Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.

Requests for adminship (RfA) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become administrators (also known as admins or sysops), who are users with access to additional technical features that aid in maintenance. A user either submits his/her own request for adminship (a self-nomination) or is nominated by another user. Please be familiar with the administrators' reading list, how-to guide, and guide to requests for adminship before submitting your request.

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

Contents 1 About RfA 2 Nominating 3 Current nominations for adminship 3.1 Tedder 3.1.1 Nomination 3.1.2 Questions for the candidate 3.1.3 General comments 3.1.4 Discussion 3.1.4.1 Support 3.1.4.2 Oppose 3.1.4.3 Neutral 3.2 GrooveDog 3.2.1 Nomination 3.2.2 Questions for the candidate 3.2.3 General comments 3.2.4 Discussion 3.2.4.1 Support 3.2.4.2 Oppose 3.2.4.3 Neutral 3.3 Kateshortforbob 3.3.1 Nomination 3.3.2 Questions for the candidate 3.3.3 General comments 3.3.4 Discussion 3.3.4.1 Support 3.3.4.2 Oppose 3.3.4.3 Neutral 4 About RfB 5 Current nominations for bureaucratship 6 Related pages

About RfA

The community grants administrator status 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.

Nomination standards

There are no official prerequisites for adminship, other than having an account and having a basic level of trust from other editors. The community looks for a variety of things in candidates, and everybody has their own opinion on this. For examples of what the community is looking for, read some successful and some unsuccessful RfAs.

Decision process

Any user may nominate another user with an account. Nominations remain posted for seven days from the time the nomination is posted on this page, during which time 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 that period, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether there is a consensus for promotion. This is sometimes difficult to ascertain, and is not a numerical measurement, but as a general descriptive rule of thumb most of those above ~80% approval pass, most of those below ~70% fail, and the area between is subject to bureaucratic discretion.

Bureaucrats may also use their discretion to close nominations early, if a promotion is unlikely and they see no further benefit in leaving the application open. Only bureaucrats may close a nomination as a definitive promotion, but any user in good standing can close a request that has no chance of passing; please do not close any requests that you have taken part in, or that are not blatantly unpassable. In the case of vandalism, improper formatting or a declined or withdrawn nomination, non-bureaucrats may also delist a nomination, but they should make sure they leave a note with the candidate, and if necessary add the request to the unsuccessful requests.

In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination so as to make consensus clearer. If your nomination fails, please wait a reasonable period of time before renominating yourself or accepting another nomination. Some candidates have tried again and succeeded within a month, but many editors prefer several months before reapplying.

Self-nominations are permitted. If you are unsure about nominating yourself for adminship, you may wish to consult admin coaching first, so as to get an idea of what the community might think of your request. Also, you might explore adoption by a more experienced user to gain experience.

Expressing opinions

Any Wikipedian with an account is welcome to comment in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections, but IPs are unable to place a numerical (#) "vote". 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, and 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. In close nominations, detailed explanations behind your position will have more impact that positions with no explanations or simple comments such as "yep", "no way" and "as per."

To add a comment, click the "Voice your opinion" link for the relevant candidate. Any Wikipedians, including users who do not have an account and/or are not logged in ("anons"), are invited to participate in the comments section and ask questions. Always be respectful towards others in your comments. Constructive criticism is useful for the candidate to hear so he/she can make proper adjustments and possibly fair better in a future RfA attempt. You may wish to review arguments to avoid in adminship discussions. Irrelevant questions may be removed or ignored, so please stay on-topic.

Note that the Requests for adminship process draws a variety of Wikipedians to express their opinions and help make these decisions. There are some editors who oppose many, or even most, requests, for a particular reason. Although the community currently endorses the right of any Wikipedian with an account to comment in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections, this more-or-less uncommon voting pattern is perceived by some as "trolling". Before responding to such comments in an RfA, consider whether that is the best forum for what you have to say. Not fanning the fire will, at the very least, not make the situation worse. Remember, the bureaucrats who close the discussions have a lot of experience, and are able to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Nominating

Nominations can only be accepted by the user in question. If you wish to nominate a user, contact them first before making the nomination page. If they accept, create the nomination and ask them to sign their acceptance. To nominate either yourself or another user for adminship, follow the instructions on this page. The nomination may be considered "malformed" and removed if you do not follow these instructions or transclude the request properly. Users interested in becoming administrators may add themselves to Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls. A list of these users including additional information is automatically maintained at Wikipedia:List of administrator hopefuls.

Current nominations for adminship

Current time is 10:26:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Purge page cache if nominations have not updated.

---

Tedder

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (44/3/2); Scheduled to end 00:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC).

Nomination

Tedder (talk · contribs) – I have gotten to know Tedder through our mutual involvement with WikiProject Oregon. Tedder has consistently found a number of different ways to contribute to the development of high-quality content about our state. He has published photographs which inspire others to write; made small but significant edits; initiated and contributed to various collaborative efforts. He's even blogged about his approach to improving Wikipedia!

Through all of this, I have come to know a guy who is welcoming to new contributors, who responds well to criticism and to new ideas, and who incorporates his Wikipedia passion into his life in a healthy and productive way. In discussing the possibility of an RfA, Tedder has gone out of his way to point me toward incidents where he has not displayed the greatest judgment; but the transgressions struck me as minor, and more importantly, he found effective ways to smooth over conflicts and move forward after the fact.

Tedder is also active on several noticeboards, and has sought out areas where he can put his background as a computer programmer to good use for the project.

In short, I believe Tedder possesses the right demeanor for an administrator -- which I happen to believe is the most important qualification -- and has also worked hard to amass the kind of experience that will help him quickly become a productive wielder of the mop. With great pride and admiration, I present to you Tedder, candidate for Administrator on the English Wikipedia. Pete (talk) 23:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Thanks Pete!

I've been on en.wikipedia since April 2005, though at a low velocity for a large amount of that time. I fell in love with Wikipedia while I spent 6 months traveling through Latin America by motorbike; I would cache about 100-200 pages, read them offline, then have another 100-200 pages queued up for the next time I found internet access (and power for the laptop!). In fact, I made a few dozen edits during this time period, and added some photos too.

I've spent some of my time working on antivandalism. However, I've done much more than hit the "vandalism" button: I also spend time cleaning up articles, adding infoboxes, and finding and verifying information.

When I'm bored or not tackling larger edits, I have spent time in the NewPages backlog. I made some early mistakes, but feel I have a decent handle on what is covered under the various speedy guidelines. I've learned to do more than simply mark for speedy or mark as patrolled: depending on how the article fits into Wikipedia, I'll tag the article for improvements, welcome the editor with Friendly, and (most importantly) add at least one WikiProject to the talk page. For instance, I proposed an article for deletion, added it to a project, and let the project know in case they were interested.

Thanks for your consideration.

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: My intent is to help with antivandal and article-building efforts through areas like AIV, RPP, and AFD. I have some experience in those areas as a user. I'd also like to get involved with the EditFilters, which is harder to do without having access to the EditFilter bits.

There are certainly admin backlogs I could contribute to, such as RPP. I've seen articles come across my watchlist or EAR that could use some quick page protection to facilitate discussion and consensus.

Finally, being able to review deleted content will help in me cases where an article has been recreated and I'm trying to investigate its history.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I've started a few articles. I'm proud of the article on Black Rage (book); it's something I knew little about, yet I was able to research it and immediately have an impressive (if short) article. I've also created articles for Oak Grove Hydroelectric Project, Cash4Gold.com, Friends of Coal (done while motorcycling and camping across the US, which explains the speedy nomination), Ladd Tower (and the great photos on that page), First Regiment Armory Annex (plus its main photo), as well as few small articles for the barely-alive WikiProject Motorcycling, and the start of a page on the ARC TF Juan Ricardo Oyola Vera (check it out- very unique vessel!).

I also have a talent for "lateral editing". For instance, I've cleaned up every existing high school entry in Oregon, plus some additional communities well outside of Oregon (like this and this). Now that I finished the cleanup, I've been creating redlinked high schools in Oregon- in the above list, it's pretty clear where I've left off. (Lane County, in case it isn't obvious)

This lateral editing is part of the reason I want to wield the mop- to do things like noncontroversial speedy deletes for moves. I'm also proud that I got my first DYK for Clatskanie Middle/High School. I'm not a FA/GA creator, but I feel that I can make up for it with incremental improvements.

Finally, I'm happy with my "non-article" work, such as summarizing a longterm sock: Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Pioneercourthouse.

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

A: Oh, certainly. I created a RFC/UC not long ago, and I should have represented myself better in the situation. There are also ongoing articles, like AGV Sports Group, which still isn't fully resolved. However, I've been able to deal with all of them in stride, never being blocked, nor losing my temper and getting pointy. I'll continue to deal with it as I have in the past- follow policies, contact the other user(s), then ask for a third opinion from another editor, a WikiProject, or a noticeboard as necessary.

Additional optional questions from ThaddeusB

4. What is your opinion about notability as it relates to the inclusion/exclusion of content on Wikipedia? That is, what do you think an ideal Wikipedia would look like in terms of content? Do you feel that anything the meets the general notability guidelines should be allowed, or do you feel that some things aren't notable even if they have been covered in depth by multiple reliable sources? Are there any types of articles that you feel are automatically notable, that is worthy of inclusion without having proof of in depth coverage in multiple reliable sources? (To be clear, I am looking for your personal opinion, and hopefully an insight to the way you think, not a restatement of current policy.)

A: Hi ThaddeusB. In my opinion, I like the razor (adage) of notability. It's a convenient shortcut in AFD discussions so we don't have to reinvent the wheel by applying full rationale of the five pillars to every article discussed.

I think that some sort of third-party coverage should be found for every article, and some (many) should require much more. For instance, proving that a large college exists might be enough, while an offhand mention of a Myspace band in a local gig sheet wouldn't be enough. So the bar for inclusion on bands would be higher than a large college, for instance.

Again, this is my opinion, as you (Thaddeus) asked. I'm not saying I'll apply the razor according to my personal stance- I love having and following established policy.

4a. What I was trying to get out is what do you personally consider a legitimate claim to inclusion. Is meeting the "non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable" test always enough for inclusion? Or are there some things that might non be worthy of inclusion (in you opinion) even with said coverage. You seem to being saying some things are worthy of inclusion just by being verifiable (e.g. colleges). Can you explain why you feel this way?

A: There are reasons that "coverage in multiple" is not enough- both WP:BLP1E and WP:SBST give some examples. Otherwise, it's coming back to my feelings on the subject, rather than the established guidelines, and I'm decidedly not in either camp.

5. I see that you have practiced answering RfA questions. I personally don't think anyone should hold that against you since you could have just as easily done it off wiki & no one would have known. However, some might view this as evidence of being "power hungry" - how would you respond to such a claim?

A: Yes, I practiced it on wiki. I'd hope that my past actions show that I'm not being "power hungry"- I don't spend a lot of time getting involved with drama, and certainly don't troll or do other evil things. I feel I'm weak in the writing skills that would lead to a FA, so I wanted to begin practicing typical answers to RfA questions. In reality, the most helpful part was having it up so I could refine my statement and initial questions. To summarize, I'd hope it shows I'm taking this seriously, not that I have evil intentions.

Additional optional questions from Groomtech

6. Do you believe that Wikipedians have rights? If so, what will you do to uphold them?

A: I knew this question would be coming, and it's a fairly abstract question I've given some thought to. Ultimately, User:Roux has identified and enumerated these rights in an interesting manner at User:Roux/Constitution/Rights. My job, as editor and/or mop-wielder, is to apply the policies behind the 5 pillars that have been established as fairly and honestly as possible.

Going down the abstract path, the rights associated with Wikipedia are different than what might be in the big blue room.

Additional optional questions from S Marshall

7. Scenario: An article at AfD is ready to be closed. It's a subject with which you're not personally familiar (say, "burial rituals in aboriginal cultures"). For you to consider are the nomination, which reads "Non-notable subject; I haven't found any sources", and six !votes: One from a new editor, saying "Delete per nom"; one from an IP address, saying "Keep and expand--this is well-covered in Frazer's Golden Bough"; one from an experienced editor, saying "Speedy delete as an attack page because the content is highly offensive to aborigines"; one from an administrator, saying "Merge and redirect to 'burial ritual' because there's not enough content to make a stand-alone article"; one from an experienced editor, saying "Keep per IP address"; and one from a new user, saying "Merge and redirect to 'aboriginal cultures'".

As a prospective AfD closer, please give your assessment of the consensus at this debate.

A: Thanks for the question, S Marshall. My first reaction would be to wait to see if a more confident admin wants to deal with it, since I don't have any idea where to even start researching such an issue. However, that's a copout for an RfA discussion, as I assume you want to know how I'd handle it if necessary.

Per the deletion guidelines, this is a case where there is no clear consensus to delete. I'd investigate the "highly offensive" comment: does the article appear to be offensive? Can I find anything while searching online to indicate this? Since it isn't a BLP article, the standards are slightly lower in terms of that comment, though it is still important for the article to have a neutral point of view.

AfD is not a vote, and the weights of each good-faith vote need to be considered. The nomination doesn't indicate they tried to find sources, and an IP implies that it can be verified in a source. I've discussed the "offensive to" comment. The admin (who is just a user in this discussion) says to merge, but "not enough content" is a surmountable problem if sources can be found. Finally, the last two votes show there's still no consensus, but it is leaning away from "delete".

Ultimately, assuming there's no way I can personally verify if the subject matter exists and is covered in depth (via searching and/or finding "Frazer's Golden Bough"), the best option would likely be to extend the discussion for another deletion period to see if consensus can be reached. I'd also make sure the AfD was delsorted correctly, to ensure interested parties can find the AfD. Sources have a way of being found if it is legitimate and the "keep" camp expends some effort.

• 7a: Wikipedia's article on The Golden Bough may help you. Would this affect your decision to relist rather than closing, and if so, how?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

A The Golden Bough gives some context, but ultimately Wikipedia isn't a reference for Wikipedia. Our theoretical article still needs reliable sources. Knowing that ultimately this referenced article doesn't help decide our AfD, I think I'd extend the debate and (especially) ask for clarification on the AfD from the "Keep and expand" and the "offensive" !votes.

I'm going to get some exercise from jumping to conclusions here. I expect you'll ask me to make an actual decision- for instance, the extend AfD happens a few times and nothing promising happens. In that case, I'd merge the article without prejudice for recreation, keeping the edit history intact. No reliable sources have been established, and I wasn't able to find one with a cursory glance. There's nothing wrong with the article being recreated, but unless even a basic source can be found, it's an essay. Any valid content can move to our theoretical 'burial ritual', and a redirect placed. tedder (talk) 16:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from ThaddeusB

8. In Q1, you state that you wish to close AfDs. I have looked through about 30 of your most recent AfDs and all but a couple you were the nominator. Is it correct that most the AfDs you have participated in were started by you or was this unrepresentative sample?

A: I try not to contribute to AfDs that I don't have domain knowledge in. Most of the AfDs I contribute to are either created by me, or are related to areas I'm interested in- motorcycling, Oregon, or schools (it's simply an accident that I've been involved with school articles on Wikipedia).

I'd say it's atypical; if you'd like, I'll go through and pick out some examples, it's probably good talk page fodder.

Ultimately, what it comes down to is that I try to be very careful when jumping into new areas. I'd rather watch how a process works than jump in blindly and start working. That's pretty clear from my edit history by time, and it's also true in how I've done content creation and participated in areas across Wikipedia.

9. I see that on at least two occasions you suggested a page be salted after it was recreated 1 time. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlie Shaabie you suggested salting because it was recreated (under a different spelling) after an A7 delete, while in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trail Blazers Street Jam that was recreated after a G11 delete. Do you believe it is appropriate to preemptively protect against recreation after being recreated one time? If not, how many recreations would justify this action? What if it is different content each time?

A. The recommendation for salting on Shaabie was based on the variations. If the three spellings are combined, it was the *fifth* creation of the article. So salting didn't seem premature.

Trail Blazers Street Jam was recreated several times by SPAs- but it started out under different capitalization- IIRC, it was "trail blazers street jam". The text was precisely the same, so after the third creation it seemed appropriate to request salting. Note that my request for salting was more of a suggestion, because I didn't know how many times it had been deleted. As it turns out, it was the third deletion between the two spellings.

Certainly salting shouldn't be used preemptively, as WP:SALT indicates.

10. An article is sent to AfD at 8am on August 1st. Assuming it is not a WP:SNOWBALL or speedy delete candidate and the debate is proceeding orderly when would be the earliest you would consider closing it?

A. If the AfD is run normally, it should stand 7 days. August 1 at 1pm (UTC, naturally) is a Saturday, so it'll run to August 8 at 1pm. In other words, 7 days is not to August 8 at midnight, or August 7 at 1pm.

Your answer is 100% correct, however current practice is that a majority of AfDs are closed sometime between 6d12h and 6d20h. If you are approved, I urge you to fight the temptation to close AfDs early. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, and I've seen that. "At least seven days" means 7 days, not 6.9. Not everyone spends all day online, which is part of why I assume that's important.

11a. Hypothetical AfD 1: Nominated as "not notable company," two commentators said "per nom" and a third said "doesn't seem notable to me." After 6.5 days a fourth opinion is offered which reads "Keep - clearly notable per coverage in multiple reliable sources. There are over 100 GNews hits for this company; of course a few are PRs or trivial, but there are plenty of good sources too. For example, The Guardian New York Times The Washington Post and many more." How would you proceed?

A. The amount of time doesn't matter- if the fourth opinion is correct that there are many sources with sufficient depth, the company will be kept. Hopefully the opinion was given with links that back this up. If not, that level of coverage means it shouldn't be hard to prove.

11b. Hypothetical AfD 2: Nominated as "seems spammy and probably non-notable," four commentators point out that the subject is notable & provide sources. A fifth opinion is offered that says "speedy delete - notable or not this a clear copyright violation" but offers no proof. How would you proceed?

A. This one will be very hard without more specific details. However, I'll try to generalize. "seems spammy" is different than "the entire article is spam". The former implies cleanup is a possibility. The same goes for the "probably non-notable".

Supposing the AfD closed with just the first five comments, it appears to be a clear case for keep. Sources were given to fix the notability, and poorly written articles can be cleaned up.

Once the copyvio argument is made, there is a new, more pressing concern. It's a serious concern, and should be assumed it was given in good faith. Generally blatant copyvio from online sources is easy to find with a quick search or two.

Additional optional question from Dwr12

12. Please interpret this question as you see fit, but as an administrator will you place more emphasis on doing what is right or doing what is ethical, and why?

A. Thanks for allowing interpretation. I'd hope there is no difference between personal ethics, overall ethics, and "doing what is right." If the issue is a conflict between my personal ethics and doing what is right for Wikipedia, I'll gladly recuse myself.

Optional Qs from [flaminglawyer]

13. This will require a bit of creativity. I'm going to give you a word/phrase, and I want you to give me the first thing that should pop into a perfect admin's head when s/he hears that word/phrase (a Wikipedia concept, an administrative duty, anything that'll show me you know what you're doing). I won't ask you what the first thing that comes into your head is, because I know you're not a perfect admin (yet?), but I do want to make sure you're able to think you're thinking like one.

A. harvest

B. bite

C. Latin America

D. fourteen

E. Russian reversal

---

A. Obviously you are looking for more than a Rorschach test answer. In terms of Wikipedia policy and administration, I'll answer how I can.

A. harvest = I don't know. I'm curious what you were headed towards here.

B. bite = WP:BITE. Do not bite the newcomers.

C. Latin America = I don't know. I'm curious what you were headed towards here.

D. fourteen = 14, per MOS

E. Russian reversal = I don't know in the context of Wikipedia administration what you are after, except it's a common online meme. I do see Talk:Yakov Smirnoff#Russian reversal generator mentions "rule 14", were you connecting words D and E?

Optional question from Risker

14. Please select an instance brought to the community via any of the noticeboards where you have helped to resolve a situation discussed in a thread (not just commented, but actually helped to resolve the situation), and describe what you did that helped to resolve the situation. Thanks.

A. Probably the best example of resolving a situation was the creation of Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Pioneercourthouse to handle a long-term sock/vandal/troublemaker. This issue had existed in scattered places, but the combination of documenting the history and situation, and the edit filter specifically directed towards the editor's dozens of sockpuppets, has allowed the indefinite full-protection of Pioneer Courthouse Square to be lifted after literally years of protection and work.

Tedder, I think you meant "...allowed the indefinite full-protection...to be lifted..." - right? To all, I agree, that really was an excellent, creative, technical solution to a very long-term, irritating problem. -Pete (talk) 00:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, and I've fixed it above.

General comments

• Links for Tedder: Tedder (talk · contribs · deleted · count [quick] · logs · block log · lu · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · spi · search an, ani, cn, an3)
• Edit summary usage for Tedder can be found here.
• If you have questions or concerns you'd like a response on, please ask above or on the talk page, not in the oppose section.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Tedder before commenting.

Discussion

• Edit stats on talk page. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 00:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. -Pete (talk) 00:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
2. Support excellent user with experience in many areas, and has the right demeanor. Triplestop x3 00:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
3. Support Yay!! Never been third to support before :D But anyways, Tedder is a good user, good contribs, I've seen this user's edits around, should do fine. Good Luck!!! -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
4. Support I looked through his contribs and saw no issues, barring a huge reason not to trust him, I'll be in support here Alexfusco⁵ 00:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
5. Support. I looked over some of his edits -- he seems reasonable, kind, and experienced, and he seems to have contributed a lot of good content. (I'll be sad to see his article contributions dwindle as he's swamped with admin tasks, which is what often happens to new admins, but that is no reason to oppose!) rspεεr (talk) 00:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
6. Support Looking over his questions and contributions, I am confident that you will use the tools correctly. Good luck! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
7. Support Hard working, great contributions, civil, trustworthy, the whole bit. Will be a great admin. Good luck! :) LittleMountain5 02:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
8. Support No problems here. Good luck. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
9. Weak support You make me a little bit nervous and I've found the Oregon project to be insular and bitey. But hopefully you'll be responsible, tolerant and show restraint as an admin. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
10. Support; can't admit to having seen him around before, but I'll support pending any major concerns. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
11. Support. Yes. Tavix |  Talk  04:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
12. Support. I can only recall working with the candidate on a few occasions (nothing big), but seeing him all over WikiProject Oregon pages and not having to worry about his contributions matters alot. ZabMilenko^{How am I driving?} 05:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
13. Strong Support Tedder has been a model Wikipedian for many months: tirelessly doing heavy lifting—like working on all the Oregon High School articles, traveled hundreds of miles with camera, photographed, and uploaded a zillion photos and added them to the appropriate articles, and demonstrated great judgment in dealing with fellow Wikipedians. —EncMstr (talk) 05:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
14. Support. I'm with Julian, I can see no real problems here, and no reason why they should not have the tools. Andy (talk) 10:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
15. Support. No reason to believe you'd misuse the tools. Jafeluv (talk) 12:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
16. The oppose thing is a little concerning but seems only a small blemish on an otherwise very good record. weburiedourdramainthegarden 12:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
17. Not going to delete the main page or blow up Wikipedia, so support.--Giants27 (c|s) 13:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
18. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 13:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
19. Support Excellent candidate, can definitely be trusted with the tools. Aditya ^α _ß 17:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
20. Support. I don't see any problems here (except the first oppose, but I trust you have learned from it). Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 17:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
21. Support - haven't noted anything from a contributions review that suggests anything but a sensible and well-intentioned editor who knows what he's doing. While the PROD mentioned by opposers was clearly a mistake, I see no pattern of such mistakes and I feel the candidate handled the aftermath of it fairly well. No concerns here. ~ mazca ^talk 21:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
22. Support per Zab's diff; shows civility and willingness to work with others. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
23. Support I do not see a reason for opposing. — Aitias // discussion 23:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
24. Support Sensible answers, enough content contribs to make me feel comfortable supporting. Wikiproject doesn't concern me, if it is that offensive, list it at MFD, if that is where you would.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
25. Support No qualms here. Seems trustworthy. hmwithτ 00:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
26. Support. I'll expand on the reasons when I have more time, but I think that Tedder would use a the couple extra functions in a very positive manner. — Ched :  ?  02:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
27. Does not have significant audited contributions, but is a longtime and committed member who I believe makes comparable effort in other areas. No immediate red flags, and opposes as of yet do not sway me. Per Hegvald, though, be careful with the newbs :) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
28. I see no oppose-worthy problems. Just don't rush through AFD closures when you do them, and make sure you're absolutely sure about your verdicts. Timmeh 03:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
29. Support. User is an excellent editor, and opposes are not enough to sway me, particularly when two of them come from editors who normally auto-oppose over particular issues. Ironholds (talk) 06:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
30. Support - I have interacted with you at WikiProject Schools and I have got a good impression of you there. Your interactions at AfD seem to be good; I was impressed about how you handled a disruptive user at Corona del Sol High School. You remained civil despite the user not doing so and went to WP:AN3RR rather than edit war yourself. You also dealt with this attack okay [1]. By the way I have nothing against you keeping a record of this on your user page though over users might do. I don't think you did any worthy of note wrong with the PRODing or by being a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Atheism. Overall, you look to me like a good candidate for adminship. Camaron · Christopher · talk 09:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
31. Support. No reason not to. Users should remember that this is a discussion of whether Tedder, if elected, will use the admin tools properly. Stifle (talk) 09:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
32. Support clean block log, haven't encountered the candidate before but everything I've seen here looks OK. Also its quite possible to be a member of a project without being deemed to support everything said by any member of that project. ϢereSpielChequers 10:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
33. Support I don't see why not. You could definitely use the tools. Good luck! Airplaneman (talk) 12:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
34. Support Per nom statement. America69 (talk) 13:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
35. Support, looks good. Tan | 39 13:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
36. Support Has been around since 2005 and see that giving the tools to the user will only benefit the project.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
37. Support:User has a clue.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 16:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
38. Support - I analyzed his edits, and there is nothing to worry about. AdjustShift (talk) 17:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
39. Support - No problems for me. Oliver Fury, Esq. message • contributions 18:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
40. Support Dug around for a while, searched for some muck to be raked, but found nothing. No worries! --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 18:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
41. Support Tedder has shown a commitment to Wikipedia through regular editing over an extended period and handled himself well in a variety of situations. I would have like to see more thoughtful answers to some of the earlier questions, but the answers to 11a & 11b were excellent and won me over, as they show a proper weighing of arguments as opposed to vote counting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
42. Support See my previous neutral vote below though, please. However I realized if I had to break a tie or make the decision alone it would be a definite yes without hesitation. The large number of support votes shouldn't give me the luxury of being neutral just because I have a problem with the fact that you answered a particular question. Drawn Some (talk) 02:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
43. Support A long time editor with no problems that I can see. If userboxes were a reason to deny adminship then there might be a few existing admins who lose the mop too.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   03:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
44. Support. Looks fine to me. Dekimasuよ! 06:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Hate to spoil the party, but I am disturbed by the way Tedder, in early May, proposed two articles by a new user for deletion ([2][3]), claiming in one case that the article was "Missing reliable sources to indicate notability of an individual", when this was clearly false. Both articles had references to entries on these individuals in the American National Biography (a reference work published by the Oxford University Press). Tedder's explanation to me was not satisfactory. Tedder seems to miss the point that not only is an entry in a major national dictionary of biography like this one a reliable source, but being selected for inclusion in such a work in the first place is also clear evidence of the person's notability. An additional point: the newbie "welcomed" through these deletion proposals has not (so far) returned to Wikipedia. --Hegvald (talk) 10:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

   I feel that his response (more specific diff than above) demonstrates an ability to be reasonable and communicative. A lesser candidate would have, rather than ask for an explanation, just submitted it to afd with "contested prod" as part the rationale. ZabMilenko^{How am I driving?} 10:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

2. Oppose No member of "WikiProject Atheism" should represent Wikipedia as an administrator. As I have stated countless times before, there is absolutely nothing wrong with being an atheist, but when you see userboxes like "the world would be a happier, safer and saner place without religion" and "please keep your imaginary friends to yourself", we're talking about something a lot different than that. We're talking about people who enjoy patting themselves on the back about just how smart and enlightened they must be, and people who take pleasure in belittling others' beliefs. No thanks. Keepscases (talk) 15:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

   Note: Discussion of this oppose moved to the talk page.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

3. No. Unless there was a compelling reason for the PROD, but I haven't seen one. I have been a victim of this myself. If the subject or the article is obviously notable then don't PROD it. If you are unable to determine this for yourself, don't even consider becoming an admin. Edit: the remarks above about The Golden Bough were truly disturbing. Peter Damian (talk) 20:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

   I don't really think it was disturbing in any way, i know I've had few ify PROD's, and if he did prod it then either it was a mistake, or tedder did not think it was notable. Furthermore, this was a while ago now so hopefully he has learnt from his mistakes, and for me, the response that Zab provided, shows he did. We all make silly errors, adn I don't feel you should oppose over a couple of them, from 2 months ago. Regards. AtheWeatherman 10:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

   No, No,NoWork with AFD is terribile. I've done better. And i also don't like his membership with a certain Wikiproject. --TheWave (talk) 20:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

   Indenting !vote by indefinitely blocked user. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 22:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

   Per Keepscases. Pzrmd (talk) 02:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

   I misunderstood something. Pzrmd (talk) 02:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Per Q7. I was looking for "Keep" or "Merge"; I'd have settled for "No consensus". "Relist" isn't intolerable, but I'm more than a little concerned by the candidate's desire to "personally verify if the subject matter exists and is covered in depth". To me, these imply the candidate is assessing the article rather than the consensus.

   Another worrying remark for me was "I don't have any idea where to even start researching such an issue". That's why we have an AfD: the debaters track down sources. What's the purpose of having a debate if the closer is just going to decide for themself anyway?

   Another legitimate concern being unearthed could tip me over into "oppose".—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

   S. Marshall, I personally don't see a lot of value in a contrived example like this. As an administrator, Tedder would be responsible for making judgments involving actual articles and debates. In this case, the scenario does not permit Tedder to look at the article itself, merely to take your description of it at face value.

   Tedder correctly identified that there is no clear consensus.

   Taking a detailed look at the article is not, as you suggest, a problem. When looking at such a discussion, there is a decision to be made, as administrators do not give up their role as Wikipedia editors; "Will I close this discussion, or will I participate in the discussion and try to move toward consensus, leaving the final closure to another admin? Or will I simply walk away?" You seem to be expecting Tedder to take the closure route, which strikes me as contrived. Tedder seems to take that expectation at face value, but I'm not sure he needs to.

   What compels an admin, looking at a clear case of "no consensus," to close the discussion in ANY way? I would say, absolutely nothing. There may be a desire to clear a backlog, but there's never an obligation to do so. A discussion isn't done just because a certain amount of time has passed, or a certain number of people have weighed in. -Pete (talk) 19:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

   Thanks for your reply.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

   S Marshall: I take no position on the hypothetical AfD above, as I haven't read it (nor have I read most of this RfA). Feel free to stay neutral, I don't care and I am not !voting in this RfA. But some things to consider with consensus and AfDs. First, an Admin must look at the article and make judgments, that's what they are "paid" for if you will. They are supposed to posses the judgment and experience to analyze an article and the debate and then judge against policies and guidelines. In case you have not been involved in the following types of AfDs, let me describe a common situation I have dealt with in AfDs: Stub article with no sources is nominated as lacking notability (often without the nominator actually looking for sources as they are required to do so by the deletion policy, but that is a side point) and several people come along and concur with the delete; then another editor comes along and adds say ten RS that have significant coverage and are independent, thus demonstrating notability; then those original people never come back and comment on the current state of the article; based on that alone the consensus could show that a deletion was in order, where in fact the article does now pass the standard. This is where an admin comes in and judges the consensus, but also judges the content, which leads into point 2 about consensus. First, in any AfD there is actually two consensus to consider: the AfD's and the overriding community consensus. That is to say, an AfD cannot override existing community-wide consensuses. For instance 10 editors cannot team up and get the George Washington article deleted, as though there might be consensus in the AfD (I know unlikely for that article, but very possible for lesser known figures in history that pass WP:BIO's auto-inclusion criteria) this does not override the community's existing consensus about notability for biographies (see WP:CONEXCEPT and Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators). So the closing admin needs to look at the article to be able to tell what arguments made in the AfD are valid based not only on existing guidelines/polices, but also based on what the article looks like. This can include checking the sources personally, as I have had arguments at AfD for deletion saying the sources were not substantial enough of coverage (of course they usually forget that if a source is not substantial/extensive then you just need multiple sources, but another side point and pet peeve) to show notability, even though they admit they have not seen the article (in general, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Nimo (2nd nomination) as my classic example of many editors not knowing what the rules are and where you need an admin to distill the invalid from the valid, as well as other problems with understanding consensus and the WP:CONEXCEPT portion of that). So in the end, an Admin must judge the article too. Now, they are not free to ignore proper consensus based on guidelines/policies, say because they personally have heard of the topic and think the topic is notable or are a friend of the article's main author. Or in instances where there are valid arguments for an exception (such as completing the historical record) that the AfD has come to a consensus about, but under the usual existing guidelines/policies the article should be deleted. In other words, consensus can be wrong, which I see you also agree with. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

   Thank you for your reply.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

2. Neutral, leaning support Um... regarding my question, I was looking for a Rorschach test-style answer. I didn't actually have anything planned out for any of them other than bite, so I was looking for some creativity there... You've still got time to answer the remaining letters, but that's completely optional. Aside from the question: I see good things, but nothing really standing out. [flaminglawyer] 22:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

   If you don't mind me asking, what information about the candidate did you hope to learn through word associations? Did you anticipate your vote being influenced by what the candidate spontaneously thought of regarding harvests and the number 14? Dwr12 (talk) 00:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Neutral (Change to support see above.) I don't think I've ever bumped into you, Tedder. but I was really impressed with your answers to the questions until I got down to #13. You should have just ignored it or perhaps politely declined to answer it because it seems quite inappropriate. I think you'll be a great administrator but please learn when to just say "no, thank you" either under your breath or out loud in a polite, calm manner. I hope to see you around AfD because your thinking makes sense to me, very thoughtful. Good luck as an admin. Drawn Some (talk) 02:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

---

GrooveDog

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (8/29/14); Scheduled to end 21:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

GrooveDog (talk · contribs) – My fellow copyeditors, article creators, debaters, vandal fighters, editors:
I present myself as GrooveDog for your consideration as Administrator. Like everyone, I've been editing and reading Wikipedia for a quite a few years now, under an anonymous IP address for a while and under the name GrooveDog for the past two years. I've made over 3500 edits across a variety of namespaces. In my two years here I've fought vandals, participted in Deletion and other process discussions, founded the Articles for Creation Backlog Drive (A team of editors and I reviewed over 4700 articles in a backlog at WP:AFC, creating more then 200 new articles in a month), done workat WP:AFC, determined and moved articles per consensus at requested moves, was a clerk at checkuser requests, and have participated in many other wiki activities. I am truly a metapedianist; I am very interested in the "Project" side of Wikipedia. I've seen disputes, reverted extensive amounts of vandalism using Twinkle, reported usernames at WP:UAA, created WikiProject Manitoba and much much more.

I believe I could use the administrator tools very effectively in clearing backlogs which require administrator help, but don't get much attention. I would also use the flag around Sockpuppet investigations, where I have re-applied as a clerk and could use blocks to help eliminate sockpuppets. I look forward to support and constructive criticism from the community. :-) GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 21:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: I would most likely help out in clearing backlogs, such as Speedy Deletion and clearing duplicate images. WP:SPI is in need of clerks with a sysop flag to assist in blocking or investigating confirmed socks, so I would also use the extra tools there. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 21:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I've made many, many contributions to the project space and less to the article space. I created the AFC backlog drive which took quite a lot of organizational effort and time. I revert a lot of vandalism, so I believe that I could consider some of my best work to simply "defending" the wiki. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 21:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

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

A: I haven't had any conflicts over editing that have caused me real stress, I am usually able to remain |cool as a cucumber. Wikipedia has an excellent dispute resolution process, if I was ever in an editing conflict I would absolutely use one of those methods. I appreciate the work of the mediation cabal, I imagine they would be the first people whom I would contact with a request to resolve a dispute. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 21:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Question from Ched Davis

4. I noticed that your "Wikipedia" edits in your contributions contain a fair number of edits to "Requests_for_checkuser". Could you give us some background on those edits? — Ched :  ?  23:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

A Certainly! I was a "Clerk" at Requests for checkuser, which is now Sockpuppet Investigations. It was a volunteer position in which I performed generally administrative duties (cleaning up cases, informing affected users of the RFCU cases) as assistance to the Checkusers, all the while learning about identifying sockpuppets. This is one of the tasks I would be working on if I became an admin: blocking and helping identify sockpuppets at SPI. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 23:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Question from rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs

5a. You say in your statement that you have edited under IP addresses. Can you disclose those addresses so people can get a better idea of your contribution history (since right now there is not much to go on)?

A As much as I dislike declining a question, I would prefer to not disclose my earlier IP addresses. Sorry! :-( GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 02:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

5b. Were you editing from an IP during your account's two years of inactivity? And if not, why the long gap?

A. While I was making the odd edit here and there I was not editing much. The long gap...really unexplainable in a sort. Wikipedia was getting a little bit of an...overly major part of my life, in that I was missing real life commitments and problems because I was editing Wikipedia instead. That said, I'd like to continue to be editing Wikipedia no less then I was previously, but I feel as though I've learned quite a bit of decent time management that will allow me to contribute effectively according to my personal schedule. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 02:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

5c. (piggyback question from →ROUX ₪). Would you be willing to disclose the IP addresses to a Checkuser who can then let us know about the general activity level and any concerns with the edits?

A.As much as I hate to appear as though I'm "sidestepping" the answer, my main computer's ISP has changed before I registered this account, that address had a few edits from it. I would be willing to disclose my previous ISP to a checkuser, perhaps they can use this to find an IP range I may have edited from, I'm not really sure to be honest (not so great with IP address stuff), :-( GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 06:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Question from ϢereSpielChequers

5d No problem with your keeping your IP address private, but can you tell us if you have ever been blocked or warned as an IP?

A.I can personally guarantee you that I have never been blocked or warned as an IP address. Although this is probably not verifiable as I appear to be "untrusted" based on the Opposes, I can give you a...."GrooveDog guarantee" that I have not vandalised Wikipedia. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 06:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Optional question from Keepscases

6. Please explain an interpretive dance routine that you would enjoy performing.

A:To be perfectly honest, and I may get quite a few "opposes" for this answer, I do enjoy interpretive dances which focus on the seasons. I imagine that with a bit of practice and a good partner however, I would learn to enjoy other types of dances as well. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 17:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from Groomtech

7. Do you believe that Wikipedians have rights? If so, what will you do to uphold them?

A:I define "wikipedians" as anyone who's contributed, either positively or negatively, to this encyclopedia. Whether they be IP or a registered account, I believe that everyone does have few, but some rights. Wikipedians deserve to be treated fairly: Absolutely no one deserves to be discriminated against, or treated differently because of their race, age, sex, or any other human characteristic. Upholding this is not clearly defined in any policy, except for no personal attacks, however I would issue a block to anyone who is acting in a discriminatory way. Some would call this "a punishment block", however they would be disrupting the project by creating "harmonious" editing difficult, making a block justified in my mind. Another right that all Wikipedians deserve is anonymity. While IP users do not accept this right, as anyone is able to do a WHOIS search to trace them easily, registered users deserve the ability to be anonymous. Yes, there are exceptions to this, which the Privacy Policy covers: CheckUsers and certain WMF personnel for security reasons, but I strongly believe that many editors register an account for one sole reason: anonymity. Protecting this right myself as an admin would be difficult, CheckUsers are under very strict instructions to not release any IP addresses that they check. If I found an issue with a CheckUser (which I doubt, as a clerk at requests for checkuser I had only the most confidence in them), I would immediately report it to the Ombudsmen Commission via their mailing list.

I believe Wikipedians have only one other real right, the right to vanish. All Wikimedians (that is, anyone across any language and project) deserve to be able to disappear from the project, having information removed forever. This can be done via oversighting/revision hiding and should be available to all registered users. For some people, Wikipedia is "more then a hobby" if that makes sense. When the stress that unfortunately comes along occasionally "gets to them", they deserve to be able to leave, hiding all memories of them on this website and other WMF projects. While many users decide to simply leave and put {{retired}} on their userpage, others would rather have more "privacy" as it were, by having any memory of them erased from records. This is important to me and to other users, I believe it should be upheld, and if challenged would defend it to the best of my ability. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 21:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Question from Ktr101

8a. I know that you have had prior experience before you came back to editing. The Wikipedia that you were editing under in 2007 is vastly different in many ways from the one that exists today. You have also only had 6 days to edit under this "modern" Wikipedia. What makes you think that you will be able to counter some of the threats that exist on this site today? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

A:I'll be perfectly honest, (and this is my opinion, of course you can disagree/agree about whatever you want. :-P) most threats that continue to exist today are pretty similar to what we had in 07. Of course as the general technological ability of the people increases, so do the threats, but after fighting what I would consider an "adequate" amount of vandalism to judge this over the past few days, and reading over WP:SPI, where I formerly clerked, I believe I would be efficient and able to identify threats and/or sockpuppets.

8b.You also have only 16% of your edits on the mainspace. Do you think that this number is enough considering most administrators have over 50% of their edits here?

A.It's like I mentioned in my nom statement: I am very truly a metapedianist. I understand that we're all trying to build an encyclopedia here, however to be honest I am much more interested in the project side: policies, vandal fighting, page patrolling. You could call it "defending the wiki", although I'm just one out of many.

Question from Plastikspork

9. Are you aware of recent changes in Wikipedia's licensing? Is material licensed under GDFL 1.2 compatible with this licensing? Plastikspork (talk) 18:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

A.I'm aware that the GFDL has been updated to version 1.3 (from 1.2). The main change in this version is essentially the permission to migrate content to CC-BY-SA 3.0. Your question intrigues me, I'll be honest when I say I' not really sure what to answer. What first comes to mind is that material under 1.2 is indeed "compatible" with the license, however the writer of the content during 1.2 (when the clicked the 'submit' button) officially licensed it under just that, 1.2, which does not explicitly allow migration to Creative Commons. As inconvenient as this sounds, it sounds as though articles with 1.2 contributions would need to be re-written under 1.3 to allow migration to CC. Might not be an answer you're looking for, to be perfectly honest, my knowledge of licensing on Wikipedia has never been my forté. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 04:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

General comments

• Links for GrooveDog: GrooveDog (talk · contribs · deleted · count [quick] · logs · block log · lu · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · spi · search an, ani, cn, an3)
• Edit summary usage for GrooveDog can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/GrooveDog before commenting.

Discussion

• Editing stats on talk page. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
• Statement by candidate: I appreciate of course, all statements any users may bring. In the most civil way of saying this, I believe that I am able to be trusted with the tools. I am very familiar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines: when I am unfamiliar with something the first thing I do is check the policy/guide. All users are of course entitled to their opinion, and I mean this in no form of bad faith. In addition to this, I would like to request that this request is not closed before the 7 days are up, I realise that these are occasionally closed per WP:SNOW, but I do appreciate all the constructive criticism from editors and would rather receive it all. Thanks, GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 22:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC) :-)

• Another statement by candidate: Hi everyone.

A few editors have expressed concern to me that I should probably close this now, based on the rather large pile of opposes. If any editor does feel that this is getting out of hand, I invite them to close it; this is a wiki after all. Know that I don't need it to be closed, to be honest with you I understand that none of these comments are "personal" in that they aren't a specific attack on me, myself. I haven't really been "morally damaged" in any way by this and probably won't be at all emotionally affected by this RfA. That said, anyone is of course welcome to close it at any time if they feel as though I'm trying to make a point (I'm not intending that, btw). Once again, I thank all editors for remaining civil and their criticism on this matter. :-D GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 22:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

See also WP:BN#GrooveDog's RfA

Support

1. (Moral) support, if for no other reason than to ensure you don't feel as unwanted as me :(, since it's unlikely you'll succeed, unfortunately. — ^{\`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`/} (talk • contribs) 22:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
2. Moral Support I believe based on their edits that this editor has indeed edited between the two year gap as they claim. They seem perfectly proficient at fighting vandalism. Triplestop x3 22:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Ouch, I misread that. Either way, this user still seems to be a proficient user and I am sure he will succeed next time.

   Where did they claim this? And if so, was it as an IP or an alternate account? → ROUX ₪ 00:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

3. Support there's something about this editor that I like. I never usually participate in these RFA's but I stumbled across this one today. I looked over his edits, and I believe he would make a fine administrator. The gap does not concern me because I believe wikipedia operated better in 2007. I can't really put my finger on why, but I feel it was easier to edit back then, and it would be nice if just a hint of that was brought back. I think that having this editor as an administrator would be a breath of fresh air for the project. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

   So somebody who worked fine as a regular editor back in "easy" Wikipedia should be allowed to do a "harder" job in "hard" Wikipedia after 2 years of no practice? I'm not seeing the logic. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

   Don't twist my words. I feel the project was better in 2007. I would like to see an administrator with a mindset from that time. --William S. Saturn (talk) 06:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

   Umm.. From popups it says you've only edited since May 2008, so how do you know what wiki was like in 07? It may be wrong though. Aaroncrick (talk) 08:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

   First edit with this account was May 20, 2008. Perhaps he had another account previously. → ROUX ₪ 10:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

   Well hopefully that is the case, all the best, Aaroncrick (talk) 10:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

4. Support Keepscases (talk) 17:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
5. Moral support - You've done good work in the past, seem to have a good knowledge of how things work around here and have been civil in the face of many, many opposes. I have no reason to believe you'd misuse the tools, so I think you should come back in a few months with a bit more experience so I can support you again, without it being in vain! Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  21:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
6. Support Looks alright to me. The only question is the quick rfa after the long gap (will you be around 6 months from now sort of thing) but not a biggie. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 18:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
7. Support Orderinchaos 06:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
8. Pzrmd (talk) 01:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Prior to five days ago, you had not edited since 21 September 2007. → ROUX ₪ 22:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
2. For the same reason as Roux. Wikipedia's changed a lot in 2 years. I'm afraid that you don't know all the differences, and can make mistakes. However, keep editing, and you'll get my support next time. (X! · talk)  · @968  ·  22:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
3. Yeah, 22 month hiatus is pretty long. Please come back in a few months when you've had more time around the 2009 Wikipedia. Jclemens (talk) 22:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
4. Reluctant oppose due to the 2-year gap. Be active for a few more months, and I'll support you then. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
5. Also reluctantly. I really hate opposing anybody, but a lot has changed over the past two years (hell, things have changed over the past few hours!). You seem like a decent Wikipedian who generally knows what he's doing, but the fact that you've only been editing for a few days since your two-year break is too significant to overlook. On the other hand, as I said, you're definitely a promising candidate; I'd be happy to support or even nominate you in two or three months. Feel free to ask if you have any questions. Regards, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
6. Oppose Right now, I can't support your request, as I don't have enough recent contributions to look over to determine whether or not you'll use the tools correctly. However, you seem like a good editor, and if you continue actively contributing to the encyclopedia for a few (at least 3) more months, it looks like everyone who commented in this column would gladly support another RFA. Timmeh 23:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
7. Oppose per above. Please continue to actively contribute and come back in a few months if you are still interested. Thank you for your contributions. Plastikspork (talk) 23:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
8. Oppose, too big a time gap for my tastes. Wizardman 23:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
9. Oppose per above. You are certainly a seasoned editor but the two year wikibreak and very few edits since that date are a cause for concern. Perhaps in a few months and more experience. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
10. Oppose Long time away, hard to know if you will stay now with or without adminship, and how you would use the tools. Give it two months and show the same effort as before and I would change to support.Fuzbaby (talk) 00:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
11. Strong Oppose - I rarely oppose anybody but I unfortunately will have to this time. You've only contributed 517 edits (15.97%) to articles. Manitoba your most edited article, has only 32 edits by you, which in my books isn't enough, even though I regard quality above quantity. You have also barely contributed since September 2007. Aaroncrick (talk) 01:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
12. Oppose: Per above. Recent inactivity. Come back in a few months and it will most likely be a support.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 01:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
13. I waited until seeing an answer to my questions before opposing.... but I see no strong reason for inactivity, and no good response to the point Roux raised (that WP has changed in the past 2 years). Furthermore, the mainspace contributions (517 edits--not a lot at all, even if you consider them to be "good"/"major" edits, and since the user says he spends a lot of time vandal-fighting I bet many of the edits were not major) are not much. I think all admins need to have a strong understanding of content areas and the article-building and article-maintaining process, because ultimately that is what we're here for. All policy questions ultimately boil down to the question of "will X help us write good articles?" rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
14. Oppose: Unfortunately I have to oppose for your inactivity, draggy, idle and ossified lack of edits. South Bay (talk) 04:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
15. I don't believe that the Wikipedia of 2007 - that you are likely used to - is the same kettle of fish as in 2009, and thus, with only a toe in the pond of today's Wikipedia I can't trust you to make accurate judgements where you'll have to. weburiedourdramainthegarden 10:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
16. Support Per Roux. Thats a long period of inactivity. America69 (talk) 15:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

    Umm do you mean oppose? Ottawa4ever (talk) 15:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

    I took that as a moral support. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  21:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

    I did mean moral support but oppose. I should have made that clear. Sorry.America69 (talk) 17:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

17. Oppose for reasons stated by Roux and similarly by other editors. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

    Oppose per lack of information about user. I understand that not disclosing your IP protects your privacy and using multiple IPs makes it difficult to compile. But the valid concern is that between October 2007 and this month your account has no edits. And since then your account has only 200+ edits. There are too many questions I have and no true way to know how you will use your tools properly without further indication on the types of edits you have made in the gap of time. My only suggestion is to edit under your account over the next few months and build a record under your username. Alot has changed since 2007. Then I will have no problems with considering you, happy editing.Ottawa4ever (talk) 15:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Mooving to neutral

18. Oppose Like Roux said. Mrs. Wolpoff (talk) 17:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
19. Oppose Just so it doesn't look like this is all about the wikibreak, I would like to say that even if this RfA were taking place in late 2007 I would have to be really skeptical. You only have 500 mainspace edits, spread out over only 4 months. That is really much too little for me to be able to make any kind of judgment based on what I think you'd be like as an administrator. So basically, I agree with Rjanag. Also, I know you want this to stay open for 7 days, but I doubt that much else is going to happen from here on. If you are interested in getting more constructive criticism I would recommend coming back to full time editing for a few months so that people will have an idea of where your strengths and weaknesses lie. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 18:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
20. Oppose Per Roux. JPG-GR (talk) 02:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
21. Oppose per lack of not enough WP:DGAF. I looked at almost every diff between August 2007 and today. Candidate started admin coaching back in August 2007 (support page deleted recently so I can't read further) but was inactive within a couple weeks. Candidate returns and almost right away self-nom RFA. ZabMilenko^{How am I driving?} 06:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
22. Oppose on the ground of trying to become an WP:SPI clerk to win votes. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

    Do you have any diffs for that? I'm not seeing that in anything that I reviewed, and it seems unfair to say that he tried to become a clerk just to pass RfA without supplying any diffs to support it. Thanks. Acalamari 21:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

    I'm not really a fan of arguing with !votes, the user's opinion is the user's opinion. I'd like to make a civil statement, I applied to SPI as a clerk because clerking at WP:RFCU was interesting to me. I was able to assist with an important process while learning about fighting sockpuppets. I would encourage all editors to completely ignore my statement about applying for clerkship if they think I'm using it to win !votes. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 04:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

23. Oppose per the two year gap and the low amount of mainspace edits, and per Soap. Sorry, LittleMountain5 18:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
24. Oppose Hi, GrooveDog. At WP:BN, I mentioned that one benefit of leaving known failing RfX's open is to get as much constructive criticism/advice as possible, so it would be downright rude of me not to practice what I preach, so here goes . One of the things that are most important to me when I consider whether or not I would trust a candidates judgment is how they interact with other editors. In a project the size of English wikiepdia, with the diversity of its editors and their backgrounds and cultures, I consider it very important for a sysop to have demonstrated a clear track record of courtesy and respect. Looking at your editing history, I see many WP:Wikignome type edits such as grouping, categorizing, tagging, etc. These are important, and without them the project would function much less smoothly. However, as part of being an administrator is policy enforcement, the "flamethrower" part of the mop-and-flamethrower™ as it were, I look for someone who, over time and not while "on display", has demonstrated the courtesy and respect that one person must have for another, and realizes that the text on the screen was not generated by a bot, but by a living, thinking person with feelings and emotions. Your prior editing (2007 etc.) does not demonstrate enough of that to me, and thus the note of opposition. I understand your statement about being a "metapedia," and as someone who engages in wikignoming, I appreciate your work, but we don't split the mop from the flamethrower. My advice to you, for what it is worth, would be to engage fellow wikipedians in discourse beyond Twinkle/Huggle. Edit an article or two, get involved with other editors. You may find yourself becoming frustrated easily; if so, perhaps being an admin is not the best thing for you. An admin who gets frustrated and applies an improper user block, for example, is dealt with more harshly than a regular editor (I forget which ArbCom rulings say that, but there is more than one). If you are able to handle it with aplomb, it wil serve you well on your next RfA, whenever it is. Good luck! -- Avi (talk) 04:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
25. You have a clean block log and I like the way you answered my question and others. Also I'm not overly concerned about the long gap; partly because the way we currently run things someone who passed RFA three years ago and then went on wikibreak could come back now with out even a refresher course, whilst you have at least promised to proceed with caution. Also in part because while the users change I don't see things like blocking changing that much. However I'm not sure that you were quite ready for adminship before your Wiki break, your comments re Meatball:DefendEachOther on your admin coaching page in my view indicate a lack of experience of conflict. Whilst the now deleted August 2007 User:GrooveDog/CQCQ about conquering other people's user pages is a tad myspacey and is less than 2 months ago in your wikitime. I do think you are on the right path, and if you come back in three months with a bit more experience I hope to be able to support you then. ϢereSpielChequers 08:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
26. Per Roux. Stifle (talk) 09:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
27. I was going to say per Roux, but I like Soap's rationale better. [flaminglawyer] 22:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
28. Oppose. Significant period of inactivity. Could use some more recent experience. Cirt (talk) 01:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
29. Great prior work with mediation cabal, NPP, welcoming / warning, etc... However this is too soon after a 2 year hiatus.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   04:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I think it's most likely that you will get quite a few opposes, due the fact you have only been active for about one week, since you edited in late 2007. That said, I'm not going to oppose you over it, due to the fact I think you're a fine candidate, apart from the gap in editing. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 22:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
2. It appears that we have a fine potential admin here. Given the long stretch of inactivity however, I rather see you spend a couple months getting back into the swing of things before I support. Perhaps even bump up some of the mainspace edits. I won't pile-on oppose, but I think a bit of time reviewing the changes would be best at this time. You may want to have a look at WP:UPDATE for a quick "get up to speed" bit of reading. — Ched :  ?  23:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
3. Neutral I don't want to do a pile-on oppose, but I can't support you either. Your edits are good, but the 2-year gap just kills it, because Wikipedia has changed considerably since then. Until It Sleeps ^{Wake me} 01:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
4. Neutral To avoid to pile on but that gap just isn't good. Come back in 6-12 months and I'll think about supporting. In the time between now and then keep contributing and I know you'll succeed.--Giants27 (c|s) 01:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
5. Observation I too was an active contributor who left in mid-2007 and have only recently considered returning. Even if your memory is better than mine - and even though the new bickering looks a lot like the old bickering - there's an awful lot to catch up on. I wouldn't take any non-trivial admin actions now, and would need a month or two to get back into things. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

   The bickering never changes, but the interpretation of it does ;) Oh wait, that's depressing. Crap. → ROUX ₪ 04:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

6. Neutral I disappeared for a long time, too, so I know what that's like. When I came back, Wikipedia was an entirely different place. Its taken me a while to learn the ropes again, and i'm just now starting to assert myself with regards to important things. I know i'm not ready for adminship, nor will I be for a while. I didn't see any abuse in your edit history, so I have no reason to oppose, but I can't bring myself to support just yet. If you try again in, say, 6 months and demonstrate familiarity with our policies and culture as it is now, I would give an enthusiastic support. Firestorm ^Talk 03:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
7. Neutral The only thing you need is more experience and more time. Give it some more time and edits. -download ׀ sign! 03:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
8. Neutral with moral support to continue productive Wikipedian activities, gain a bit more experience in article space, and perhaps a successful nom next year. — Athaenara ✉ 09:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
9. Neutral I will support a second RfA in a few months if you continue to edit and become more familiar with Wikipedia. Good luck, and enjoy yourself in the meantime. hmwithτ 14:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
10. Neutral As said by Steve Crossin:

    I think it's most likely that you will get quite a few opposes, due the fact you have only been active for about one week, since you edited in late 2007. That said, I'm not going to oppose you over it, due to the fact I think you're a fine candidate, apart from the gap in editing.

    Maybe in a couple months. See you around! Airplaneman (talk) 15:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

11. Neutral per lack of information about user. I understand that not disclosing your IP protects your privacy and using multiple IPs makes it difficult to compile. But the valid concern is that between October 2007 and this month your account has no edits. And since then your account has only 200+ edits. There are too many questions I have and no true way to know how you will use your tools properly without further indication on the types of edits you have made in the gap of time. My only suggestion is to edit under your account over the next few months and build a record under your username. Alot has changed since 2007. Then I will have no problems with considering you, happy editing.Ottawa4ever (talk) 15:44, 14 July 2009
12. Neutral. Hmm, tough one this one. I do like the candidate, with his variety of edits, over a lot of the wiki, but I disappeared for a couple of months, and I'm still catching up after the week Ive been here! Come back in a couple of months, and I will gladly support. Andy (talk) 18:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
13. Neutral Overall, you are a great editor, and you had superb answers to some of the questions. I would like to see you try a bit more editing in the mainspace. In 6 months to a year, you will be a better editor, barring any gaps in editing. I would suggest when the time comes, and only you can tell, that you get an administrator like Balloonman and Xeno to help you. They have provided me with many useful tips on how to succeed in this, and I think that you will greatly benefit from them. You have wonderful intentions, and frankly, you remind me of me last year when I last did an RFA. I am afraid that you might possibly be temporarily discouraged should your nomination fail, and I know that you will probably run again in the future. I think that if you could find an IP address or two by looking over the pages that you edited and searching for IP addresses around the time that you last edited, you might be able to find a few of them, and help to win over those who believe that you are not good material because you are "hiding" them. I too thought that you were until I read another answer, and I agree that it is nearly impossible to track down all the edits that you have made with IP addresses. Looking at all the opposes, it seems like you have the chance to get the administratorship in a few months, as they are correct in saying that the site has changed. Sadly, people have gotten ruder over the years and this has shown on some of the editors. In the end, it comes down to your break and mainspace edits. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask. I wish you the best of luck, and you have my unconditional support for your next RFA. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
14. Neutral A tough one. I'd like to support based on the quality of your edits but the Oppose arguments have me too undecided. -- œ^™ 23:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
15. Neutral aka Moral Support: Please come back after 6 months of "serious activity" at wikipedia. -- Tinu Cherian - 10:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Kateshortforbob

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (65/5/6); Scheduled to end 14:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

Kateshortforbob (talk · contribs) – It is my pleasure today to nominate Kateshortforbob for adminship. Kateshortforbob, who for the sake of my keyboard will be referred to as Kate, is another one of those vital editors without whom the project would not function. Kate first joined Wikipedia in 2006, but started editing in July of 2007, before taking a break until March of this year.

An editor who works quietly and efficiently without seeking recognition, Kate has and continues to provide invaluable assistance to users at the help and reference desks. She works tirelessly in categorising articles, another one of Wikipedia's lesser known backlogs, and regularly participates at AfD. Kate is an active helper at Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations, and is familiar with fighting vandalism and generally keeping the encyclopaedia tidy. Kate amassed an impressive 8000 edits without excessive use of automated tools, showing she is not a Huggle warrior - her edits are an example of her dedication to the project. She has experience in deletion areas, with all her nominations at AfD being closed as delete, and with CSD nominations being highly accurate. She has been trusted with rollback for well over a year. That's not all; Kate regularly gets stuck into articles and fulfills her editorial duties. A list of her article contributions is located here, and she has also uploaded a few of her pictures on Commons.

In short, everything I see in this user is exactly what we are looking for in our admins, and I have full confidence that Kate will handle the extra buttons exceptionally well. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 12:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you, Backslash Forwardslash, for your nomination and kind words: I accept. I'd also like to thank, in advance, any editors who provide a question or comment here, --Kateshortforbob 14:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: As my nominator has noted, I have worked in a number of backlog areas such as Uncategorised Articles, and I would expect to continue this theme if promoted. Before committing any administrative action, I would 'enrol' myself in the new admin school which looks to be a very useful tool, as does the how-to guide. Having familiarised myself with those, I believe I would begin by taking on uncontroversial speedy deletions, such as those under criteria G1 (patent nonsense), G3 (vandalism) and G6 (technical deletions). I not infrequently come across pages which fall under other CSD criteria, and it would be useful to be able to remove them myself, instead of adding to the backlog. At the Help Desk, which I try to visit regularly, we often see editors asking why their page was deleted, and it would be good to have the ability to give them a more detailed answer (although there are a number of dedicated Help Desk administrators, I always find a few spares of anything handy!) I don't imagine I would be blocking anyone until I have a firm grip on the tools; I always try to start by giving the benefit of the doubt, but there are some cases where an editor must be blocked. Other areas where I think I could be useful include requests at WP:RFPP and WP:PERM.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I'm aware that featured articles and good articles add lustre to an RFA; unfortunately, that's not an area I have contributed in. I have one Did you know? credit, for Yilishen Tianxi Group. Other articles created from scratch are Noel Carroll (runner) and Downhill House. I tend to work on articles I come across at random through Recent Changes or WP:AFD, performing gnome-style edits and (hopefully) giving them a bit of a polish. I saw Aidan McAnespie at it's AFD and realised I had a reference text for it; several editors improved it enough that it was not deleted. I enjoyed seeing another aspect of AFD in that case. I also enjoy helping other editors where I can, particularly editors new to Wikipedia, and I hope that some of my contributions at the Help Desk, Reference Desks and in response to queries on talk pages have been useful to newcomers. I also enjoy taking photos, although I'm by no means skilled, and try to fill in gaps in Wikipedia where possible.

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

A: Although I generally keep my head down, I suspect that it's difficult to avoid all conflict in a place where so many people with so many different views come together. Two incidents stick out in my mind: an editor adding a large amount of what I believed was inappropriate text to an article followed up my removal by disputing the removal and suggesting that I was part of some kind of cover-up. In this case, I initiated a request for comment to get some additional views on the correct course of action. The second originated at the reference desk, where several editors, including myself, had a rather "difficult" discussion with a querant. To be honest, I'm still not sure whether this user had a genuine problem or not; several of his other questions were rather dubious. The user also appeared to be editing from one account while signing a different user's name. When I mentioned this, I didn't really get a positive response. The user was later blocked as a sockpuppet. I generally try to work from the assumption that new users are here with good intentions until they prove otherwise. In both cases, I did try to communicate the editors concerned and point them in the right direction: when I get too involved, I always remember that there are lots of other people who will be able to look at the situation with fresh eyes.

Additional optional questions from Pmlinediter

4a. What is your understanding of WP:IAR?

A: That it's not necessary to know and understand all of the rules at Wikipedia before you are able to edit. If that were the case, we might have a lot less problems, but also a lot less articles and contributors. In that sense, IAR is a direction to editors similar to our strapline, "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". Ignore all rules means: "Don't worry about learning all the policies straight off; jump in and edit something!"

Ignore All Rules isn't a free pass; it's a clause which allows us to work to create the best user-editable online encyclopedia we can. The "rules" (policies, guidelines etc.) which we have developed as a community should generally be followed. However, our policies and other documents are mostly descriptions of how things have been done in the past, and how they are being done in the present. It's possible that, in the future, we may need to do things differently. Ignore all rules gives us that flexibility.

4b. What is the difference between a block and a ban?

A: In the simplest sense, a block is a technical measure, while a ban is a social measure. A block prevents an editor from editing under a specific username or IP address (or range of addresses) and is initiated by an administrator. A ban is a statement that proscribes an editor from editing under any username or IP address and is put in place by the community or by the Arbitration Committee. Blocks may be used to enforce bans. Neither a block nor a ban is inherently permanent, although both have the potential to be indefinite, if the community so chooses. Both blocks and bans are intended to prevent damage and disruption to Wikipedia.

4c. What will you do if an indef-blocked user requests to be unblocked after 4 months promising that he will not make a mistake again?

A: If another administrator blocked the user, I would ask for their view. If I blocked the user, I would re-examine the edits that had got the user blocked. For example, if the user had been blocked per WP:LEGAL and their threat was still outstanding, they would have to retract it before being unblocked. If the case is one of simple vandalism, I might be inclined to give the user a second chance (depending on the severity and nature of the problem). I would, however, make it clear to them that they were on a short leash, so to speak, and would take a particular interest in their future editing. Mentoring or adoption may be beneficial for some editors in this case. If the block had been discussed/decided by the community, for example on the administrator's noticeboard, I would begin a discussion there to gather consensus on whether the block should be lifted.

4d. Checking your contribs, you've been inactive for large periods. Any specific reason for that? Will you take such wikibreaks in the future again?

A: I was inactive for a significant amount of last year for a number of reasons; the most significant being job-related. As you can see from this tool, a large number of my edits in 2007 were made between 9am and 5pm, as my job had long periods of downtime. At the end of 2007, I moved to a different job where I had no free time and no Internet access at work, so my editing dropped rather alarmingly. This spring, I changed jobs once again, and am in a similar situation to 2007: Internet access and quite a lot of time 'on duty', but with nothing to do, which is why my editing picked up. I can't promise that I will never leave Wikipedia again, but the nature of my employment has changed, and I don't expect a significant increase in hours or alteration in circumstances anytime in the near future.

Additional optional questions from S Marshall

5. Looking at Yannick Bressan, for which I see you're claiming credit as one of your contributions, what important piece of GFDL-related text has never appeared on the talk page of the article? Why does it matter, and how has Wikipedia's attitude to the GFDL changed since?

A: I think you are referring to the {{Translated page}} template, which is recommended to fulfil the attribution clause of the GFDL? I'm not sure how I missed that at the time; I'll fix my oversight now. It matters because, at the time, the original article was licensed under GFDL terms, one of the conditions of which require that the previous authors should be credited. The template supplies a link to the history of the original article. Last month, Wikipedia moved to a Creative Commons cc-by-sa license, with special exemptions to allow contributions licensed under GFDL to be ported to the cc-by-sa license (as the two licenses are incompatible). As I understand it, the change was made because Creative Commons licensing is felt to be a better 'fit' for Wikipedia than GFDL.

Additional optional questions from Groomtech

6. Do you believe that Wikipedians have rights? If so, what will you do to uphold them?

A: I believe that this a difficult question to answer. Wikipedians are people, and people generally have some rights, although not all people have the rights that I would like them to have (rights under the Geneva Conventions, for example). As Wikipedians, participating on Wikipedia, I believe that editors have certain abilities which might be termed 'rights', for example, the 'right' to edit the encyclopedia. However, these rights may be withdrawn, through blocking or banning the editor or protecting a page; as in real life, where rights which we may feel are fundamental are sometimes withdrawn. Whether we as individuals believe this is correct or not is another matter. Wikipedia has avenues through which users can exercise their natural and legal rights, which I don't believe are necessarily curtailed by Wikipedia participation. As regards upholding the rights of Wikipedians on Wikipedia, I would work to ensure that editors would have the ability to edit in a beneficial working environment, free (or as free as possible) from, for example, personal attacks or vandalism. However, I am not an expert, either in human rights or legal ones, and would encourage any editor who wishes to pursue these in relation to Wikipedia to consult an expert in the 'real world'.

Additional optional questions from ThaddeusB

7. What is your opinion about notability as it relates to the inclusion/exclusion of content on Wikipedia? That is, what do you think an ideal Wikipedia would look like in terms of content? Do you feel that anything the meets the general notability guidelines should be allowed, or do you feel that some things aren't notable even if they have been covered in depth by multiple reliable sources? Are there any types of articles that you feel are automatically notable, that is worthy of inclusion without having proof of in depth coverage in multiple reliable sources? (To be clear, I am looking for your personal opinion, and hopefully an insight to the way you think, not a restatement of current policy.)

A: I would consider myself neither an inclusionist or a deletionist, and try to judge articles on their individual merits. I don't believe there are many areas where I could make a sweeping judgement: "All articles on certainTopic are notable" or "All articles on otherTopic are not notable". I would say that there are certain things which, while technically meeting the GNG, are not useful article topics. For example, a speech made by a politician quite often is referenced in multiple, reliable, independent sources; at least where I live, every time a politician opens his/her mouth, there are articles in several newspapers about whatever they said. But are these enough to create a viable article? Would the article be useful, and will anyone be interested in what the Agriculture minister said about the price of cattle in six months? Often, the answer is no. An option in this case is to add the information to an existing article, but even then, Wikipedia isn't a place to indiscriminately put every scrap of information about everything that has ever happened. To a certain extent, the GNG does take this into account by adding the qualifier "it is presumed to satisfy...", but no, while I generally believe that the GNG is a useful guide for assessing the notability of a subject, I don't believe that every subject which technically follows the guideline is suitable for a standalone article.

As to the reverse situation, there are certainly articles on Wikipedia which do not show proof of in depth coverage in multiple, reliable sources (lots and lots, I expect). Our barrier for entry with regards notability is initially very low: an article must only say why it is notable to avoid deletion under speedy deletion criteria (although of course this only applies to certain types of articles). Ideally, over time, articles without verifiable proof of notability are identified, and either improved or removed. In reality, there are occasions when this doesn't happen, due to the sheer volume of content being created, sometimes by enthusiastic but inexperienced editors. There are subjects which, if I came across articles about them, I personally might consider notable, even if there is no proof of notability in the article. In those cases, the thing to do would be to attempt to find some proof. If I still can't find anything to satisfy GNG, at that point it becomes a matter for the community to judge., regardless of my personal opinion.

8. Along the same lines, please pick one of the current specific notability guidelines (SNGs) such as an element of WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:NF, WP:CORP, etc. and explain why you think the current guideline is or is not a good indication of notability.

A: I hope you don't mind, but I have chosen one of the SNGs not specifically mentioned in your question: Books. I think this is a reasonably useful notability guideline, but the issue of "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources" is complicated. Many books receive significant coverage when they are published, in the form of reviews, but this does not necessarily guarantee that they are appropriate subjects for a Wikipedia article, and the guideline not not appear to explicitly address this issue at the moment, aside from the generic instruction to treat it "with common sense and the occasional exception".

8a. First, I applaud you for choosing to admit you feel a guideline is currently deficient. The current BOOKS guideline says "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works ... published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles ... and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary." So pretty clearly being reviewed when it is first published is sufficient to meet the current guidelines. It seems you feel this is too inclusive, which is a perfectly legitimate opinion, however you haven't really explained why you feel this way. In other words, what makes some books (in your opinion) "inappropriate subjects" despite the requisite coverage.

A: Well, for example, looking at yesterday's (Sunday) papers in the UK, there is a book called "Eighty Years of Book Cover Design" by Joseph Connolly. It's review got the front page of The Observer books section and a feature in at least one other Sunday broadsheet (The Independent). It looks like a really interesting book; in fact, I might buy it. It might be useful in our Book cover article, but does the book itself warrant an article? At this stage, I'm not sure there's enough information to flesh out an article based on these two features. In my view, it does technically meet the "multiple [2], non-trivial [national newspaper]" criteria, but other editors may argue that significant coverage needs to be more... significant. It's possible that no-one will ever write about this book again after this week. It's also possible that this book will become a staple of the book publisher's trade, win lots of awards, and that I will be proved entirely wrong. I don't think it's always a hard and fast "yes, it's notable" or "no, it's not".

8b. One final follow up Q on this. Using the example, you cited Eighty Years of Book Cover Design, let's say that someone went ahead and created this page with somewhere between a couple lines and one paragraph of information. The information is basically just a synopsis of the book with 1 reference - The Observer article - and doesn't indicate importance. You come across this page on new page patrol. How would you proceed as an administrator? Speedy delete, tag for another admin to speedy, boldly merge the material into another page, mark the page as patrolled but contact the creator and explain it needs expansion/proof of notability, send to AfD, let someone else decide, or something else? Regardless of what you would personally do, which option(s) do you think appropriate/inappropriate?

Note: I didn't actually create the page - someone else saw my Q and created it and then linked my question. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

A: Ok, I possibly should've anticipated that might happen :-). If I came across this cold, I would contact the creator and ask if they had any more information on the book they could add. I would also see if I could expand the article in any way. As I mentioned above, the subject does technically meet the WP:BK guideline (by my reading of it, at least). The book was only published last week, so it's early days yet. In the long run, the article might be more appropriately redirected to the author's article, if no more information is forthcoming. Before I took any action, I would initiate a discussion, either on the article's talk page, or possibly on the more heavily trafficked talk page of WP:BK. At the moment, I would add that the book was commissioned by Faber to celebrate it's 80th birthday, which I think would serve as an initial assertion of notability. In this particular case, I don't think it's a complete disaster if the article sits as a stub for a little while, until we can see if more information will accumulate. (If you're looking for a yes/no on the options you provided: speedy delete/tag for speedy - no, I think an assertion of notability can be made; bold merge/AFD - no, in my opinion it meets WP:BK, and I'd like to see discussion before merging, at least with the creator if not community discussion, and if anything, a redirect would be more sensible than deletion; if I couldn't expand it myself, I probably would tag for expansion (after checking whether the original author could add anything more), come back in a few weeks and see if anything's changed.)

Additional optional questions from Kingpin

9a. You do some work in CSD (most of it seems very good, from what I've looked at). I'd like to ask you some questions about CSD. I accept that most of your taggings seem to be CSD G12, with some A7 and G3 taggings. Firstly; A page is created with the content "haha i rck. i beat chuck norris in a armrestel! alos i savd the earth form alien 10 time!" Does this page meet (A) CSD A7 (B) CSD G1 or (C) CSD G2? What would you personally tag it as (this doesn't have to be a,b or c)?

A: a) A7 (Assertion of notability) Well, it does assert notability, but that notability is not credible (Beat Chuck Norris? Never happen). Seriously, in this case, I think it's fairly clear that the claims of notability made are highly unlikely, and would feel that it meets criterion A7.

b)G1 (Patent nonsense) It's not patent nonsense. While poorly written and non-factual, it is legible.

c) G2 (Test pages) I think it depends in this case. I wouldn't tag it for deletion as a test page, as there are other criteria it meets more definitively. I would, however, take a look at the editors other contributions to try to work out if their intention was to test Wikipedia, or just to make a mess. If I believed they were just testing (and I generally try to take this view with new editors, except in the case of egregious and obvious vandalism), my communication with them would be somewhat different that it would with an editor who has a history of this kind of thing.

I would tag it A7 no credible assertion of notability. It may also be eligible under the misinformation clause of G3 vandalism.

9b. You tagged PICARD (spacecraft) as a copyvio. Although the site claims that "You may reproduce any content on this site for non-commercial purposes, provided you cite the source of the information" (note: I personally don't do massive copyvio work, although I've tagged a few G12s). Why did you tag this? Did you look around the site for copyright notices first?

A: I have to be honest: I can't remember my thoughts when I tagged this particular page. However, the Rights section you quote specifies that the work may be reproduced for non-commmercial purposes. Documents licensed for non-commercial use only are not considered to be "free" on Wikipedia. The Rights section goes on to say that "All text and images for which the provider has not been mentionned [sic] is assumed to be in the public domain" and asks that anyone who thinks they have rights to anything on the website to contact them. Reading it now, I take this to mean that they have obtained information under assumed public domain, but cannot guarantee that it is licensed in that form, and I would be inclined to give preference to the least "free" licensing on the safe side - the non-commercial license. I am guessing that my thoughts were similar at the time.

9c. What's your views on notifying users if they have miss-tagged a page? Do you think they should be contacted that their CSD tag was declined/modified?

A: I think users should be notified; although sometimes it's not fun to be told you're wrong, it is a useful learning experience. Wikipedia, more than most places, illustrates the breadth of knowledge that individuals have access to, not just in terms of the articles we write, but knowledge of Wikipedia itself. It's difficult (impossible?) to learn every aspect of Wikipedia, and sometimes we do make mistakes which need to be pointed out. Having said that, I think notification should usually take the form of a gentle nudge in the right direction, rather than a telling off.

Additional optional questions from SarekOfVulcan

10. While scanning the CSD queue, you come across the following article tagged as CSD-G1:

Navah Perlman was in my music theory class and she plays piano really great and I wish I had gotten to know her better but it's too late because she's married with four kids...

What do you do?

A: Well, first of all, in my opinion that doesn't qualify under CSD G1 (Patent nonsense). I would check the page history to see if the article existed with different content previously that it could be reverted to. If the article was newly created, check whether Navah Perlman is a notable pianist, or a notable anything else... and she is: Navah Perlman. However, if there was not currently an article on the subject but I found sources to suggest that the subject is notable, I would try to replace the content with at least a stub, based on the references I had found. I don't know a lot about concert pianists, so I would categorise the article appropriately so that more knowledgeable editors could find it. Then I would have a quiet word with the lovelorn article creator, and let the CSD tagger that the template had been removed and why.

Optional question from Juliancolton (talk · contribs).

11. Your answer to the previous IAR question was incorrect, and left me a bit uncomfortable. Could you please review that policy and take another shot at explaining it? Cheers.

Several editors have expressed concern at my answer to that question; my answer to it perhaps didn't clearly express what I was trying to express. Ignore all rules states that "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it". This is the part I was trying to explain in the second part of my answer, which obviously didn't work. We have policies and guidelines for a reason on Wikipedia, for the same reason we generally layout articles in a certain fashion --> Title > Lead > Body >References - consensus has decided that working within a particular structure is beneficial. Sometimes, however, those policies and guidelines get in the way of improving Wikipedia, which is where IAR comes into play. However, I have seen occasions when users explain their actions with IAR, even though those actions do not, in the judgement of the community, "improve or maintain Wikipedia", which is why I said that IAR is not a free pass. I don't think it should be used as an excuse for doing whatever you want, but there are clearly occasions when it is the appropriate action.

As for the first part of my answer: when I read around the subject of IAR, I was quite taken with the ideas expressed in several essays (linked below by Floquenbeam). When I arrived at Wikipedia, I had no real knowledge of how revolutionary it was; even though I had used the Internet for years, the idea of user-generated content on such a grand scale was completely new to me. The fact that you can just dive in, without getting permission or reading a manual (or even signing up to anything) is very appealing to many editors, including myself. I suppose that interpretation of IAR got stuck in my head when I was answering the question.

Additional optional questions from ThaddeusB

12. The nomination statement read in part that you regularly participate in AfDs, which appears to be factually inaccurate (not your fault, of course). It appears that you've only participated in about 5 in the last year. This probably isn't a major issue since you have expressed any desire to close AfDs. However, can you please clarify if you plan to close AfDs or not?

A:My user page mentions that I take part in AFD debates, although I have done so much recently, as you note. I would not consider closing an AFD debate unless or until I get back "into the swing of things" by participating in debates as an editor. If it is useful, there is an (incomplete) list of AFD debates I have initiated or taken part in here.

Non-question from Stifle

13. Kate isn't shorter than Bob!

C. It's a little sad how much effort I've just put into trying to find an appropriate Blackadder quote with which to respond. Perhaps readers can pick something funny from q:en:Blackadder and imagine that I wittily interleaved it with an answer here. In conclusion, I will simply say: yes it is (aha!) --K8shortforbob 10:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Optional question from Risker

14. Please select an instance brought to the community via any of the noticeboards where you have helped to resolve a situation discussed in a thread (not just commented, but actually helped to resolve the situation), and describe what you did that helped to resolve the situation. Thanks.

General comments

• Links for Kateshortforbob: Kateshortforbob (talk · contribs · deleted · count [quick] · logs · block log · lu · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · spi · search an, ani, cn, an3)
• Edit summary usage for Kateshortforbob can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Kateshortforbob before commenting.

Discussion

• Editing stats posted on talk page. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 12:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
• Please tell me support number 8 is a joke. I think we need a crat to state they will clearly disregard the support of someone who has backed it up by linking to our FAQ page - and indeed the section about why an organisation does not have a Wikipedia entry..... Dear me, it's no wonder I'm utterly sick of this place when we get stuff like that. Is it beyond us to read the work before linking? Clearly not. Pedro :  Chat  21:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• Hi Pedro. To be fair, until 6 days ago, WP:WHYNOT was a redirect to Wikipedia:WhyNot? Doctrine. It might be a little unfair to expect them to check a link that's been used countless times at RFA for the last 8 months to make sure it still redirects to the same place. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, in a sense I'd expect people to be aware of what they link to - but yes I agree that the recent change means ImperatorExercitus is not at all at fault. Sorry. Maybe s/he would like to tighten that link. Pedro :  Chat  22:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• I apologise for not having answered all of the questions yet, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to sleep for a few hours. I should be available again tomorrow from 1000 GMT, when I will attempt to answer all outstanding questions/queries. Thanks --Kateshortforbob 22:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. A glowing nomination statement from someone I trust; good question answers, and nothing dodgy from a review of recent contribs. Looks like a great candidate. ~ mazca ^talk 15:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
2. Seems to have clue. Stifle (talk) 15:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
3. Support - trustworthy and helpful editor. PhilKnight (talk) 15:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
4. Normally this is one I'd oppose for lack of work on large-scale articles, but I've seen enough of KS4B about to agree that this is someone who understands how things ought to work around here. – iridescent 15:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
5. Support Appears to be a trustworthy editor and a net positive.--Giants27 (c|s) 15:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
6. Support I don't see any problems. LittleMountain5 16:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
7. "Kate, short for Bob"? That wouldn't be a reference to The Black Adder, would it? Anyway, I'm ready to trust you even though you only have about 1k edits after April last year. You're by no means inexperienced, and I can find no problems looking at your contribs. Also, what Mazca said. Jafeluv (talk) 16:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
8. Support Can't find anything wrong, oppose isn't nearly enough, great project work...WP:WHYNOT? Cheers, I'^mperator 17:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

   Umm, I'm pretty sure you mean "why not" instead of WP:WHYNOT... :) Jafeluv (talk) 21:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

   ...or maybe WP:WTHN. :) LittleMountain5 23:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

   ...or maybe Imperator really is wondering why Wikipedia doesn't have an article on his organization? Law _{type! snype?} 19:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

   or maybe Imperator thinks that you all should simply look up at the discussion section? :P Cheers, I'^mperator 03:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

9. Support For strong work in copyright. Lack of audited contributions really is not and should not be a problem. Will make a good sysop. Good Luck. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
10. Support as I see nothing which indicates the tools would be abused, and quite a lot which shows they would be put to good use. Net positive by a wide margin, I believe. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
11. Support. I was going to go neutral over lack of, well, stuff, but then realised that 8000 is actually more than enough to judge whether this person is a good admin candidate (and I realised I was being hypocritical). All my interactions with the user have been positive (although not particularly numerous), so I've no doubt the the nominee will be a respectful admin. A bit liberal on the "minor edit" button, though. Should this pass, the canidate should also tread a bit more carefully than most because of lack of recent "janitorial" contributions (deletions, par exemple). - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 19:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
12. Support - Will make good use of the tools. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
13. Support. Good editor. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 20:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
14. Support seems to be a good editor who could make good use of the tools. Article work presented shows an understanding of core policies of original research and verifiability. Guest9999 (talk) 21:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
15. Support -- the IAR answer worried me, but its heart was definitely in the right place. Definitely appears to have a good handle on how things are done. Hmm, I think it's time for my first optional question. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

    Upping to strong support per hitting all the right notes (no pun intended) on the answer to Q10. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

16. Support; yeah, article work would be good, but the school needs janitors just as much as it does teachers. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

    However, and I mean no offense by this, but the answer to the IAR question was simply incorrect. I'd advise you to review WP:ARL should this pass. Good luck regardless. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

17. Support, after a fair bit of thought.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
18. Support I thought about this hard. I was concerned about the lack of article work on the merit that you shouldnt delete something if you havent developed an article on your own (but whats the basis?). But The previous csd work counteracts this. A helpful tone on the help desk and a dedication to the project are all reasons to support. I have no doubt Kate will be a fine admin. Ottawa4ever (talk) 23:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
19. Support.Hmm, tough this one with the lack of article experience (I cant talk lol!), but I think there is no specific reason not to support. Andy (talk) 23:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
20. Support I don't see a problem in supporting Kate. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 00:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
21. Support Where are people getting the idea that Kate hasn't created any articles? The RfA toolbox shows 5 articles created by Kate, most of them more or less singlehandedly, and they all look pretty good to me (no stubs or OR or "needs improvement" tags). Feel free to show me if I've made a mistake. (Note: to prevent others from running the (apparently rather resource-intensive) script again, here is the list of five: ASIL Lysi, SCIF Kyiv, Yilishen Tianxi Group, Downhill House, Noel Carroll (runner).) -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 01:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

    Absolutely. --Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 02:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC) User:Jauarbeck blocked as an impersonation account. Wknight94 ^talk 03:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

    Support. Great editor. TNXMan 02:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tnxmen307 (talk • contribs) User:Tnxmen307 blocked as an impersonation account. Wknight94 ^talk 03:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

22. Support. Solid, helpful editors generally make solid, helpful adminstrators. No logical reason to believe otherwise, IMO. Keeper | 76 04:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
23. AGF in spite of incorrect answer to question as JC pointed out. Pmlineditor 08:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
24. Support, no reason not to. I quite like the Blackadder reference as well :P Ironholds (talk) 10:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
25. Support please follow the suggestion to re-read WP:IAR, because your understanding their is incomplete. But this should not affect your efficianr handling of the tools. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 10:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
26. Support. Okay, the IAR answer was not accurate, and it'd be nice to see more article work. However, here is an editor who is helpful and mature. To me, content contributions are not directly related to adminship. It helps to have hands-on experience in article improvement, though, and knowing how to work with issues such as BLP violations, promotional material, and sourcing articles. Thus giving the admin a better sense with AFD discussions, edit war page-protection, and the like. As long as an editor has good underlying common sense, I have no worries if they lack GA/FAs. Kate will most likely do a great job with the admin tools. Jamie^☆S93 14:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
27. Support per Anthony.bradbury's comment above and discussion under "neutral" below. Ben MacDui 17:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
28. Support. Fully qualified candidate. I have considered the opposers' concerns and find them unpersuasive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
29. Always happy to support someone who's willing to work on copyvio categories and taking out the trash. Answers to Kingpin's CSD questions are good, and I any editor who doesn't hesitate to tag or delete copyvio with impunity gets an A (or an S, as it were) in my book. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
30. The evidence in the oppose section doesn't bother me. I feel Kateshortforbob adequately knows the policies related to the areas in which he/she plans to work as an admin, and communication is fine. Therefore, I'm happy to support this request. Timmeh 19:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
31. Looks good to me. Good luck. –BuickCenturyDriver 19:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
32. Support per several above, including Jamie and NYB. Good luck! GlassCobra 21:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
33. Support You are worthy enough to use the tools in my eyes. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
34. Support Excellent user Triplestop x3 22:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
35. Support No issues. America69 (talk) 22:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
36. Support I will support this one, given that no bogus or dressed-up claims about content contribution have been made. People who support the project in this way deserve recognition and help and - unless any further digging reveals something deeply unpleasant - I am pleased to support this one. Peter Damian (talk) 09:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
37. Weak Support I've thought about this for a while and I would like to see more content building but hopefully Kate can become a good admin. Aaroncrick (talk) 10:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
38. Support, despite weak clarification of a patently wrong Q4a answer. While I like to see admin candidates know policy inside and out, I don't think this swing-and-a-miss is cause for alarm. Article work is up to my standards; net positive for the project. Tan | 39 19:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
39. Support: A few minor errors. Nothing to make me want to scream and run away. He has a clue.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 01:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
40. Support as nominator. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 02:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
41. Support. Dekimasuよ! 04:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
42. Weak Support See no concerns and user track is okay and user has used rollback well.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
43. Support Everything that I've seen has been done right, good luck with the tools! Royalbroil 12:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
44. Support Looks fine to me. hmwithτ 12:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
45. Support - That 9b answer impressed me, a lot of editors aren't familiar with Wikipedia's noncommercial restrictions to this level of detail. --Explodicle (T/C) 16:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
46. Support without reservation. Candidate's record builds confidence that xe will use the tools well; the answers above are unusually thoughtful. -- Deville (Talk) 16:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
47. Support Great answers. Law _{type! snype?} 19:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
48. Support, no issues. Wizardman 20:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
49. Odd, I thought I supported a few days ago. I've reviewed their talk page and a decent sample of their recent edits, and find no problems. Also, I have hope that someday, wikignoming, category work, and copyright work will be considered "real" article work too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
50. Support. All looks well. —Coralmizu (Mizu onna sango15)^{Drop a line} 05:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
51.  Support— Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 05:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
52. Support. Article work is important but so is the incredible and thankless work of the networking of those articles to each other that make this project organic and dynamic. We need category workers and kind people to help newbies - who are so very easily abused - as well as those who can talk knuckleheads off the ledge. We each offer what we can and I see someone trustworthy to handle a mop. -- Banjeboi 09:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
53. Support. You will make a very fine admin; I have had this page watchlisted since before you went on your break and am so happy to see it pop-up at last. Nancy ^talk 15:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
54. Support - Good editor with great judgement. Admin tools will certainly come in handy. What else can I say? Good luck! Airplaneman (talk) 15:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
55. Support - I appreciate the thoughtful answers to the questions above. Jonathunder (talk) 17:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
56. I'm in agreement with Peter Damian here actually. Good luck... weburiedourdramainthegarden 19:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
57. Support - anyone who tries to save copyvio articles and fix them is a good user, and would no doubt be a fine admin. Bearian (talk) 22:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
58. Support - "Kate" has shown a reasonable level of dedication to the project, excellent reasoning skills, and an overall good temperament. I am sure he/she will make a thoughtful and overall excellent admin. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
59. Support Thoughtful answers to questions, exhibits maturity and good judgment. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
60. Support Feinoha ^{Talk, My master} 19:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
61. Support - Trustworthy user. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
62. Support - Garion96 (talk) 18:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
63. Support - I sense no major reason to be concerned. --candle•wicke 23:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
64. I remember when I granted you rollback: I'm delighted to see you running for adminship. Acalamari 02:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
65. Support No problems here. --Javért | ^Talk 07:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
66. Weak Support:Let me AGF here because I dont see any reason for concern for abuse of tools.Yes, Please concentrate more time for article development also. Thats what we are all here for -- Tinu Cherian - 10:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose Lack of article creation and content contribution experience. I also don't see much evidence of conflict resolution experience. The other work is greatly appreciated, but doesn't (in my opinion) establish a good foundation for getting and appropriately using the admin tools. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I haven't actually looked at the candidates work yet (I will before !voting), but from reading the nom statement, Kate/Bob seems to take part in AfD (admin area), copyright clearing up (nice to have the tools there I imagine), vandalism clear up (again, nice to have to tools), CSD tagging (we need more admins deleting these, it can take up to hours for blatant vandalism/attacks to be removed at times). On top of this, s/he works (with newbs(?)) at help desk. And you think that because they don't take part in two more areas (one of which isn't even related to adminship) they aren't going to use the tools correctly/in the right place? I get the feeling that were this to pass, Kate would work at exactly the right areas (CSD, AfD, AIV, RCP, NPP, SCV, HD), in exactly the right way. No admin works in every single area, don't except them to. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't support giving tools to people that may not use them properly. I am all for making a category of admin that has a tool set that doesn't include dealing with content disputes and blocking (except in cases of vandalism) but allows them to use the other tools. It's very difficult to rein in abusive admins, and when we give out tools to those who have quitely gnomed away, we really don't know what we'll get when it comes to dispute resolution do we? I don't want any more drama mongering admins who abuse their privledges. I don't have the desire to spend my time in endless arbcom hearings trying to get their actions corrected. I'm here to improve the encyclopedia. So I can only support candidates that I am confident have good judgment in sorting out disputes and who have demonstrated a likelihood that they will refrain from enacting disruptive and misguided blocks against good faith content contributors. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

That's fair enough; you're entitled to your opinion, me to mine. But I'll stress again that I don't think that just because there are some areas (or area) they haven't worked in means that they will abuse the tools, if they have worked in many, many, other areas, and have done very good in those areas that they do work in - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 21:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

If Kateshortforbob can convince me that they have the judgment and integrity to deal with content disputes properly, then I stand ready to support. The problem is that editors who don't do content and article building don't have to deal with the issues involved. So unless they seek dispute resolution out at wp:30 or other areas, it's very difficult to assess how they will handle them and whether they have enough perspective on the issues that are involved. Content building is also a critical part of encyclopedia, but I recognize there is room for other tasks and I appreciate their work in those areas and am not intending to demean those contributions, which is why I support the creation of separate adminship category for thsoe who don't want to or aren't experienced enough to deal with disputes. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Without passing a personal opinion on the topic or on the individuals you mentioned; I have to point out that the two admins you highlight above as abusive both had substantial content-creation and, in one case, dispute resolution experience at the time of their RfAs. While I don't deny we have some abusive and/or otherwise suboptimal admins, in almost all cases the problems that came up once they were given admin tools simply weren't evident beforehand. In many cases it's hard to identify the people who will abuse power until it is given to them; and I'm not convinced the criteria you're using here are actually any more helpful at identifying this than any other. Obviously you're welcome to disagree here and obviously do; but I'm interested in your thoughts on that. ~ mazca ^talk 22:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. You're probably right. I will hope for the best. I'm still concerned about experience and the limited content contributions. But on the other hand KSFB has done good work (apparently) in areas such as on the help desk. I had trimmed the bit where I called out those I feel are examples of bad behavior a few minutes before you commented. It didn't seem necessary or constructive to this process. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

1. Oppose per lack of content contributions and I didn't like the answer given on 4a, especially the first part. WP:IAR has to do with ignoring a rule if it prevents one from improving the encyclopedia. That has nothing to do with not knowing the rules in the first place. While I agree that one shouldn't have to know all the rules in the first place (I don't know if anyone knows all the rules), I don't think IAR has to do with knowledge of the rules. Sorry! Tavix |  Talk  18:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

   Hi Tavix. I won't argue about content contributions; I tend to disagree in general, but that's certainly a reasonable opinion to have. But I have to ask that you reconsider the majority of your oppose; you're saying you oppose, at least in part, because of how they worded their answer to a silly essay question. There are too many different opinions about too many things out there for us to demand that a candidate agree with us exactly on all the answers to all the questions. For example, two long-established essays disagree: Wikipedia:Understanding IAR#The essence of ignorance, and Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means#What "Ignore all rules" means. Shall I start opposing candidates who don't think that not having to know all the rules is a valid part of IAR? Between the two of us, who knows how many qualified candidates we could scupper by insisting that the candidates mirror our own opinions on every question. Kateshortforbob's opinion on a busywork question has almost nothing to do with what kind of admin they'll be. Sorry if this is unfairly directed at you; I see it a lot, and if I thought anything useful would ever come from a thread at WT:RFA, I'd raise it there instead. But since WT:RFA is useless for practical matters, I'm settling for trying to convince one reasonable person at a time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

2. Oppose - No more admin hopefuls with only a modicum of real article work. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
3. I'm sorry. With your lack of content work I'm not prepared to support - even though I have to say I like the user name :). Wikipedia is, at a fundamental level, based on work to the mainspace. There is no question that in reality admin tools do not apply to creating content - but one would expect a reasonable level of experience before granting the ability to remove others from having the ability to add to said content - eg. through BLOCK and PROTECT. M♠ssing Ace 21:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
4. Oppose per poor article building and lack of talk page usages.--Caspian blue 00:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
5. Oppose the lack of work on articles and talk pages makes it difficult to know whether you have full knowledge of Wikipedia policies which regard content contributions (which an admin is called upon to apply in many administrative decisions) and actually apply them in practice, not just in answering questions. Thus, I do not know whether I can trust you as an admin. I understand that you may only to intend to use the tools to further your reference and category work, but we don't hand out limited adminships. In addition, talk page measures communication skills, utterly necessary to an admin. I just don't have enough, so I have to oppose.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

   However see my support above, noting that no claims about content contribution have been made. If someone comes to RfA and says they have been doing clean-up work and that's it, that is quite different from the FlyingToaster or 'Dave' or Julian Colton type applications, where abysmal content work is paraded is justification for support by the 'community'. Just a thought. Peter Damian (talk) 09:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the thought. I believe I have grounds to oppose and am specifically stating how I feel that relates to adminship. Can't imagine why I feel the need to do that.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

#Neutral Im torn. I havent seen any huge amount of article development here. I think its important to develop an article yourself before being able to press the deletion button on an article. I may be missing something in the contribution summary. I am not steering towards oppose however. More than anything Im leaning towards support. I like the work Kate has done with the help desk in the past. And Kate has provided good judgement on CSD to my awareness. So Im torn. Ottawa4ever (talk) 22:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC) I think theres no reason not to support here. I trust the tools will not be abused here. I think Kate will do a fine job. Ottawa4ever (talk) 23:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

1. Uncertain I'm wimping out on my oppose for now and moving to neutral pending further discussion. I have concerns about the limited experience shown in content building, dispute resolution and demonstrating you will exercise restraint and good judgment. But you seem decent and nice enough maybe to do the job. I'd hate to hold the crappy admins that have snuck through in the past against you. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
2. Well, per your answer to Q9c consider this a "gentle nudge in the right direction". I disagree with your answer to Q9a; Basically, deleting as WP:CSD#A7 is the worse option, and could likely be challenged, since it's a judgement call, whereas, since it's an obvious hoax (i.e. misinformation) I think G3 would be more appropriate (the page is obvious misinformation, as the person hasn't saved the earth from aliens 10 times). Also, per your understanding of IAR. But I don't think this is sufficient to oppose on because (a) your CSD work is, in practice, very good (I checked a most of your taggings since mid-March), (b) you do do a lot of G12 noms, and we need more admins working there, and (c) you seem helpful to new editors (you seem to have interacted with some new editors who have had "their" page deleted). I'd like to see this pass, but I'm not going to push either way. And since I feel I should point out your error in your answer to my question, here I am in neutral :) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 10:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

   "A7 doesn't actually require the claim to be credible" - the description says "The criterion does apply if the claim of significance or importance given is not credible", so as far as I can see the tagging would be perfectly valid. Olaf Davis (talk) 11:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

   Meh, I really don't know what I was thinking when I wrote that out. All my wording was wrong. Fixed - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 11:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

   Neutral. (changed to "support"). I can see very little in the above that would lead me to oppose your candidature and a great deal to support. However, I visited your User page and I have what might be a difficult, even impertinent question. First of all, I loved the page - the difficulties of electronic communication sometimes lead me to think we are largely folk who have had a sense of humor by-pass, so congratulations on having a GSOH. However, I noticed your user box (under the stellar heading "The poor old ostrich died for nothing") claiming that you suffer from AvPD. I note that according to an occasionally reliable source that one of the symptoms is "Avoids occupational activities that involve significant interpersonal contact, because of fears of criticism, disapproval, or rejection." Now there is very little in your editing record that suggest this, and it may be that this box is another of your misleading little jokes. However if this condition is serious you might find life as an administrator, which regularly involves making unpopular decisions, a little taxing. I'd value a reply and my sincere apologies for any embarrassment caused. Ben MacDui 12:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

   Hi Ben MacDui. I know responding to participants in these sections is sometimes frowned upon, but as you asked the question here, I hope you don't mind me answering here. I made the userbox, along with a couple of others at the same time, to try out (very) simple coding on Wikipedia, and because I noticed in passing that it was "missing" from a number of similar UBXs. It refers to a issue I really had when I was younger; these days it's not really something that figures into my daily life - I spend a lot of time supervising young people, and some time teaching, and I don't consider AvPD a significant issue these days. That said, on Wikipedia, I have gravitated towards quieter/less contentious areas, mostly because of the gnome-y type work I started with here. I have considered replacing the UBX (you can never have too many geeky references to cult tv shows, after all), but I never felt strongly enough to do so, and I didn't believe it really impinged on my Wikipedia editing. (As a side-note, I really hope I'm not leaving misleading little jokes all over WP. Jokes sometimes - although I've told my sense of humour leaves a lot to be desired :( - but I don't think my intention has been to be misleading. Please let me know if anything came across otherwise.) Hope this answers your question --Kateshortforbob 12:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

   1) I don't at all mind you answering here.

   2) I entirely accept your answer and have moved to support as you can see.

   3) Re misleading jokes - this was a glib reference to your user page e.g. per "dead ostriches" etc. above. I did not intend to imply you were making misleading edits to articles and I apologise if you (or anyone else) thought I might have been. As I hope the above makes clear, I hope you won't be put off exercising your humour to the merriment of most (at the risk of displeasure for a few). Ben MacDui 17:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

   re 3) I actually hadn't looked at my user page in a while - I'd forgotten what it looked like! Thanks for explaining (and for commenting) --Kateshortforbob 17:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

3. I usually oppose based on lack of content creation/contributions, but you're an otherwise exemplary candidate. Please find some experience in this area, and I'll be happy to support you in future. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  17:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
4. Yeah, neutral per lack of article creation/development work. A single GA is not too high a bar for someone with your other contributions. No real concerns, I just prefer to see every admin have walked a mile in the hypothetical average content creator's shoes. Jclemens (talk) 04:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
5. Neutral. I, too, am concerned by the mediocre content creation. Otherwise, Kateshortforbob has good contributions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
6. Neutral I too am not satisfied with the answer to Q9a. To me, " I have saved the earth 10 times" is utter nonsense, though the words do form an English sentence. I would unhesitatingly and even singlehandedly (& I'm very hesitant about singlehanded deletions--but not for junk like that) delete such an article as Vandalism. It is not a good faith attempt to add content to the encyclopedia. An admin has to know what is appropriate to keep, but also what is worth getting rid of in the strongest way. I think some more experience would be helpful. I see this just as Kingpin does, and like him, I'm not willing to actually oppose. DGG (talk) 19:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

---

About RfB

Shortcut: WP:RFB

Requests for bureaucratship (RfB) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become bureaucrats, users with the ability to make other users admins or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here. They can also change the user name of most users and can grant or remove bot status on an account.

The process for bureaucrats is similar to that for adminship above; however the expectation for promotion to bureaucratship is significantly higher than for admin, requiring a clearer consensus. In general, the threshold for consensus is 90%, those below 85% will fail and the rest are within the bureaucrat's discretion. Bureaucrats are expected to determine consensus in difficult cases and be ready to explain their decisions.

Create a new RfB page as you would for an RfA, and insert {{subst:RfB|User=USERNAME|Description=YOUR DESCRIPTION OF THE USER ~~~~}} into it, then answer the questions. New bureaucrats are recorded at Wikipedia:Successful bureaucratship candidacies. Failed nominations are at Wikipedia:Unsuccessful bureaucratship candidacies.

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

While canvassing for support is frowned upon (to the extent that canvassing editors have had their RfBs fail), some users find it helpful to place {{RfX-notice|b}} on their userpages. Such declarations are most definitely allowed.

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

Current nominations for bureaucratship

---

There are no current nominations.

---

Related pages

• Requests for self-de-adminship can be made at m:Steward requests/Permissions.
• Requests to mark an account as a bot can be made at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval.
• Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship - Requests for comment on possible misuse of sysop privileges, as well as a summary of rejected proposals for de-adminship processes and a list of past cases of de-adminship.
• Wikipedia:Miniguide to requests for adminship