian 22:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
85. Support for the guy with the green sig --TimPope 22:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
86. Support I thought he was already, as others have said. Tedernst | Talk 22:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
87. Support thought he was already an admin, definitely deserving. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 22:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
88. — Dunc|☺ 23:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
89. Support - about time! Guettarda 23:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
90. TO PILE IT ON!εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 23:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
91. Support, BD2412's green sig has been followed by too many eye-catching sigs, also I suspect that this vote was conceived only to catch as many support votes as possible, hmm. feydey 00:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
92. Strong support One of the greatest Wikipedians. CanadianCaesar 01:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
93. Strong Support. Its about damn time. Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 02:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
94. Support yayness! --cj | talk 02:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
95. EXTREME SUPPORT! I thought BD2412 was a bureaucrat already....wow. How can you have that many edits and not be an admin? :-D I'm glad (and downright proud) to have this support in my contributions list, and to have the opportunity to support you, BD. --WikiFanatic^{Talk Contribs 22:44, 1 December 2005 (CST)}
96. What!? He's not already an admin? Support. --TantalumTelluride 05:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
97. Gasp! Flowerparty■ 13:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
98. The first time I can truly say I THOUGHT YOU WERE AN ADMIN! Now all those awkward glances and strange discussions make sense. :) — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-2 15:06
99. Support Joke137 16:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
100. 100th Supporter Support ∾ → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 17:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
101. Support This person is arguably the most important person to Wikipedia right now, and if he wants the mop, he should have it. Youngamerican 17:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
102. I don't usually bother voting when an Admin candidate already has a clear majority, but in this case I'll make an exception. Support, support, support! --Angr (t·c) 17:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
103. Going for the record support. He deserves it. Lord Bob 18:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
104. . Like he needs this vote, looks like a good bet.--Che Perez 18:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
105. Unnecessary but very enthusiastic support vote. Szyslak ( [ +t, +c, +m, +e ]) 20:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
106. Support, I've seen this editor around frequently; good edits, reasonable, polite. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 21:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
107. Support How can I not? -Greg Asche (talk) 22:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
108. Support. I never thought I'd utter the cliche RfA words "I thought he was already an admin," but I'll be damned. 108 votes, I love it (go for the record!) -Mysekurity 00:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
109. Support --tomf688^{talk} 01:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
110. Support December is a cold month, this is a cold editor, I can see why he wanted to wait until December to stand for adminship. Smmurphy 02:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
111. Baaaa (-: JYolkowski // [[User talk:JYolkowski|talk]] 03:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
112. Support. I thought he was an admin too. Very positive contributer. Jtmichcock 03:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
113. Support. Near record-breaking support vote. Carbonite | Talk 03:59, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

     Wait a second...My vote did break the record! Congrats, BD2412, you deserve it. Carbonite | Talk 04:01, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

114. Support I can't believe he isn't an administrator yet. Johann Wolfgang 04:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
115. Support. Jonathunder 04:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
116. Support may it please the court. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:59, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
117. Support, seems overdue to me. Everyking 06:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
118. Support, I thought I had done so after he checked with me on my talk page re our dispute before. I think BD is often a pain in the butt, but usually in a good way. He can be reasoned with and he keeps things cool until the details are worked out. A good editor, no reason to expect he won't be a good admin. --Gmaxwell 07:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
119. Support. Promote him! --Andylkl ^{[ talk! | c ]} 07:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
120. Support. Seems almost pointless to vote, given the overwhelming consensus, but he's really good. -Colin Kimbrell 08:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
121. Support. Why didn't I think of nominating this guy? - Mgm|^(talk) 10:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
122. Support. Unlikely to abuse admin tools. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 10:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
123. Support. BD isn't an admin? Really? :) --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 10:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
124. Support ... seems a little silly to add myself to this list, but he deserves it. besides, I like getting thank yous. (j/k) jnothman ^talk 13:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
125. Support. Even though we may have some differences of opinion in other RfAs, I bear you no ill will and think that you'd be a welcome and wonderful addition to the Admin ranks. At this point I think we can call it unanimous and a landslide. LOL --Martin Osterman 15:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
126. Support, as "every vote counts". Really a fine editor. --Bhadani 16:01, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
127. Strong Support. You are not an admin?? Absolutely unbelievable. I always thought you were. deeptrivia (talk) 16:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
128. Support. I had assumed BD already was an admin. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 16:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
129. Support regularly see his name. The JPS 17:21, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
130. Support, though this seems like overkill. Mindmatrix 18:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
131. Support Didn't realize he isn't an admin already. Ashibaka (tock) 19:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
132. Support See him everywhere (can't miss that sig can ya?) and it all looks good. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk. 23:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
133. Of course. El_C 00:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
134. Support. Great editor. - SimonP 00:33, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
135. Well, when your RfA is 37k long with nothing but support votes, you must be doing something right. Support — unnecessary, but shall we shoot for that 208? :-) Hermione1980 01:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
136. Support freestylefrappe 01:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
137. Support. Looks like a NEW RECORD!!!WOW! Good work :-).Voice of All^T|@|ESP 03:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
138. Miami Brotherhood SSSUUUPPPOOORRRTTT!!! It's about damn time! -- PRueda29 ^Ptalk29 03:17, 04 December 2005 (UTC)
139. Support Tuf-Kat 16:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
140. Support. Willmcw 18:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
141. Support. It's about damn time, too. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 18:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
142. Support. While I don't usually post to an RfA where the support consensus is clear and I would have voted support anyway, I also have a policy of always supporting users I am very familiar with and have had good interactions with. This is one of them. Bonus points for the Sinatra ref in your answer as well. :) Turnstep 19:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
143. LET'S GO FOR A NEW WIKI RECORD Support What they said. Plus it means he'll have one one to thank once he's Sysopped Muuuahahahaha!--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 20:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
144. Support- JCarriker 00:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
145. Support. It's the hip thing to do. Ambi 06:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
146. Support after carefully reviewing every one of his edits. --DDerby-(talk) 07:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
147. Support. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
148. Support - wow, you mean he's NOT an admin? our loss. Bornhj 10:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
149. Support of course. jni 12:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
150. Support He's been quite helpful to me. Agnte 14:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
151. Support. Apreciate all the work with link repairs —Bmdavll ^talk 15:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
152. Support per concerns oppose votes may carry this nom. Marskell 18:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
153. Support. He is an enthusiastic communicator and the green signature has become a beacon for vital and quality discussion. If you'd asked me what his contributions are I'd say he was a full time WP:DPL repairer, his enthusiasm with the project is unparalleled. Take the new link repair sub-project, the slightest breath of life from BD has resulted in one of the most fulfilling projects I have particpated in. I read above and see that's a minor part of what he does here, amazing. --Commander Keane 19:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
154. Support. Wow im late. Jobe6 19:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
155. Support, Pavel Vozenilek 19:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
156. Support. Well I would have supported had you needed it, so I won't not support simply to avoid giving a me too vote. A vote with grammar contortions just short of "the cat I had had had had..." :) Thanks, I'll be here all week, er a long time, er whatever - Taxman ^Talk 19:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
157. Support. Maybe this is just piling on, but I really did think BD2412 was already an admin. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
158. Support. One of the leading lights of Wikipedia.--File Éireann 21:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
159. Support, Not much more to say that hasn't been said already. Promotoe this user! xaosflux ^T/_C 00:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)]
160. Strong support. One of the best. Postdlf 01:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
161. Support. AnnH ^(talk) 02:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
162. Support this pile-on --Ryan Delaney ^talk 02:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
163. Support. I ought to oppose it just to keep it from looking like and election in the The People's Democratic Republic of Elbonia, but he's definitely one of the good guys.RandyKaelber 02:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
164. Support. I wrote a crummy alternative to Kate's tool. Somebody used it on BD2412. It turns out that BD2412's edit history (via Special:Contributions) is literally a 20MB download. Good enough for a pile-on, I say. --Interiot 02:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
165. Support I hate to use a hackneyed expression but I already thought he was one -- Francs2000 02:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
166. Support, man, you won the popularity contest. O_O gren グレン 08:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
167. Support, with a high number of edits, sure to be an excellent admin. --Terenceong1992 10:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
168. Support Not a pile-on, BD is an excellent and respected editor. SchmuckyTheCat 22:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
169. RfA Cliché #1. --Carnildo 00:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
170. support. --Irpen 04:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
171. Support --Deepak|वार्ता 05:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
172. Oppose. Just because. This guy seems like a loser. >_< just kidding, of course! Support, duh Matt Yeager 05:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
173. "This page is 47 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size." utcursch | talk 06:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
174. Support Long overdue. Acetic Acid 06:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
175. Support per 174 before me. I am glad to give someone I have seen so regularly on VFD (are you sure you haven't closed any yet?) my first vote in an RfA. --WAvegetarian ^(talk) (email) ^(contribs) 07:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

     Actually, I've closed quite a few, once I found out that was allowed (see response to question 1), and continue to do so from time to time. BD2412 T 18:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

176. Strong Pile-on support. I also suggest that this be shown as a link rather than being transcluded. Anyone wants to vote on that? ;) --Gurubrahma 10:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
177. Me of course support. --Pamri • Talk 13:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
178. Guess what……Support! the wub "?!" 18:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
179. Hell yeah. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 20:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
180. Thoroughly unnecessary support - but I feel it's deserved anyway... CLW 21:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
181. Support. He is one of the most helpful, hard working editors I have come across. The way he works has been so thorough and skillful I thought he was already an admin, and surprised to find his RfA! :-) --BorgQueen 22:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
182. Oh well, One more can't hurt. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 22:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
183. Coming really late, here's one more vote: support for a master disambiguator. Kusma (talk) 23:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Note: The following support votes were made after the deadline:

1. Support. You aren't already an admin? *shock* Enochlau 02:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
2. Support For the sake of posterity, I still will support this RfA. :) This gent is one of the best editors at Wikipedia. → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 00:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

• I intend to accept this nomination - but I've said time and again that I will not stand for an adminship until December, so I'll accept as of 00:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC). Until then, cheers! BD2412 T 05:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • See disputes below, I was mistaken as to the source of the quote and was wrong. BD2412 did an excellent job-clearly explaining the reasoning behind leaving the quote- and I support him fully. Prodego 17:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• I can't believe no one has mentioned Wikipedia:Wiki-Hell, one of our best user subpage accomplishments. :-) Dmcdevit·t 00:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I appreciate the compliment, but it's really no great accomplishment - it's funny, but what does it do to advance the encyclopedia? Also, it needs pictures - some real Dante's Inferno type stuff. BD2412 T 05:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Once again, looking for odds and bets on breaking the record ;-) Guettarda 18:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Changing this - who's going to call the spread? By how much is BDA going to break the record? 10 votes over? 20? Guettarda 00:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    • What is the record? --hydnjo talk 03:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
      • 112 according to User:Zzyzx11/RFA nomination records. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
        • It may be true but we are aiming for 208! -- Svest 20:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up&#153;}
          • Ah... I remember the good old days (May 2005) when User:Zzyzx11/RFA nomination records listed only 14 users [25] ... Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
            • • Ahh... more proof that RfAs tend to get more support now than before. I remember when 30 or 40 support voters was considered extremely high, and how some people passed with only a dozen support votes... :-) Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
            • Ok, so the options are over, under, or exactly 208. What are the odds, where are the bookies? Guettarda 16:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
              • I'd have to say about 2:1 odds against breaking 208.  ALKIVAR™ 19:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
                • I hope the bookies would not bring sockpuppets!!! -- Svest 19:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up&#153;}
                  • Anyone want to offer any odds on when the first RfA to attract 300 votes will be? Thryduulf 03:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Although BD2412 is well on his way to officially breaking the record with the most support votes, I hope all of you are voting based on his contributions here, not solely to help him break the record. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
    • • Why 208 anyway? Smmurphy^(Talk) 04:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
        • See vote #14. BD2412 T 04:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
          • "Don't ask," you say?!? That's hardly a tactful responce from a soon to be mopper ; ) Smmurphy^(Talk) 04:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
            • I think it translates into "pure guess". I highly doubt the final tally will approach that mark - the regular RfA voters have already cast their votes. BD2412 T 04:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• I wonder if BD2412 intends to thank everyone for voting on his RfA...That would take a while don't ya think...lol KnowledgeOfSelf | talk. 23:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I do (and it will). BD2412 T 00:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Yeah, but think of all the extra edits that will get you. You are a little light, you know. -- DS1953 02:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
      • OMG. I was thinking I could really use a beer, or 18...but then I just came to read BDA's RfA, and laughed so hard, I think I'll be good for a while w/o any... :-) Tomer^talk 05:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• I wonder how many "congratulations" archives he is going to have on his talk page....Banes 07:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Where do you keep finding these people who haven't voted yet? I mean this is only the biggest RfA since sliced bread!--Alhutch 06:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Couldn't resist linking the ref, Alhutch - I wrote that article! BD2412 T 15:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Sweet!! :-)Alhutch 15:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

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

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A. I’ve already been closing AfDs (within my limitations) for a while, so as an admin I’d be able to do that for those that run in either direction, and the same for categories, images, redirects, and miscellany. I have also had a number of occasions to bother admins with requests for page moves, and would like to be able to handle those myself. I have no compunction about blocking an obvious vandal – I was recently reminded of one time when I really wished I had administrative powers, when my friend Hamster Sandwich was being spoofed - twice in two weeks - by a vandal who signed up with punctuated variations of his user name.

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

A. Being a lawyer, I’m most pleased with the work I’ve done on Wikipedia:WikiProject Law, and on the law portal. I believe that those of us who have worked on that project are taking some concrete steps towards making Wikipedia the most comprehensive free internet source of information on the common law. For no particular reason, I like diversity jurisdiction, abstention doctrine, minimum contacts, lost, mislaid, and abandoned property, and I think demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States is coming along nicely. About half of the articles I’ve started have been law-related. I’m also very happy with the look of the many law-related templates that I started, which can be seen here right under Wikitools.

Outside of law, I've also been a regular on several projects, particularly disambig fixes – I’m sure I’ve done at least ten thousand by now. I have several a regular offenders on my user page which I check every few days to correct new links as they pop up. I’ve done a lot of work on Wikipedia:Most wanted articles, and on the Encarta missing articles project before it was deleted over copyright concerns. I prodded Beland to start Wikipedia:Templates with red links, and I also made and maintain the MiniAWFP, which I’m delighted to see is now a stock feature of the Wikipedia:Community Portal.

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.Conflicts? I've had a few… but then again, too few to mention. I did what I had to do, and saw it through without exemption...

I've had several articles nominated for deletion (mostly early on), and each instance was upsetting, since I obviously thought them to be valid topics. In the early cases, I had failed to source or develop the articles sufficiently, or had written from a POV. I guess I resolved those pretty much by learning to write the encyclopedic way. I was too snippy when Self-induced abortion was so nominated (though it was resoundingly kept), and I apologized for that.

I had all kinds of controversy regarding Alleged causes of Hurricane Katrina, which I started as a sponge for "alternative" theories and conspiracy theories that were getting stuck in more mainstream articles about that event. It was nominated for deletion and came through about 50/50, but it raised some other disputes. One with Gmaxwell about the global warming materials, and the other with Prodego regarding his desire to censor some rather nasty quotes. Both were resolved through talk page discussion – with Gmaxwell, we just had a miscommunication – he was opposed to claims that global warming caused that specific disaster, while I was just trying to demonstrate that such claims were being raised in the context of Katrina, not that they were true. With Prodego, I just had to lead him to understand that Wikipedia is not censored, and now we get along fine.

Most recently, I've been in a running dispute with some tax protesters over articles such as Tax protester, Income tax in the United States, Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Irwin Schiff. I've worked in a federal court and seen the consequences of tax evasion imposed firsthand. I doubt many people are coming to Wikipedia for tax advice, but I still think it's dangerous to allow certain such theories to be put forward without pointing out that courts have, in fact rejected these theories at every turn (and people who follow them may go to jail, and will definitely end up paying those taxes). I and a few other editors have been reverting the wholly unsupportable assertions, and neutralizing the POV inherent in the claims that sound reasonable, but are based on erroneous statements of law. Of course, as I'm involved in these disputes, I would never use the power to block an editor or protect a page as a tool to forward my position there.

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

---

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

Andrew Norman

Final count: (26/0/0) ended 14:56 Wednesday 7th December 2005 (UTC)

Andrew Norman (talk · contribs) – Self-nomination. I've been around for a little over a year, and since April of this year in earnest, making getting on for a couple of thousand edits. I do something on Wikipedia almost every day, even if it's just reverting vandalism (John Locke attracts vandals like honey attracts bees, for some reason). I've made major contributions to several articles (see below), started a few, and watch over four hundred. Principally I want to be an administrator to make rolling back vandalism easier. I'm also mindful of the fact that often administrators do too much, sweeping over things and not having the time to work on particular problems in detail - I'm ambiguous about boasts about numbers of edits or articles watched, it seems to me to be better to keep a careful watch on a smaller area. Many of the philosophy articles, for example, benefit from having a small group of knowledgeable editors who simply do not allow POV pushing or nonsense to intrude, and I'd like to be able to assist with that. People without a particularly sophisticated knowledge of Wikipedia use it as a reliable source of information - my mother, children at local schools, students at the university where I work (who should probably know better, but there you are). I think it's important that what people see here is at least a reasonable approximation of the truth, arrived at by consensus and discussion, not what someone with an axe to grind has put up without being challenged. ajn (talk) 14:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: self-nomination.

Support

1. Support. From the contributions listed below, looks a very good editor, and that is good enough for me. Tintin 15:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
2. Support. Lots of solid contributions. Briangotts | (Talk) 15:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
3. Support would be a good admin.Gator (talk) 15:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
4. Merovingian 15:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
5. Support. I like your reasons for wanting adminship. Your specific use of the admin tools is a definite case of "no big deal". --Deathphoenix 16:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
6. Support, unlikely to abuse administrator tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
7. Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 17:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
8. Support Quentin Pierce 19:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
9. Support. No big deal. I would like to see you continue to use edit summaries consistantly, and perhaps develop your user page a bit more. Good luck. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
10. Support. Great modus operandi. Cnwb 23:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
11. Support Good answers, good history, will be good admin --Rogerd 03:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
12. Support - what Lord Voldemort said. BD2412 T 03:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
13. Support, looks good. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 09:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
14. Support I'm generally opposed to self noms but this guy seems to have the right attitude and ideas of what the job entails. give em the mop already.  ALKIVAR™ 10:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
15. Support. Kirill Lokshin 14:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
16. Support MONGO 20:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
17. Support εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 23:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
18. Support Proto t c 12:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
19. Support Good attitude, trustworthy. Rx StrangeLove 06:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
20. Support. Good answers. -Colin Kimbrell 08:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
21. Support. El_C 00:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
22. Support. Seems like a reasonable candidate. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
23. Support. This guy is great! jucifer 19:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
24. Support. the wub "?!" 18:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
25. Support :) Brookie: A collector of little round things 19:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
26. Support - though another vote in favour is hardly needed at this stage! CLW 21:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

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

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A. Rolling back vandalism, assisting with the process for merging and deleting articles, and so on. I'm a school governor and a charity trustee, so I'm used to having to work with people who often have very different viewpoints, and reaching consensus, so possibly also the business of protecting pages and conflict resolution.

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

A. Louis MacNeice is largely my own work, as is History of Western Philosophy (Russell). I did a major rewrite of Miles Davis in April 2005, my first large-scale contribution, which I think put it well on the way to becoming a featured article later in the year. On the whole, though, I think it's better to think of contributions to Wikipedia as being part of a community effort, not to point to things and say "that's mine". I do like it when I can create new articles for minor figures - plasticine led on to William Harbutt, who is an interesting character. Or Louis MacNeice to John Beazley, E. R. Dodds and Hedli Anderson. I've learned a lot by finding things out to put in Wikipedia 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. On the whole, I don't get stressed. Conflicts are best dealt with by reasoned discussion. I can think of two cases: when I first started here, I got involved with argument over Brummie and Brummagem (May 2005). I tried to deal with that by reason, and then when it became apparent that one particular editor was using discussion not as a way of sorting things out reasonably but by wearing people down to force through his point of view, I went through the dispute resolution process. I was disappointed by the reaction (both from the admin involved, and from the other editor who treated it as a joke). I walked away, probably should have stuck to my guns but I was new. More recently there has been discussion around Bertrand Russell and Ludwig Wittgenstein, the latter involving someone with some very strange theories. Sticking to Wikipedia policies about verification, NPOV and no original research has been the key. If people are reasonable, problems can be solved. If they're not reasonable, further steps need to be taken, but by people with community support.

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

---

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

Gurubrahma

Final (50/0/0) ended 17:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Gurubrahma (talk · contribs) – Gurubrahma hails from Bangalore, India, and has contributed large amounts of work on India related topics. A list of articles he has created is available. He has been involved in Wikipedia for seven months now, and heavily active for three and a half months, averaging a stunning 30 edits a day over the last 90 days. In that time, he has accumulated more than 3,000 edits across a broad span of namespaces. He has contributed more than 500 edits in talk areas, including 75 welcome messages for new users and 45 test template messages showing a strong willingness to help new users. He frequently compliments users on good work ([26],[27],[28]), is helpful with users ([29],[30],[31]), and polite with merge issues where he has been fairly active ([32],[33],[34]). He is also well aware and conscientious regarding copyright issues ([35],[36],[37]). He is an assiduous user of edit summaries, using them more than 98% of the time over all edits. Where his main strength as an admin will lie is in his vandal fighting. He has contributed more than 450 reverts during his tenure here, and has more than 200 articles on his watchlist. By his own admission, he doesn't have a fast internet connection; thus others frequently get to vandalism reverts before he does. Nevertheless, he reviews the other edits of vandals and this is where he has contributed his large amount of vandal fighting. He has had 10 features on Did you know?. He also has a good sense of humor, which always helps ([38]). He is by nature a consensus builder. It's time to grant him the tools. --Durin 16:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept this nomination with a thanks in my heart and a prayer on my lips. --Gurubrahma 17:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Support per above. --Durin 16:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
2. Support - again, I applaud Durin for his amazingly well-crafted nomination and there isn't all that much I can add ;) --Celestianpower ^hablamé 17:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
3. Support without bothering to read Durin's essay :-) Tintin 18:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
4. Support Durin's Beard. The Land 18:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
5. Support no reason not to. MONGO 18:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
6. Support - Guettarda 18:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
7. Support per nom - FRS 18:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
8. Support. Looks like an all-around good user. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
9. Support per Durin, whose analysis is trustworthy. Xoloz 18:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
10. Support I'm impressed with his interactions with other users. He is smart and not easily provoked. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
11. Support per nom.Gator (talk) 19:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
12. Support Quentin Pierce 19:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
13. Support per Durin's nomination. BD2412 T 19:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
14. Support. Kirill Lokshin 21:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
15. Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 21:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
16. Support per all of the above. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 21:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
17. Support impressive work...dave souza 01:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
18. Support. An impressive effort from a diligent editor. Cnwb 04:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
19. Support good editor. good admin candidate. --Rogerd 04:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
20. Support well and truely. If Durin can't find anything wrong with this user, then no-one can! Raven4x4x 06:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
21. Support, this user is unlikely to abuse administrator tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
22. Sorry I'm so late support.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 10:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
23. Support. Wonderful editor, well aware of wiki system. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 10:53, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
24. Merovingian 15:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
25. Support. Thunderbrand 22:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
26. Support - Would make an excellent admin. Sango123 (talk) 00:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
27. Support of course Dlyons493 Talk 01:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
28. Support we need more like Gurubrahma!≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 01:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
29. Support; likely to be an excellent admin. Antandrus (talk) 01:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
30. Support Excellent user --Jaranda(^{watz sup}) 02:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
31. Support highly qualified user. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
32. Super strong support :-( I wanted to nominate him, but I guess I will write an essay on him despite being trumped on that count by durin. In the seven months, he has shown a ability to quickly grasp wikipedia policy and communicate the same to other users. He is an excellent editor and I really appreciate his insightful additions to diverse articles. He is also quite active in the Telegu wikipedia and helped translate economy of India to Telegu on my request. And he is extremely friendly to other users and remains cool as a cucumber despite regularly contributing to some contentious pages. Here's hoping he beats my Indian record of 50 votes. :-) --Pamri • Talk 08:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
33. Support – wow I'm late! GB is a mature editor and I've seen him handle many situations quite well. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
34. Support, looks OK. — JIP | Talk 08:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
35. Yup. --Idleguy 08:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
36. Support Durin is quite strict with what he considers a worthwhile nomination for RFA, based on his guidelines, I'm gonna have to support this one, even though I have had no interaction with this user.  ALKIVAR™ 10:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

    Just to clarify; my standards for me personally nominating someone are quite high. My standards for voting support for someone are far, far lower. I've voted support for a number of people who would not pass my nomination standards. --Durin 13:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

    Yeah durin i'm quite aware of that discrepancy, but seeing as you nominated this user for RFA, I know this person has been well vetted.  ALKIVAR™ 00:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

37. Oops, didn't notice this nomination earlier. Full Support. deeptrivia (talk) 16:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
38. Support FireFox 18:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
39. Support Gets my support, jai hind! Gryffindor 20:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
40. Support Gurubrahma is tireless in reverting vandalism and he keeps his temper in trying circumstances. I have worked with him on several articles and I have nothing but praise for this Wikipedian. Zora 21:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
41. Support. If this person meets Durin's rigid criteria then they have to be worthy of adminship. Silensor 00:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
42. Support. Good vandal fighter, good contributor. -Colin Kimbrell 08:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
43. I haven't voted yet! Strong Support. utcursch | talk 09:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
44. Support, and I was actually waiting to nominate him - but just could not come here for days. And, I may be late to the party, but feel happy that at least I could come here, and find the nomination. This gives me a lot of satisfaction. I have found him to be one amongst the best, an asset to the Project. --Bhadani 15:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
45. Support. El_C 00:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
46. Support. good editor.--Dakota ^{t e} 07:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
47. Support. Jonathunder 06:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
48. Support. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
49. Supoort. Gurubrahma's contributions are enviable and he has the ability to emote an aura of progress and acomplishment among those he comes into contact with - in some ways the essense of this project. I am so glad that we can give Wikipedia a gift: Gurubrahma as an admin.--Commander Keane 18:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
50. Support. Strong candidate. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

• I can't vote but he will be a good one.--219.93.174.106 08:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

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

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A. Of the backlog tasks, I can help in Copyright problems and requested moves. A backlog task that I am already engaged in (as it does not require admin privileges) is helping out at lonely pages and related dead end pages. I would help in updating Did you know?. I have been fairly active on RC patrol – a roll back button would be helpful in increasing my productivity (for every revert I make, I’m thwarted in at least 1 more as an admin has already rolled it back). Also, a knowledgeable vandal would view {{test}} series of messages more seriously if they are from an admin. I’ve been adding CSD tags presently, and I’d be saved the bother, if I become an admin. I hope to be helpful on WP:VIP, WP:AIV and closing AFDs.

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

A. While I’ve contributed to a variety of articles ranging from Nelson Mandela to Jenna Jameson, my substantial contributions have been India-related (for which I received two barnstars of national merit). I have worked on 30+ mergers and have made 10+ contributions to DYK. I take pride in the article on Pandurang Vaman Kane, on whom, very little was available on the web – and piecing all the bits and pieces together was very satisfying (it is today the definitive reference on the web - #1 on Google). I am fond of Siamese twins (English language) which is very different from the other articles I started. I’m also proud of Charles Mungoshi and Laila Rouass, stubs that I created in response to WP:AR1 (created to celebrate the achievement of donation target on 6 September 2005 and to show my pride in the Wikipedia community). Of late, I’ve been contributing in other namespaces as well. I’ve also thwacked vandals consistently on Mother Teresa and Mahatma Gandhi (my userpage and talk page were vandalised for my efforts on the latter).

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 conflicts I had could be counted on fingers and would be called minor, more in the nature of misunderstandings and usually resolved in a couple of days. However I had a major conflict (had may not be correct, as it can flare up again) with one user, who started editing with a range of anon IPs, claiming to be Nirav on some talk pages and claiming to be an anon on some other talk pages. When I discussed this matter with other users on their talkpages, Nirav called me a bastard on Bhadani’s talk page. I made my position clear again (was given the Cool as a Cucumber Award by Bhadani for my conduct). However, I did not file an RfC as this user is contributing with a new user name and seems to have stopped using anon IPs. I'm holding my peace for the moment as I feel that a second chance should be given to him. However, I would not hesitate to take up the matter again if I feel the situation warrants it.

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

---

CJS102793

Vote here ending 23:34 5 December 2005 (UTC) (0/9/0) as of 20:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/CJS102793

This nomination is deliberately shown as a link rather than a transcluded page.

---

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

Kbh3rd

Final: (22/0/0) ended 18:30 December 5, 2005 (UTC)

Kbh3rd (talk · contribs) – Self nominating – I have been editing Wikpedia since July, 2004, accumulating well over 4000 edits. I have started a moderate number of articles (listed on my user page), and have submitted a large number of images, some of my own, and many from PD sources. I was very active in an earlier round of the untagged images project in an effort to keep Wikipedia's content legitimate. To that same end I investigate and flag any articles I find that look like cut-and-paste copyvios. My philosophy has shifted from somewhat deletionary early on to much more inclusionary now. I am concerned about the overall quality of Wikipedia, and lately I have been spending a lot of time just patroling vandalism to the 766 articles on my watchlist. Kbh3rd 18:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Kbh3rd 19:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Support, looks solid enough. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 19:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
2. Support. Ah, the joy of a well-qualified self-nom! Everything looks wonderful. Hardly any experience of controversies, but I doubt that would change with adminship. — David Remahl 19:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
3. Support - another good one signs up for extra duty! BD2412 T 19:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
4. Support Quentin Pierce 19:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
5. Obvious SupportGator (talk) 21:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
6. Merovingian 22:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
7. Support as per David Remahl, BD2412 . Hamster Sandwich 22:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
8. Support good editor --Rogerd 02:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
9. Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 02:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
10. MONGO 02:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
11. Support. Seems like a good well-rounded editor, and no real reason to oppose him. -Colin Kimbrell 03:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
12. Extremely Obvious Support. --Interiot 07:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
13. Support Izehar 16:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
14. Support - well, duh! --Celestianpower ^hablamé 16:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
15. Support Solid record, well-qualified for admin post. Xoloz 18:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
16. Support, unlikely to abuse the administrator toolbox. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
17. Support. Thryduulf 09:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
18. Support. --23:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
19. Support. Great contributions. Nice images. Asset to wikipedia. deeptrivia (talk) 16:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
20. Support. El_C 00:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
21. Support- JCarriker 00:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
22. Support. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
23. Support. Edit history does not indicate any reason for concern. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

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

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A. Though I've been active on Wikipedia for close to a year and a half, I've purposefully not sought the added responsibilities of adminship until now. It is the persistent and growing problem with vandalism that drives me to it. I find much of my time these days reverting. The possibility of being able to temporarily block obvious active vandals instead of just leaving warnings that I personally cannot act on is what brings me here. Over time I might feel comfortable exercising more admin "power", but I'm real leary about the ability to go overboard with it.

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

A. As I mention on my user page, I'm particularly satisfied with Ogallala Aquifer, specifically because it was a successful collaboration. I rewrote the original stub article from scratch as best I could, being an interested but non-professional geologist "wanna-be". I then found an active Wikipedian with the required expertise and invited him to fill in the details to really flesh it out. I also like the Weaubleau-Osceola_structure and Fort de Chartres articles, among others, having researched and written them from scratch and provided the images for them. Note the references sections.

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. Not too much. I fear that I may have caused others stress in some copyright reverts. Though they were clearly in the wrong, I think I could have been more sensitive to their attachement to their subject and been more inviting of them to contribute original content on the subject.

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

---

Requests for bureaucratship

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

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

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

Requests for self-de-adminship

Requests to relinquish adminship are granted on request and may be made at m:Requests for permissions. Do not place such requests here because the stewards will not act on them unless they are placed at m:Requests for permissions.

If you wish to have the community confirm or re-affirm your adminship, the correct process is:

1. Voluntarily relinquish adminship by placing your request at m:Requests for permissions
2. Apply for adminship here utilizing the usual procedure.

If you have concerns about specific aspects of your administrative performance, consider posting a request for review on the Administrators' Noticeboard or employing a Request for comment.

Related requests

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

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