Wikipedia:Requests for adminship: Difference between revisions
- Адыгэбзэ
- Адыгабзэ
- ak:Wikipedia:Administrators
- Ænglisc
- Аԥсшәа
- العربية
- Aragonés
- অসমীয়া
- Asturianu
- Авар
- تۆرکجه
- বাংলা
- Беларуская
- भोजपुरी
- Български
- བོད་ཡིག
- Bosanski
- Буряад
- Català
- Cebuano
- Čeština
- Dansk
- الدارجة
- Deutsch
- ދިވެހިބަސް
- डोटेली
- Eesti
- Ελληνικά
- Emiliàn e rumagnòl
- Español
- Esperanto
- Estremeñu
- Eʋegbe
- فارسی
- Føroyskt
- Français
- Gaeilge
- Galego
- ГӀалгӀай
- 贛語
- ગુજરાતી
- 𐌲𐌿𐍄𐌹𐍃𐌺
- 客家語/Hak-kâ-ngî
- 한국어
- Hawaiʻi
- Հայերեն
- हिन्दी
- Hrvatski
- Ido
- Igbo
- বিষ্ণুপ্রিয়া মণিপুরী
- Bahasa Indonesia
- IsiXhosa
- IsiZulu
- Italiano
- עברית
- Jawa
- Kabɩyɛ
- ಕನ್ನಡ
- ქართული
- कॉशुर / کٲشُر
- Қазақша
- Kurdî
- Ladino
- Лакку
- ລາວ
- Latina
- Latviešu
- Lëtzebuergesch
- Lietuvių
- Ligure
- Lombard
- मैथिली
- Македонски
- മലയാളം
- Malti
- Māori
- मराठी
- მარგალური
- مصرى
- ဘာသာမန်
- Bahasa Melayu
- Mirandés
- Монгол
- မြန်မာဘာသာ
- Dorerin Naoero
- Nederlands
- Nedersaksies
- नेपाली
- 日本語
- Нохчийн
- Occitan
- ଓଡ଼ିଆ
- Oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча
- ਪੰਜਾਬੀ
- Pälzisch
- ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ
- پښتو
- Перем коми
- ភាសាខ្មែរ
- Plattdüütsch
- Polski
- Português
- Ripoarisch
- Română
- Romani čhib
- Runa Simi
- Русиньскый
- Русский
- Sakizaya
- संस्कृतम्
- Sängö
- ᱥᱟᱱᱛᱟᱲᱤ
- Sardu
- Scots
- Seediq
- Sesotho
- Shqip
- سنڌي
- Slovenčina
- Slovenščina
- Ślůnski
- Soomaaliga
- کوردی
- Српски / srpski
- Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
- Svenska
- Tagalog
- தமிழ்
- Татарча / tatarça
- ၽႃႇသႃႇတႆး
- Tayal
- తెలుగు
- ไทย
- ትግርኛ
- Тоҷикӣ
- ತುಳು
- Türkçe
- Türkmençe
- Twi
- Тыва дыл
- Удмурт
- Українська
- اردو
- Vèneto
- Tiếng Việt
- 文言
- 文言
- Winaray
- 吴语
- ייִדיש
- Yorùbá
- 粵語
- 粵語
- Žemaitėška
- 中文
- Betawi
→Current nominations for adminship: removing withdrawn request |
Redirect breaking the bot again |
||
Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
{{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Anthony.bradbury}} |
{{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Anthony.bradbury}} |
||
---- |
---- |
||
{{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/HighInBC |
{{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/HighInBC 2}} |
||
---- |
---- |
||
{{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Renesis13}} |
{{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Renesis13}} |
Revision as of 18:58, 26 November 2006
↓↓Skip to current nominations for adminship |
Advice, requests for adminship (RfA), bureaucratship (RfB), and past request archives (search) | |
---|---|
Administrators | |
RfA analysis |
|
Bureaucrats |
|
Useful pages | |
Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated. |
![]() | Proposals to reform the Request for Adminship process are currently under discussion. |
RfA candidate | S | O | N | S % | Status | Ending (UTC) | Time left | Dups? | Report |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Gogo Dodo | 65 | 2 | 0 | 97 | Successful | Error parsing end time | no | report | |
Sandstein | 58 | 3 | 0 | 95 | Successful | Error parsing end time | no | report | |
Anthony.bradbury | 36 | 21 | 0 | 63 | Unsuccessful | Error parsing end time | no | report | |
HighInBC | 76 | 1 | 0 | 99 | Successful | Error parsing end time | no | report | |
Renesis13 | 27 | 6 | 0 | 82 | Successful | Error parsing end time | no | report | |
Nae'blis | 104 | 0 | 0 | 100 | Successful | Error parsing end time | no | report | |
Viridae | 48 | 1 | 0 | 98 | Successful | Error parsing end time | no | report | |
Kafziel | 74 | 22 | 0 | 77 | Unsuccessful | Error parsing end time | no | report |
RfA candidate | S | O | N | S % | Status | Ending (UTC) | Time left | Dups? | Report |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Gogo Dodo | 65 | 2 | 0 | 97 | Successful | Error parsing end time | no | report | |
Sandstein | 58 | 3 | 0 | 95 | Successful | Error parsing end time | no | report | |
Anthony.bradbury | 36 | 21 | 0 | 63 | Unsuccessful | Error parsing end time | no | report | |
HighInBC | 76 | 1 | 0 | 99 | Successful | Error parsing end time | no | report | |
Renesis13 | 27 | 6 | 0 | 82 | Successful | Error parsing end time | no | report | |
Nae'blis | 104 | 0 | 0 | 100 | Successful | Error parsing end time | no | report | |
Viridae | 48 | 1 | 0 | 98 | Successful | Error parsing end time | no | report | |
Kafziel | 74 | 22 | 0 | 77 | Unsuccessful | Error parsing end time | no | report |
Requests for adminship (RfA) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become administrators (also known as admins), who are users with access to additional technical features that aid in maintenance. Users can either submit their own requests for adminship (self-nomination) or may be nominated by other users. Please be familiar with the administrators' reading list, how-to guide, and guide to requests for adminship before submitting your request. Also, consider asking the community about your chances of passing an RfA.
This page also hosts requests for bureaucratship (RfB), where new bureaucrats are selected.
If you are new to participating in a request for adminship, or are not sure how to gauge the candidate, then kindly go through this mini guide for RfA voters before you participate.
There is an experimental process that you may choose to use to become an administrator instead of this process, called administrator elections. Details are still being worked out, but it is approved for one trial run which will likely take place in 2024.
About administrators
The additional features granted to administrators are considered to require a high level of trust from the community. While administrative actions are publicly logged and can be reverted by other administrators just as other edits can be, the actions of administrators involve features that can affect the entire site. Among other functions, administrators are responsible for blocking users from editing, controlling page protection, and deleting pages. However, they are not the final arbiters in content disputes and do not have special powers to decide on content matters, except to enforce the community consensus and the Arbitration Commitee rulings by protecting or deleting pages and applying sanctions to users.
About RfA
Candidate | Type | Result | Date of close | Tally | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
S | O | N | % | ||||
HouseBlaster | RfA | Successful | 23 Jun 2024 | 153 | 27 | 8 | 85 |
Pickersgill-Cunliffe | RfA | Successful | 15 Jun 2024 | 201 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
Elli | RfA | Successful | 7 Jun 2024 | 207 | 6 | 3 | 97 |
DreamRimmer | RfA | Withdrawn by candidate | 31 May 2024 | 45 | 43 | 14 | 51 |
Numberguy6 | RfA | Closed per WP:SNOW | 27 May 2024 | 5 | 23 | 2 | 18 |
ToadetteEdit | RfA | Closed per WP:NOTNOW | 30 Apr 2024 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
The community grants administrator access to trusted users, so nominees should have been on Wikipedia long enough for people to determine whether they are trustworthy. Administrators are held to high standards of conduct because other editors often turn to them for help and advice, and because they have access to tools that can have a negative impact on users or content if carelessly applied.
Nomination standards
The only formal prerequisite for adminship is having an extended confirmed account on Wikipedia (500 edits and 30 days of experience).[1] However, the community usually looks for candidates with much more experience and those without are generally unlikely to succeed at gaining adminship. The community looks for a variety of factors in candidates and discussion can be intense. To get an insight of what the community is looking for, you could review some successful and some unsuccessful RfAs, or start an RfA candidate poll.
If you are unsure about nominating yourself or another user for adminship, you may first wish to consult a few editors you respect to get an idea of what the community might think of your request. There is also a list of editors willing to consider nominating you. Editors interested in becoming administrators might explore adoption by a more experienced user to gain experience. They may also add themselves to Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls; a list of names and some additional information are automatically maintained at Wikipedia:List of administrator hopefuls. The RfA guide and the miniguide might be helpful, while Advice for RfA candidates will let you evaluate whether or not you are ready to be an admin.
Nominations
To nominate either yourself or another user for adminship, follow these instructions. If you wish to nominate someone else, check with them before making the nomination page. Nominations may only be added by the candidate or after the candidate has signed the acceptance of the nomination.
Notice of RfA
Some candidates display the {{RfX-notice}}
on their userpages. Also, per community consensus, RfAs are to be advertised on MediaWiki:Watchlist-messages and Template:Centralized discussion. The watchlist notice will only be visible to you if your user interface language is set to (plain) en
.
Expressing opinions
All Wikipedians—including those without an account or not logged in ("anons")—are welcome to comment and ask questions in an RfA. Numerated (#) "votes" in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections may only be placed by editors with an extended confirmed account[2] and only after the RfA has been open for 48 hours.[3]
If you are relatively new to contributing to Wikipedia, or if you have not yet participated on many RfAs, please consider first reading "Advice for RfA voters".
There is a limit of two questions per editor, with relevant follow-ups permitted. The two-question limit cannot be circumvented by asking questions that require multiple answers (e.g. asking the candidate what they would do in each of five scenarios). The candidate may respond to the comments of others. Certain comments may be discounted if there are suspicions of fraud; these may be the contributions of very new editors, sockpuppets, or meatpuppets. Please explain your opinion by including a short explanation of your reasoning. Your input (positive or negative) will carry more weight if supported by evidence.
To add a comment, click the "Voice your opinion" link for the candidate. Always be respectful towards others in your comments. Constructive criticism will help the candidate make proper adjustments and possibly fare better in a future RfA attempt. Note that bureaucrats have been authorized by the community to clerk at RfA, so they may appropriately deal with comments and !votes which they deem to be inappropriate. You may wish to review arguments to avoid in adminship discussions. Irrelevant questions may be removed or ignored, so please stay on topic.
The RfA process attracts many Wikipedians and some may routinely oppose many or most requests; other editors routinely support many or most requests. Although the community currently endorses the right of every Wikipedian with an account to participate, one-sided approaches to RfA voting have been labeled as "trolling" by some. Before commenting or responding to comments (especially to Oppose comments with uncommon rationales or which feel like baiting) consider whether others are likely to treat it as influential, and whether RfA is an appropriate forum for your point. Try hard not to fan the fire. Remember, the bureaucrats who close discussions have considerable experience and give more weight to constructive comments than unproductive ones.
Discussion, decision, and closing procedures
Most nominations will remain active for a minimum of seven days from the time the nomination is posted on this page, during which users give their opinions, ask questions, and make comments. This discussion process is not a vote (it is sometimes referred to as a !vote, using the computer science negation symbol). At the end of the discussion period, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether there is a consensus for promotion. Consensus at RfA is not determined by surpassing a numerical threshold, but by the strength of rationales presented. In practice, most RfAs above 75% support pass.
In December 2015 the community determined that in general, RfAs that finish between 65 and 75% support are subject to the discretion of bureaucrats (so, therefore, almost all RfAs below 65% will fail). However, a request for adminship is first and foremost a consensus-building process.[4] In calculating an RfA's percentage, only numbered Support and Oppose comments are considered. Neutral comments are ignored for calculating an RfA's percentage, but they (and other relevant information) are considered for determining consensus by the closing bureaucrat.
In nominations where consensus is unclear, detailed explanations behind Support or Oppose comments will have more impact than positions with no explanations or simple comments such as "yep" and "no way".[5] A nomination may be closed as successful only by bureaucrats. In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats may extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination to make consensus clearer. They may also close nominations early if success is unlikely and leaving the application open has no likely benefit, and the candidate may withdraw their application at any time for any reason.
If uncontroversial, any user in good standing can close a request that has no chance of passing in accordance with WP:SNOW or WP:NOTNOW. Do not close any requests that you have taken part in, or those that have even a slim chance of passing, unless you are the candidate and you are withdrawing your application. In the case of vandalism, improper formatting, or a declined or withdrawn nomination, non-bureaucrats may also delist a nomination. A list of procedures to close an RfA may be found at WP:Bureaucrats. If your nomination fails, then please wait for a reasonable period of time before renominating yourself or accepting another nomination. Some candidates have tried again and succeeded within three months, but many editors prefer to wait considerably longer before reapplying.
Current nominations for adminship
Current time is 18:18:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated. |
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.
Gogo Dodo
Final (65/2/5) Ended Sat, 02 Dec 2006 10:07:59 (UTC)
Gogo Dodo (talk · contribs) – It is my pleasure to nominate Gogo Dodo for adminship on Wikipedia. Gogo joined Wikipedia on April 15, 2006, and has made over 10,000 valued contributions to the encyclopedia. I first encountered the user at WP:AIV, where he frequently reported misbehaving vandals. Unlike many others, Gogo's reports [1][2] were accurate and helpful to admins such as myself. Gogo is a friendly, civil, helpful user who is courteous and polite to all users (whether it be the vandals or the experienced editors). Gogo is not only a fantastic vandal-fighter[3][4][5] , but he is a valued contributor to the article[6][7] and project namespaces[8][9][10]. For all of these reasons, I have strong confidence in Gogo Dodo, and I believe he will make out to be an exceptional admin. Nishkid64 18:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: It is an honor to be nominated. I accept. -- Gogo Dodo 08:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
- 1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
- A: As a vandal fighter, my initial focus would be in areas that I am most familiar with: WP:AIV, CAT:CSD, WP:RFPP and CAT:RFU. I would read WP:AN and participate in the discussions/actions after learning the process by observing the senior administrators. It has been awhile since I have participated in WP:AfD, but after observing senior administrators close discussions and understanding the usual process flow, I would like to help there, other XfD areas and CAT:PROD. Beyond that, I would help wherever there is a backlog. I would like to contribute wherever I am needed.
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A: I am admittedly not a great content contributor to Wikipedia (you're not likely to see a FA coming from me anytime soon), but I have made what I feel are useful contributions. I wrote most of the episode descriptions for Survivor: Panama and Survivor: Cook Islands. I have also done substantial work on List of The Unit episodes, List of Dirty Jobs episodes, and List of Deadliest Catch episodes. I try to do various Wikignome things after reverting vandalism like adding Infoboxes to vandalized high school pages and other cleanups.
- 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
- A: I have not been involved in any major conflicts. The closest would be that I started the Wikipedia side of the incident with Rory096. See the ANI archive and Rory's 2nd RfA for details. Other conflicts I have had have been resolved on the relevant Talk pages without any major issue. Before I had registered, I did have a conflict with another IP that I resolved by going to WP:3O.
- As for dealing with future stress, if things get heated, I walk away for a bit, think about the situation if it's something I have not encountered before, try to make a logical argument in defense of my position, try to solve the problem, and then determine what I have learned once the situation is handled. If that doesn't work, there is always a longer walk and a bowl of ice cream. =) I try to look for the humor in any situation and keep a good positive outlook on things.
- 4. Optional question from James086:
Would becoming an admin help you in discussions or content disputes? i.e. should people listen to you more if you become an admin in XfD, content disputes, on talk pages and other similar discussions?- A: No, being an admin does not give an editor a bigger voice with regards to editing on Wikipedia. My input on content disputes or XfD would be just as valuable as an anonymous editor or one who just created their account. I would hope that my arguments supporting my stand on an XfD or content disputes would convince people that I am correct or at least accept my point of view. If I'm wrong, I would hope an editor would point that out. Unfortunately, there probably will be an inadvertent time when merely being an admin will carry extra weight due to a new editor figuring that being an admin makes my position correct or the end of the discussion. If you're asking "Would you throw your admin status around?" No, of course not. I'm not one who would say "I am admin, bow before me." =)
- General comments
- See Gogo Dodo's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
Discussion
Support
- Support Seems to be a very proficient vandal fighter and is just the sort of person who would use the tools right without making a big deal. Also impressive in other areas. Looking at the talk page, also seems to be very willing to offer help when it is asked for - which is very often, I might add. Bubba hotep 09:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Edit conflict Support Looks like a good vandalfighter with a good spread of edits in the main spaces. (aeropagitica) 09:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I'm satisfied with the approach you take to vandal-fighting, and impressed with how frequently you take the time to warn vandals appropriately. I see no red flags, so there's no apparent reason not to support. :) Daveydweeb (chat/review!) 11:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I went hunting through the user's last 3 months of activity looking for red flags, but wasn't able to find anything concerning. Indeed, I came across a competence, humility and lightheartedness that made me reasonably comfortable. Gogo, you seem to be doing a great job. If you want to pick up the mop, I have no issue with it. --Brad Beattie (talk) 11:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thought you already had the bit support. Excellent vandal whacking and wonderful demeanor when dealing with others; unlikely to abuse the tools. Shell babelfish 13:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 13:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I am Seadog ♪ and I support this message.
- Support always see him reporting vandals, can't see why not. Good luck! --Majorly (Talk) 14:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support seems like a very great candidate, give him a mop! ← ANAS Talk 14:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per above. Dedicated editor, good record, no concerns. Newyorkbrad 15:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support looks good to me. -- danntm T C 16:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Terence Ong (C | R) 16:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A great vandal fighter and contributor to the 'Pedia. –- kungming·2 (Talk) 17:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Seen this user whacking vandals many times. Good work. --Húsönd 18:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Looks good. NauticaShades 19:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- edit conflicted Support - whee, vandal stomper. And an article writer. Yes please. riana_dzasta 19:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator Support. Somehow, I ended up as support #17 instead of Support #1 lol. Nishkid64 21:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support; user is a fine all-around contributor and a proficient countervandal, has need of the tools. Heimstern Läufer 21:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - he is an experienced editor and vandal fighter, and I am glad that he has been honest about his experience at WP:Afd. 0L1 Talk Contribs 21:53 25/11/2006 (UTC)
- Support - We need more dedicated vandal fighters, and they need the tools. Ed-it 22:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support; seems obvious to me. Will be a fine admin. Antandrus (talk) 22:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Running around with no pants on SUPPORT!; I was about to nominate this user myself, but I was beaten to the punch. :) -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 22:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Slay vandal, win vote. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 22:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support due to the answers to questions (that was exactly what I was asking) and his civility with vandals. James086 Talk | Contribs 06:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- support --Dario vet 13:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support User is a good vandal-fighter, and I'm sure this user will also make a terrific adminstrator. Hello32020 15:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Go get a life! You've only been around since April, and you've made 10,000 edits. That's 50 edits a day- one every 30 minutes of your life, including sleeping. So go get a life! Then again, if you REALLY want to become an admin, which will make you make many more edits and rot your brain.... then I support you for adminship. I'm really supporting you- that was just a comment. :) SupaStarGirl 16:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, may I know what is your official stand here? Do you support or oppose this nomination? --Siva1979Talk to me 17:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 17:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- --Rudjek 18:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Dedicated vandal-fighter Dinojerm 19:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 20:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Strong candidate, Vandal fighter who could use the tools. Canadian-Bacon t c 22:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, dedicated vandal-mopper, obvious need for the extra tools. Kuru talk 01:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, very careful and polite vandal fighter-- the way it should be done. We could only benefit from making him admin. Ashibaka tock 02:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks good. Sharkface217 02:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- support prety good user. Cocoaguy: Talk 03:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Frickin' awesome....! Kyo cat¿Qué tal?♥meow! 03:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Axl 08:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looking at the contribution record, I like all the vandalism reverts. I think we can benefit from your adminship. Please treat the office with respect. StayinAnon 08:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merovingian ※ Talk 09:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good editor and vandal fighter. -- Szvest Ω Wiki Me Up ® 14:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Wikipedia will benefit with Gogo Dodo as an admin. Rettetast 20:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, very catchy username, and always good at AIV. DVD+ R/W 00:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, good vandal fighter, we need more admins with kind of dedication 10000 edits shows. Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 01:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. This user is great vandal-fighter, as everyone else has said, and takes the time to use the correct warning, usually with the "-n" informative add-on. Additionally, s/he is always civil. Srose (talk) 01:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Bucketsofg 03:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support MER-C 06:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Casper2k3 07:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support strong candidate who seems very dedicated to cleaning up vandalism.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 20:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support John254 01:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support reverting vandalism is a good thing. Wiki Warfare to Infinity 03:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support admin tools help with vandalfighting. --Daniel Olsen 20:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good contributer and an asset to Wikipedia. Dfrg.msc 1 . 2 . 3 21:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Vandal fighter and polite? With 10K edits? Heartily support. IronDuke 04:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support--MustTC 07:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support for The Alliance, of course. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--dario vet ^_^ (talk) 12:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)- duplicate !vote - Tangotango 12:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support- No reason not to. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support- I have come across Gogo many times in the Survivor articles. He is always active in inmproving, editing, discussing arguments, and just being a great editor. editor review me!-TeckWizTalkContribs# of Edits 23:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support Vandal fighter? Yes sir! JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 01:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Friendly, impartial and policy abiding vandal fighter! Memmke 09:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Gogogogogogo! — CharlotteWebb 15:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support due to good editing and wonderful Tiny Toons username. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. We need more fearless mopslingers like Gogo Dodo. Sandstein 18:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Supporti'm not familiar with this user so i'm basing my vote on the answers to the questions and the user's talk page. it seems like this person is always ready to lend a helping hand. i'm a new user and i think that'll help me too.good luck! - RebSkii 19:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Oppose The majority of this user's support for adminship comes from his vandalism reverts. While a noble and needed cause this does not, in my opinion, qualify a person. User does not demostrate that he is fluent in the real requirements of an admin: indepth sysop understanding, an ability to understand and participate in article writing, dispute resolution, the often delicate art of combating POV and a firm grounding in enforement of the policies of wikipedia outside of blatant vandalism. There is no real established way that wikipedia will be improved my giving these types of users the reins of adminship. Despite this I heartily thank Gogo Dodo for his user level efforts at improving wikipedia. NeoFreak 22:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Stomping, fighting, and so on, have nothing to do with building an encyclopedia. ... aa:talk 19:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Care to elaborate? NeoFreak 20:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I'd like to know too. It has everything to do with maintaining it, which is what admin has the tools to do - like swatting vandals fast. Bubba hotep 20:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Avriette does not realise that adminship has nothing to do with building an encyclopedia, and has opposed for the same reasons many times before [11], [12], [13] on the same basis that this is an encyclopedia. Correct, it is, but this site would collapse without users keeping it correct, and admins are there to help enforce this. --Majorly 20:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If they have no experience with articles and policy, how do they know what they're enforcing? Zocky | picture popups 15:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally, I believe either one, with a little bit of the other, is fine for an admin candidate, they don't really need both. But the nominee has neither. -Amarkov blahedits 15:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If they have no experience with articles and policy, how do they know what they're enforcing? Zocky | picture popups 15:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Avriette does not realise that adminship has nothing to do with building an encyclopedia, and has opposed for the same reasons many times before [11], [12], [13] on the same basis that this is an encyclopedia. Correct, it is, but this site would collapse without users keeping it correct, and admins are there to help enforce this. --Majorly 20:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- Neutral leaning towards support - looks good, but a majority of edits seem to have been done with a script-supporty-automated thing (I'm missing a word in my vocab), also falls a little short of my criteria for rfa canidates of 9 months experience --T-rex 17:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral leaning strongly towards support - I would think an ideal admin would be involved in pretty much everything and not centered mostly around one subject (i.e. vandalism reverting). However that's just my opinion of what an admin would be. Since I can see no reason why he wouldn't be a good admin, I'll keep neutral but leaning towards support definitely. -WarthogDemon 22:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral, leaning towards support per WarthogDemon. Jorcogα 04:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral, not leaning towards anything. Vandalism fighting using scripty stuff, while nice in cleaning up the encyclopedia, doesn't show that someone can use admin tools well. After all, you can't just mechanically do administrator things with an automated tool. I also can't overlook 1 Wikipedia talk edit; an admin candidate should have more policy discussion than that. -Amarkov blahedits 06:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- While the vandal fighting is recommendable, I would prefer that this user becomes more familiar with process before becoming an admin. (Radiant) 09:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC) Moved to neutral; I would still prefer more experience but see no reason to oppose. (Radiant) 23:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.
Sandstein
Final (58/3/1) Ended 21:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Sandstein (talk · contribs) has fended off two offers to nominate thus far, but cannot hold out for ever! Sandstein joined us at the very end of July 2005 and rapidly started contributing to both the encyclopaedia and AfD debates. Fluent in English, German and with some French, also active on de: (see his contribs there) as well as contributing many images to Commons (see here). As if that were not enough, your review of Sandstein's contributions will also reveal substantial vandal-fighting activity, work at Articles for Creation, numerous contributions to deletion debates and reviews, helping at the Reference Desk, Third Opinion and other work around the project, and still finding time to make valuable contributions to the encyclopaedia. In RL, Sandstein is a jurist, which may well explain the measured tone of his contributions to many debates, plus he knows how to use a firearm and (much more importantly) when not to. Summon the nearest bureaucrat, I say, and issue him with mops, wiki, each: one, sysops for the use of. Guy (Help!) 17:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Co-nomination: Given that I was the first one to ask Sandstein about nominating him for adminship, it is my pleasure to co-nominate him with Guy. I have crossed Sandstein's path many times on Wikipedia, not only because we have a topic of interest in common, but also because he seems to be at many places... There is not much I can add to Guy's compliments, except maybe to note that the many articles created by Sandstein are not just empty one-liners, but that many have resulted in Did you know? mentions. Back in May, I was already convinced that being a sysop would benefit both the encyclopedia (quite obvious) and himself (by making his housekeeping tasks simpler) — and I am even more convinced of this today. Schutz 13:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you, all of you who talked me into this, for your effort, your confidence and your friendly words. I accept the nomination. Sandstein 18:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
- 1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
- A: Initially, I anticipate helping out with processing AfD (and other XfD), PROD and CSD backlogs, as these are the administrative procedures I've been most active in so far. I'd be happy to help out on AIV and ANI as well, once I've learned the ropes as an administrator, and to provide general administrative support if asked to. Of course, the administrator tools are also convenient in dealing with everyday watchlist vandalism a bit more thoroughly. Due to the requirements of my day job, though, and because I do like contributing to articles a bit more than I like vandal-whacking, I unfortunately can't promise anything really out of the ordinary with regard to chores.
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A: I generally write about whatever grabs my interest at the moment, so my main space contributions tend to be bite-sized articles that are, sadly, often far from being as polished as I would like them to be. Still, three articles in particular come to mind: Swiss Federal Council, which is mostly by me (and, yes, still needs more sourcing, but the good reference works are all booked out in the library...), as well as Vitra and Vitra Design Museum, the results of a brief cross-border trip a few months ago. I've also tried to collect my non-stub article creations on this page.
- Because good illustrations are, in my opinion, almost as important to our project as brilliant prose, I also like to contribute photographs to under-illustrated articles, either by scouring Flickr for high-quality free-content photos or by going on Wikipedia photo safari by myself. This has resulted in a substantial number of Commons contributions, most of which I've been able to find a place for in an article.
- 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
- A: I like to think that I'm not easily stressed, and I can't recall being involved in any substantial content disagreements. There have been the sort of discussions that seem to flow naturally from being involved in deletion processes, but only one sticks in my mind: a lengthy series of interactions (some of them accessible via this RfC) with one user who took umbrage at my requests to be civil during AfD discussions (and who, funnily enough, kept referring to me as an administrator despite my statement to the contrary). At any rate, my impression is that Wikipedia's palette of consensus-oriented dispute resolution mechanisms are quite effective. I will certainly rely on them in any future disagreements, including those (if any) related to administrative actions on my part.
Optional question from Jorcogα
- 4. Why do you want to be an administrator?
- A: I enjoy working on Wikipedia - so do we all, I suppose, or we wouldn't be here. More to the point, I've also found participating in some administrative tasks to be rather rewarding, and I think the administrator tools will be useful in helping out with them in a more effective manner, as noted in my answer to question one, above. Also, one major contributing factor to my (and probably others') Wikipediaholism is that the project is simply big enough that one can always find something new and interesting to do. That's true no matter if one is an administrator or not, of course – and that's also why it's not a big deal to me if I don't get to be one – but I do have the feeling that I'll be stumbling over new and interesting admin-type tasks in the same serendipitious manner should I do become one. Lastly, it's of course hard to deny that the measure of community recognition (however to qualify it) associated with this process is a rewarding fringe benefit in and of itself for someone who spends quite some time working on this project with this community. Sandstein 06:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- General comments
- See Sandstein's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
Discussion
Support
- As nominator, Guy (Help!) 18:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support. Interactions with the user leave me with an impression that he can be trusted with the tools. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per excellent noms and the candidate's strong record. Newyorkbrad 19:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Hahnchen 19:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A very good user. --Siva1979Talk to me 20:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks like a good admin-in-waiting. (aeropagitica) 21:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support. Thoughtful, intelligent, and nice. Complete trust. - crz crztalk 21:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The diff adduced by Tariq is equivocal, but even if interpreted in the worst light possible, still has absolutely no bearing on administrative ability. - crz crztalk 21:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, good user. I recall observing Sandstein's fracas with a Clueless Aggressive Newbie which he refers to under 3, and admired his coolness under the erratic flailing and flaming from the touchy newbie. I took over shortly afterwards, as I thought the person was starting to need admin warnings, but found myself unable to be even close to as patient as Sandstein. Well done. Bishonen | talk 22:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No problems here. =) Nishkid64 00:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support , fills all criteria, and a seven-month old comment that has been apogized for just gives me more reason for support. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 01:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Terence Ong (C | R) 01:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - FireSpike Editor Review! 03:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merovingian ※ Talk 03:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A familiar username on AFD. Very good work, will make a fine admin.--Húsönd 04:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks great.-- danntm T C 05:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per Elaragirl. If he has the maturity to apologise, he's ready to make sysop. riana_dzasta 06:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support definitely, I offered to nominate Sandstein in October, but Guy and Schutz have done that well now. Yes, Sandstein would make an excellent admin. DVD+ R/W 07:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, of course, as per my co-nomination. Schutz 07:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course. Lupo 08:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sniper support Right on target. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 10:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support. I would prefer if you diversified a bit beyond AFD. (Radiant) 12:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support per Elaragirl and Riana. This guy knows what he's doing. Moreschi 16:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. --Ligulem 17:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 19:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support John254 23:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Excellent editor with firm grasp of policy. Xoloz 23:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support- Good Luck! Jorcogα 00:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support looks like he will make a great admin. Dar-Ape 00:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - per nom --T-rex 03:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Near perfect record of excellence here on Wikipedia. Mop him!Sharkface217 04:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Appears to be a good editor and I believe will be a good admin as well. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 10:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Excellent record. Shell babelfish 13:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Zaxem 13:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Convincing answers and no problems at all. He is perfect admin material. Good luck. ← ANAS Talk 14:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support no evidence that admin tools will be misused.--MONGO 16:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Per nom, and comments here.MustTC 19:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support I've been consistently impressed by Sandstein's contributions. -- Samir धर्म 02:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support sounds good enough for me. I think the "free speech" issue is not worthy of an oppose. James086 Talk | Contribs 05:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- support --Dario vet 13:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- support comes with a good nomination, and looking over things it seems to be backed upMathmo 14:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good user all-around. Hello32020 15:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- --Rudjek 18:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 20:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per above. Yankee Rajput 21:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - familiar face on xfd.Bakaman Bakatalk 22:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Honest, fair user with an excellent track record.Ganfon 23:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- SupportHas a
goodniceexcellentOUTSTANDING edit count. Kyo cat¿Qué tal?♥meow! 03:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply] - Support Bernese government employee named *stein? How could we possibly say No? ~ trialsanderrors 06:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Go for it. -- Szvest Ω Wiki Me Up ® 14:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Appreciate, empathize, support, etc. ... aa:talk 20:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Bucketsofg 03:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I have no doubt Sandstein will be an excellent and fair administrator. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 18:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I see no reason to oppose this candidate. Dionyseus 07:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support from me too. --Mereda 11:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Why not? --Daniel Olsen 20:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support You're allowed to pile-on when it's positive, right? Looks to me like he'll be a good admin... IronDuke 04:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Last minute pile on support seen very positive work, and should make a solid admin. MLA 07:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--dario vet ^_^ (talk) 12:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)- Duplicate !vote - Tangotango 12:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Well spoken, thoughtfull. Doesn't get his feathers ruffled. Good editor. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Oppose has demontrated opposition to free speech in the RFC he cites in his third question. I would rather not have another administrator with this problem. KazakhPol 22:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It should be noted that the right to free speech (at least in the United States) is guaranteed as a right which can not be infringed upon by the government. Wikipedia is a privately owned site (e.g., not owned or operated by the government) and there are no policies which guarantee the right to free speech here. While editors are generally allowed this right, there are cases where Wikipedia, as a privately owned site, restricts the rights of people to post certain things that they might be able to post other places. So, an editor's stance on freedom of speech should have nothing to do with whether they might do a good job as an administrator. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 10:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Er, just for the record even though it may not be necessary – what Nihonjoe says is completely true, but apart from that, of course I do support freedom of speech as a legal and philosophical concept (it's what makes Wikipedia possible, too!) and I can't imagine why KazakhPol thinks I don't. Sandstein 11:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at it quickly, I see endorsement of the position that a particular user should be more civil in discussing one subject area. Unless I'm missing something egregious, that's a long way away from "opposition to free speech." Newyorkbrad 23:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This was the RFC against DR1819, one of the more tenacious and tendentious editors I have come across. His edits were egregious soapboxing, freedom of speech doesn't enter into it, the edits were prohibited by policy. Guy (Help!) 00:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Nihon I am not sure why you posted that lengthy lecture on free speech, but I really, really do not care. I am not about to change my vote. The statement that: "an editor's stance on freedom of speech should have nothing to do with whether they might do a good job as an administrator" demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of what an administrator does. KazakhPol 22:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I'm not sure of Sandstein's qualifications but I do know that Wikipedia is not a forum for unregulated free speech. (→Netscott) 22:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Nihon I am not sure why you posted that lengthy lecture on free speech, but I really, really do not care. I am not about to change my vote. The statement that: "an editor's stance on freedom of speech should have nothing to do with whether they might do a good job as an administrator" demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of what an administrator does. KazakhPol 22:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This was the RFC against DR1819, one of the more tenacious and tendentious editors I have come across. His edits were egregious soapboxing, freedom of speech doesn't enter into it, the edits were prohibited by policy. Guy (Help!) 00:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It should be noted that the right to free speech (at least in the United States) is guaranteed as a right which can not be infringed upon by the government. Wikipedia is a privately owned site (e.g., not owned or operated by the government) and there are no policies which guarantee the right to free speech here. While editors are generally allowed this right, there are cases where Wikipedia, as a privately owned site, restricts the rights of people to post certain things that they might be able to post other places. So, an editor's stance on freedom of speech should have nothing to do with whether they might do a good job as an administrator. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 10:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose: per User:Tariqabjotu and his this comments . Tariq might change his vote in support but I will keep my opposition. I do not support people who think we should be feeling less and should hide our affection for being admin. We could be neutral, nice and good human beings even whatever religion we choose or whatever we decide to put on our user-pages. --- ALM 19:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose: I have experienced this user to be prejudiced against some topics, even thereby disregarding Wikipedia policy, and as somebody who values a diverse encyclopedia, this is of some concern. Wikipedia is not a hobby horse for particular opinions, it is an encyclopaedia. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet(2nd nomination), he argued for deletion on flimsy grounds, i.e. because of WP:BIO (not a valid criteria, just read the full page), he made libelous remarks on living people ("esoteric mumbo-jumbo") and said that articles on her books are "generally best characterised as pieces of advertising". Now I haven't read any of her books, and there are many books that I don't value at all, but to characterize a wikipedia article on a a person or a published book as "advertizing" or "cruft" betrays prejudice. He also calls articles about her or her books a cruft-fest and a a walled garden of Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet-related esoteric cruft.[14] After deleting her published books and her biography, apparently every reference in other articles (unrelated to the AFD) were deleted as well in a very indiscriminate manner. I had nothing to do with the history of this article, but even I, who am not an expert on Aurobindo or Astrology, have heard about Patrizia, and her published books are available in libraries and on Amazon.com. After reading about the deletion on kheper.net, I have created a new article on the subject, and only some minutes later it was marked by Sandstein for Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. He also seems not to create or expand any articles, his main tasks seems to be voting on AFD's. This user does not seem to be tolerant to articles on certain topics, and has only just recently misinterpreted Wikipedia policy. --Mallarme 15:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC) The user sill misinterprets Wikipedia policy and says that the subject does not meet WP:BIO's standard for authors: "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work". However, the same page has this to say: "This guideline is not Wikipedia policy (and indeed the whole concept of notability is contentious)." "This is not intended to be an exclusionary list; just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted." She is clearly a published author, and her notability must be judged by comparing her to other astrologers or like writers, where I think she is notable. (It so happens that for some people a published author and religious leader like PNB is more notable than a person who is famous because he manufactured printed toilet paper in Germany (like Manfred van H., an article mostly written by Sandstein) :) ) --Mallarme 17:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't see anything inappropriate in Sandstein's AfD comments or the comments he has made since. As he has explained to you, if you feel the AfD was flawed, you need to take it to deletion review, rather than reposting the material. Sandstein's tagging of your repost was entirely appropriate. Your argument about policy, guidelines, notability etc belongs in deletion review, not an RfA. In regard to your claim that Sandstein does not "create or expand any articles," some of the articles he has written are listed here. He has also contributed extensively in numerous other areas of Wikipedia and Commons and I feel your characterisation is extremely unfair and incorrect. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 19:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Making libelous comments on living people (like for example "esoteric mumbo-jumbo" or "walled garden of Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet-related esoteric cruft") is not something I value in a Wikipedia admin, and I wouldn't consider to label such remarks as "appropriate". Looking at his contributions, I saw that many of them were in AFD votes, but he also seems to have made some good edits. However, in an RFA I must take into account the overall picture, which in my opinion was deficient. --Mallarme 20:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be inclined to let this thread speak for itself, but I guess I have to say something when confronted with unfounded allegations of libel. In the AfD at issue, I commented on the encyclopedic quality and content of the articles about Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and her books, and certainly not on her as a person. Sandstein 21:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe libel is not the right word (English is not my first language), but "this mumbo-jumbo" (applied to the content of an article of one of her books[15], a "walled garden of Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet-related esoteric cruft" (applied to articles about her books or org's), "esoteric mumbo-jumbo", "pieces of advertising", etc. leave the impression, that the comments are not only applied to the articles, but also to the person and her writings. I just think that an admin should use more impartial language.--Mallarme 22:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be inclined to let this thread speak for itself, but I guess I have to say something when confronted with unfounded allegations of libel. In the AfD at issue, I commented on the encyclopedic quality and content of the articles about Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and her books, and certainly not on her as a person. Sandstein 21:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Making libelous comments on living people (like for example "esoteric mumbo-jumbo" or "walled garden of Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet-related esoteric cruft") is not something I value in a Wikipedia admin, and I wouldn't consider to label such remarks as "appropriate". Looking at his contributions, I saw that many of them were in AFD votes, but he also seems to have made some good edits. However, in an RFA I must take into account the overall picture, which in my opinion was deficient. --Mallarme 20:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't see anything inappropriate in Sandstein's AfD comments or the comments he has made since. As he has explained to you, if you feel the AfD was flawed, you need to take it to deletion review, rather than reposting the material. Sandstein's tagging of your repost was entirely appropriate. Your argument about policy, guidelines, notability etc belongs in deletion review, not an RfA. In regard to your claim that Sandstein does not "create or expand any articles," some of the articles he has written are listed here. He has also contributed extensively in numerous other areas of Wikipedia and Commons and I feel your characterisation is extremely unfair and incorrect. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 19:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- Neutral For the most part, I like what I see, but it would take me awhile to support anyone that has made this kind of backhanded prejudiced statement. I know someone is going to say this is revenge for a !vote against me, but I won't be entertaining those types of responses. -- tariqabjotu 19:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand what you mean, and I'm certainly not taking your comment as revenge. I did mean what I said (and nothing else), but I do apologise if you took personal offense. Looking back, I do see my concerns were rather silly (as I have said already). Sandstein 19:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If that's the worst you have to face, then you're in the clear, I think. Yes, you could have phrased it better, but it was a legitimate concern (even if others might not have shared it), plus your followup on the second RFA was pretty good. I don't believe we require admins to be plaster saints, only to be willing to admit their mistakes and learn from them. Guy (Help!) 15:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe we require admins to be plaster saints, only to be willing to admit their mistakes and learn from them. Right; that's why it was not an oppose, but a neutral, which ultimately has next to no effect on the outcome of the RfA. -- tariqabjotu 18:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. You stated your case fairly without malice, which is no more than those of us who have seen you about would expect. A Neutral from you is almost an endorsement under the circumstances :-) Guy (Help!) 22:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe we require admins to be plaster saints, only to be willing to admit their mistakes and learn from them. Right; that's why it was not an oppose, but a neutral, which ultimately has next to no effect on the outcome of the RfA. -- tariqabjotu 18:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If that's the worst you have to face, then you're in the clear, I think. Yes, you could have phrased it better, but it was a legitimate concern (even if others might not have shared it), plus your followup on the second RFA was pretty good. I don't believe we require admins to be plaster saints, only to be willing to admit their mistakes and learn from them. Guy (Help!) 15:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand what you mean, and I'm certainly not taking your comment as revenge. I did mean what I said (and nothing else), but I do apologise if you took personal offense. Looking back, I do see my concerns were rather silly (as I have said already). Sandstein 19:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
Anthony.bradbury
Final (36/21/14) Ended Thu, 30 Nov 2006 02:49:59 (UTC)
Anthony.bradbury (talk · contribs) – I welcomed Anthony in April after he wrote Zone of immunity, and I was immediately impressed by his respect for Wikipedia and for other editors. Since then, that respect has manifested as a dedication to the project, as he's logged more than 3000 edits, mostly to articles and user talk pages. Anthony is most notably the author of many articles on Victorian ironclad batleships such as HMS Hero (1885). Messages to and from Anthony reflect a civil and productive-minded tone.
I think two things are important about Anthony with respect to adminship. He is enthusiastic about dealing with new editors, whether that means Newpages Patrolling and vandalism control on the one hand, or welcoming them on the other. And while he uses the template messages well, he frequently follows up with his own specific comments, making himself a more effective communicator. Second, while he is confident about carrying out the processes he understands well, such as WP:CSD, he is cautious and seeks out advice when approaching new tasks. I have no doubt that Anthony can be trusted to use the admin tools carefully and wisely. Melchoir 03:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I accept the nomination and thank my nominator for his confidence in me.
- Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
- 1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
- Gradually, since becoming a part of the Wikipedia Community, I have become increasingly focussed on maintaining the purity of our encyclopedia, which is the desired end-result of the vast majority of editors but is threatened by a small minority of vandals, and to a lesser extent by inexperienced users who commit what might be seen as acts of vandalism accidentally. I would anticipate warning the vandals, or blocking them if they have reached their tolerance limit, and helping the serious but inexperienced users. I expect, therefore, if given the tools, to spend a lot of time working in CAT:CSD. I note that, as of this moment, the speedy-delete backlog is 61 articles. I will also be keeping a close watch on WP:AFD, and would be prepared to close discussions there, although in the event of it being difficult to assess consensus I might well, while gaining experience, seek the advice of a longer-serving admin. I would also like to spend some time in reducing the other backlogs, some of which are extremely long. An important page to watch is CAT:RFU, which currently stands at ten requests. While most blocks are intentional, some are accidental, and it is important to unblock innocent editors as soon as possible If my nomination succeeds I will also place WP:AIV on my watch-list and closely monitor it. While these would be my main areas of activity, I would be prepared to undertake any other admin activity requested, which I felt competent to do.
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- There is no single article which qualifies here, but I have produced a long series of articles about British ironclad battleships of the Victorian era; starting from the article on HMS Warrior, which already existed, I worked through the complete series, except for two or three pre-existing articles, to the end of the Admirals. When I started, it seemed to me to be a significant part of Britain's naval history which wikipedia should be covering, but at the time was not.
- One contribution which I felt very deeply about, but which deals with an emotional and subjective issue, and furthermore was on a talk-page, is a small collection comments which I have posted on the discussion page of the article on Auschwitz concentration camp. The posts were made to counter certain assertions made by holocaust-deniers, and relate to an issue about which I feel strongly. But, as I say, it is an emotional issue.
- 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
- I have not been directly involved in any conflicts. There have been two occasions where I have put a {{speedy}} tag on an article, the article being perfectly seriously written but in my view qualifying for tagging and the original editor has removed the tag and sent quite long comments to my talk page. On both occasions an AfD tag was placed (once by me, once by another editor) and I then took no further part in the discussion; specifically because I felt that a talk-page argument or an edit war would be wholly counter-productive. Obviously, vandals have objected to their articles being {{speedy}} tagged, and have vandalised my talk page (36 times to date), but these are not, in my view, true conflicts in the sense meant by this question.
Question from Newyorkbrad
- 4. Will you agree to address the issue raised below concerning your edit summary usage by adjusting your Preferences so as to automatically prompt for a summary when you inadvertently fail to provide one?
- Certainly. I accept the point, and recognise that when working on newpage patrol, particularly at busy times of the day, I have sometimes had a tendency to go straight to "save" so as to get back to the newpages. But it is accidental, and occasional, and I always rebuke myself at the time!--Anthony.bradbury 11:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Preference reset as promised.--Anthony.bradbury 22:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- General comments
- See Anthony.bradbury's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
Discussion
Support
- Looks good. El_C 23:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support John254 00:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Looks like a good user. 1ne 00:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Adding Melchoir's presumed support (he's the nominator). 1ne 00:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe you should tell him on his talk page so he can add his own name? semper fi — Moe 01:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, if the nominator does not add his own support then so be it. – Chacor 01:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I've been away! Thanksgiving, family and so forth. You can count this slot as my support vote. Melchoir 08:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I see no issues. Canadian-Bacon t c 00:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Switched to Oppose Canadian-Bacon t c 20:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)Vote switched back to Support per demonstrated civility. Canadian-Bacon 03:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Solid contributor - no hesitation. Rama's arrow 01:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Supportdespite Wikipedia namespace gaffe. Anyone who has been vandalized 38 times is probably doing something right. Edit counts are OK. Lack of namespace count just means he ws contributing elsewhere.Seemed to remain calm and civil despite possible troll back in October. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC) Switch to oppose Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 16:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I have found Tony to be a very helpful and affable fellow in all of my encounters with him. I enthusiastically support his RFA mainly because his attitude and demeanor are so positive---he wants only to improve Wikipedia, and I haven't any doubt of that. ---Charles 02:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. He does the right thing by Wikipedia everytime. Good luck! Downunda 03:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support an excellent, dedicated contributor. I disagree with the suggestion that one must have experience in every area of the project to be qualified for adminship. Newyorkbrad 03:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I come across this editor all the time on new page patrol; their usage of the admin tools would only enhance the project. (aeropagitica) 05:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Qualified contributor, and is an excellent Wikipedian - met him on RC patrol, reverting vandalism. –- kungming·2 (Talk) 07:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, and to those opposing him on the grounds that he has not participated enough in the Wikipedia namespace: Don't forget that we are above all an encyclopaedia, not a political experiment. What does it matter if he doesn't know all the intricacies of the system? He's good at what he does, and having admin tools would make him more efficient. That's it. We're not here to judge whether he's going to be a major player in the Wikipedia namespace, we're here to judge whether he can be trusted to use these tools. And I believe he can. yandman 10:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Once again, a good editor is in danger of being rejected because he actually creates and edits articles. A small number of edits in the Wikipedia namespace doesn't equal inexperience with AfD, AIV etc. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 11:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support good, sensible user. Good luck! --Majorly (Talk) 13:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A good editor how seems to focus on the encyclopedia proper.-- danntm T C 14:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - less experienced than some, but a good thoughtful editor. He will make good use of the admin tools on rc patrol and cleanup. Tom Harrison Talk 15:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Helpful, courteous, and seems to be a wonderful candidate for adminship. Gphototalk 16:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support — I see nothing that worries me, He seems knowledgeable and respectable, never ran in to him but I've seen him around and he seems to be a fine contributor
. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sensible-seeming fellow, who I'm confident will help out where he can and tread cautiously where he lacks experience. And lord knows we need the manpower. --RobthTalk 18:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - edit summaries are easy to fix and when people create articles saying "FatBoy last night stole his Mum's credit card to pay for porn and his girlfriend is a slut who likes cock more than she does food" - sorry for the crudeness, but I have seen all of that and worse on NP patrol - then there is zero point in wasting your time giving out these deletion templates. Looks like a good editor who is willing to learn more. Moreschi 19:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. It's time we got over namespace-itis. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 20:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. After considering the nomination, looking at the record, and balancing the concerns below, I'm confident this nominee will make a good admin. Agent 86 20:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Anthony is a very measured user so I don't think he will start making any adventurous use of the tools in areas where he is not familiar. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Unlikely to abuse admin tools.--Mike
23:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - FireSpike Editor Review! 23:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, looks good. Just needs more edits in the Wikipedia namespace, when he becomes an admin. --Terence Ong (C | R) 03:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: overall seems a good Wikipedian. Has made vast anti-vandalism edits, as well as numerous cleanup duties such as article tagging. In my opinion Tony (Anthony) seems to deserve sysop functions to benefit him in his fight against vandalism. Cheers, User:Anthony_cfc
- Support For commitment to the ideals of Wikipedia as a shared knowledge resource, willingness to assist others (including adopting, new page patrolling and battling vandalism) sometimes in the face of offensive personal attacks, range and depth of contributions, including significant expansion of the Victorian battleships section. Good luck! Davidelit 10:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No compelling reasons to oppose. Catchpole 11:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Seeams good and comments in "Oppose" makes no a seriously sense.MustTC 13:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, a very promising editor, with a strong knowledge in his field of expertise. To those that object to his nomination on the grounds of wikispace, please keep in mind that our first duty is to right an encyclopedia, and that the rest is sencondary.--Aldux 14:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- support --Dario vet 13:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support This user is very capable of using the tools, great vandal-fighter. Hello32020 15:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Inexperience is secondary to desire to improve Wikipedia. Yankee Rajput 21:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A good communicator, regular contributor who has shown a good mix of involvement. LittleOldMe 15:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No compelling reasons to oppose. Lots of nitpicking oppose votes don't cancel the positives. --Calton | Talk 01:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Although his editcount is steady enough as it now stands, I don't think he's ready just yet. Weak Oppose per edit summary performance (79% major/40% minor) and for taking RFA risks less than two weeks too soon. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 00:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- RfA risks? not sure I understand that. ST47Talk 00:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, remember that edit summaries aren't the biggest thing in the world... 1ne 00:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry: I am more than willing to answer questions, but what are RfA risks?--Anthony.bradbury 00:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- By "RFA risks", I was stating that I will, at most times, support admin candidates who have been on Wikipedia for exactly eight months or more. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 00:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- My first article was, I concede, submitted on April 2, which falls short of your parameter by just over a week.--Anthony.bradbury 00:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Individual !voters' time-on-site guidelines vary from 3 months to a year or more. I've heard of 3 months, 6 months, 9 months, but 8 months is a new one for me and I don't think we can fault the candidate either for being unfamiliar with one user's guideline or not waiting another week in deference to it. See my question above for a possible way the candidate could address the edit summary concern. Newyorkbrad 03:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- My first article was, I concede, submitted on April 2, which falls short of your parameter by just over a week.--Anthony.bradbury 00:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- By "RFA risks", I was stating that I will, at most times, support admin candidates who have been on Wikipedia for exactly eight months or more. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 00:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry: I am more than willing to answer questions, but what are RfA risks?--Anthony.bradbury 00:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, remember that edit summaries aren't the biggest thing in the world... 1ne 00:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- RfA risks? not sure I understand that. ST47Talk 00:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Falls short of my criteria in Wikipedia namespace, only 107 edits my indicate a lack of experience in communication with the community in key aspects like AFD and other participation in other Wikipedia namespace areas. Edit summary usage is generally low, as stated above. His logs show that he hasn't uploaded any Images yet, and I find it hard to trust someone in an area where he may work with adminship tools, when he has no prior experience of it himself. Literally only 1 edit to the Image namespace, 0 to the template and 0 to the category namespace. I can't trust someone with absolutely no experience in the half of namespaces here (as indicated by his stats on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Anthony.bradbury). Edit count isn't important enough for it to matter here, but it's generally a little low for my standards. semper fi — Moe 01:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have something over 3,000 edits. I know not where your figure of 107 comes from, unless that is the number of complete, original articles, where it may be correct. If so, it does not include a very large number of additions to pre-existing articles, not to talk pages, nor does it include tagging of other editors' articles. I accept your comments about images, where I have a weakness, though not, I submit, in recognition of wiki policy breaches - an area which, as a non-admin, i have had no opportunity to demonstrate competence.--Anthony.bradbury 01:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 107 comes from here, specifically the first box and next to the word Wikipedia. That is your edit count for the Wikipedia namespace. I feel you should just get some experience editing Categories, Templates and Images before becoming an admin. I didn't say you breached any policies, but you may lack enough knowledge to make a correct decision given your weakness in editing there. semper fi — Moe 01:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think your viewpoint is very reasonable, but personally I can trust Anthony despite his lack on participation in those areas. When I wrote the nomination I didn't have this issue in mind, but as I mentioned, I'm confident that if he is called upon to make an admin decision in an area he isn't familiar with, he'll do whatever research and ask for whatever guidance is necessary -- and then some! Melchoir 09:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 107 comes from here, specifically the first box and next to the word Wikipedia. That is your edit count for the Wikipedia namespace. I feel you should just get some experience editing Categories, Templates and Images before becoming an admin. I didn't say you breached any policies, but you may lack enough knowledge to make a correct decision given your weakness in editing there. semper fi — Moe 01:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have something over 3,000 edits. I know not where your figure of 107 comes from, unless that is the number of complete, original articles, where it may be correct. If so, it does not include a very large number of additions to pre-existing articles, not to talk pages, nor does it include tagging of other editors' articles. I accept your comments about images, where I have a weakness, though not, I submit, in recognition of wiki policy breaches - an area which, as a non-admin, i have had no opportunity to demonstrate competence.--Anthony.bradbury 01:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Because my neutral somehow got through w/out me seeing this reply from Anthony, I'm afraid I have to change to weak oppose. If you don't even know about the Wikipedia namespace... yikes. – Chacor 01:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I am aware of WP:NAMESPACE. I merely did not so stipulate.--Anthony.bradbury 01:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I was referring to your reply to Moe, where you say that "I know not where your figure of 107 comes from, unless that is the number of complete, original articles, where it may be correct." when he's clearly referred to the Wikipedia namespace. – Chacor 02:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. It's very late here (after 2 a.m.) and I misread it. Inexcusable, possibly.--Anthony.bradbury 02:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand. You might want to learn how to format comments in an RFA though, Dr. Tony [I just read your userpage and went o_O] :P – Chacor 02:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not, perhaps, if you say so, know how correctly to format comments on an RFA. I know only that, if allowed, I will do my utmost to preserve our encyclopedia in the form that we would like to see it. --Anthony.bradbury 02:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Chacor, I'm not sure how you intended this last, but it comes off as very petty sniping at the candidate. Many contributors (myself included) can't do fancy wiki-markup to save their lives, and I haven't seen it stopping anyone from doing good useful work. --RobthTalk 18:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand. You might want to learn how to format comments in an RFA though, Dr. Tony [I just read your userpage and went o_O] :P – Chacor 02:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. It's very late here (after 2 a.m.) and I misread it. Inexcusable, possibly.--Anthony.bradbury 02:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I was referring to your reply to Moe, where you say that "I know not where your figure of 107 comes from, unless that is the number of complete, original articles, where it may be correct." when he's clearly referred to the Wikipedia namespace. – Chacor 02:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I am aware of WP:NAMESPACE. I merely did not so stipulate.--Anthony.bradbury 01:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak oppose. As much as we desperately need additional hands at C:CSD, you don't appear to take a thorough enough approach to deletion in general - or, more specifically, explaining it to newbies. For instance, in just the last few days you nominated the articles Dave Cunning and Kelly clark attorney with {{prod}}, but did not place the {{PRODWarning}} tag on the creators' talk pages. Similarly, Andra Cross and Mordechai Yosef Leiner were marked for speedy deletion, and neither creator was told about it. To be fair, you took the time to tell the creator of Harry Monroe Kemp that you'd prodded their article, but one out of all those really isn't enough. Each of these users was new to Wikipedia - most hadn't received any messages from other users, let alone been welcomed - so it's important that, when nominating the articles they create for deletion, you take the time to first welcome them to Wikipedia and then explain what is being done to their article. This avoids inadvertently biting the newbies, and can go a long way to reducing both the subsequent anger at seeing one's article removed, and the future creation of inappropriate articles. If you don't do this as a normal users on new page patrol, I can't be comfortable that you will do it as an administrator. Sorry. Daveydweeb (chat/review!) 03:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Both the Dave Cunning and Kelly Clark pages were, in my opinion, vanity pages, and both were competently written, which indicated to me (perhaps incorrectly), that their creators were familiar with Wikipedia.--Anthony.bradbury 11:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm kicking myself for not taking down the names of the creators of those pages, since they've now been deleted (damnit). Nevertheless, the fact that those were created at all indicates a certain level of unfamiliarity with Wikipedia -- as you said, they're vanity pages, like so many other speedy candidates -- which, if nothing else, indicates that those users did not understand at least one major guideline. Being able to write an article competently is not a skill unique to Wikipedia, so you need to consider that as well. In the future, it would be preferable if, when nominating any article for deletion, you inform the creator of both the action and your reason for doing so: at its most basic level, it's a simple courtesy, but when dealing with users who patently don't understand principles like WP:COI, it both offers them a chance to learn from it, and prevents the development of anger towards Wikipedia and Wikipedians in general. Daveydweeb (chat/review!) 00:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Both the Dave Cunning and Kelly Clark pages were, in my opinion, vanity pages, and both were competently written, which indicated to me (perhaps incorrectly), that their creators were familiar with Wikipedia.--Anthony.bradbury 11:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose- Not enough wikispace edits or CSD/Prod knowledge for me. Jorcogα 05:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Anthony is a well-intended and constructive user, but if he is to adjudicate process it would help if he had some more experience with it first. (Radiant) 10:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Insufficient project-space participation suggests lack of familiarity with wiki-process. - crz crztalk 21:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - Not enough experience in wikispace. And as a deletionist, I'm a believer in the process, which means if we delete something we HAVE to notify the author that it's up for deletion. I've mucked it up myself, but then again, I'm not running for admin, and with the reservations of others about experience, Wikispace edits, and WPtalk edits all motivate me to reluctantly but firmly oppose. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 00:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose lack of edit summary, lack of notification to authors of articles tagged for speedy deletion and other points raised in oppose section show a tendency to cut corners and absent-mindedly omit policies and guidelines he feels are not right or too time-consuming. Those should be addressed before joining adminship from a behavior and mindset point of view, not through a change in editing interface forcing an edit summary to be entered. Lostkiwi 05:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak oppose - falls just short of all my criteria, but just a little. Would most likly support in a month, although would suggest waiting two. --T-rex 18:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I know that I should really not join in too much here, but could you possibly stipulate what your criteria are?--Anthony.bradbury 18:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Criteria may have been the wrong word. In short I usally look for 9 months participation with wikipedia as well as experience within the image namespace. This is more of a postpone support till latter then a true oppose --T-rex 17:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I know that I should really not join in too much here, but could you possibly stipulate what your criteria are?--Anthony.bradbury 18:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose for reasons given here. Bubba ditto 20:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per all of the above. Dionyseus 21:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per lack of project participation and concern over answers to some oppose votes. Shell babelfish 13:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- switch to Oppose Needs more experience in admin related areas. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 16:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose yikes the wikispace isn't making me pleased...however if you work on in the next couple of months I will be glad to Support you.__Seadog ♪ 18:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Crz read my mind -- insufficent wiki-process experience at this time. Xoloz 18:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No, Xoloz, Crz committed an act of plagiarism. - crz crztalk 12:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I sure thought insufficient project-space participation suggests lack of familiarity with wiki-process sounded quite similar to a long-standing Xolozian formulation. Such plagiarism is, I think it quite plain, grounds for immediate recall. I tremble to think what might have befallen us had we made Crz a bureaucrat... :) Joe 06:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No, Xoloz, Crz committed an act of plagiarism. - crz crztalk 12:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- dislike the interrogating of people on the oppose side. ... aa:talk 20:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per above, primarily due to lack of experience in the WP namespace. I would probably support once the applicant gains more experience in the WP namespace. --Richard 01:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Radiant, Xoloz, etc. We don't need unexperienced admins who learn their craft by blocking the more experienced editors, as have been done recently. Better be safe than sorry. --Ghirla -трёп- 08:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose reluctantly per Daveydweeb's comments about handling newbies' new pages. My own example was 3 weeks ago on Honjaram when Anthony was prodding a village stub from India within 12 minutes of the article being started. His reply to me was straightforward and courteous though. Mereda 16:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Switch to Oppose per lack of project experience, and apparent WP:BITEing even though it may be inadvertant. Sorry. Canadian-Bacon t c 20:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Oppose. I feel that the candidate is an outstanding editor. However, some more experience in admin-related areas would go a long way toward giving the community confidence in him having the tools. Particularly, the candidate should address accusations of WP:BITE and (as he's already done) try to use those edit summaries. Will gladly support in a few more months and with some more edits in the Wikipedia namespace. —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 22:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Neutral. Agree about lack of WP-space edits. On the plus side, article writer and have seen him around. – Chacor 01:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. Sorry, but 7 Wikipedia talk edits is too low for my taste. You need more policy discussion. -Amarkov blahedits 03:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral - edit summary usage doesn't really bother me, and while I don't normally like to see candidates responding to every opposer, your responses have been quite fair so far. However, for someone who wishes to work with CAT:CSD, your rate of warning people has been rather low. I'm honestly leaning towards support at this point, as I've always seen you doing great work otherwise, so if you could clear this up, I'd be grateful. riana_dzasta 04:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I do warn many people, often with a free text comment as well as a standard template. I sometimes do not warn users who submit edits which are obviously totally frivolous or inane, on the basis that it appears that they are not intending to take wikipedia seriously. I believe that I always warn account-holders, and I certainly would plan on warning serious newcomers. If there is a record of my not doing so, that is a failing on my part; but not an intentional one.--Anthony.bradbury 10:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Understood, and thanks for responding. Sadly I still feel unable to support, and I believe that, should this RfA not succeed, you will make a much stronger candidate given a few more months' experience under your belt. I would be happy to support at a later date. All the best, riana_dzasta 11:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I do warn many people, often with a free text comment as well as a standard template. I sometimes do not warn users who submit edits which are obviously totally frivolous or inane, on the basis that it appears that they are not intending to take wikipedia seriously. I believe that I always warn account-holders, and I certainly would plan on warning serious newcomers. If there is a record of my not doing so, that is a failing on my part; but not an intentional one.--Anthony.bradbury 10:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral The concerns with experience and warning users about proposed deletions worry me but otherwise a good editor therefore: neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James086 (talk • contribs)
- Neutral. You would have had my strong support had you had a higher wikipedia space count, but I feel that it is too important to be overlooked. Even in an otherwise strong editor. ViridaeTalk 09:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral The low number of Wikipedia talk edits is a major concern for me. However your contributions to the other areas of this project is noted. Thus, I feel that you do not deserve an oppose opinion because of this. --Siva1979Talk to me 20:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral per inexperience in the project-space. Nishkid64 02:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral, recommend familiarisation with project-space pages, perhaps come back in a month or two. - Mailer Diablo 19:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral per all of above. Wikipedia space contributions are too low. I think someone else said somewhere, great article contributors are needed, but adminship won't usually help them. If someone can contribute to articles, but doesn't know ins and outs of policy, I'm not sure how this user can work well in their capacity as an admin. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 00:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral per Nishkid64. Sharkface217 04:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral Although I am very confident with you having the tools, I would recommend you earn a little more experience. All the best. ← ANAS Talk 14:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral: Like others have said, I think a bit more experience in the WP namespace would be good.
One other little teeny thing is that you might try to be a little calmer during vandal attacks than you were here (no offense taken, mind you, just a suggestion).Heimstern Läufer 22:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply] - Future Support Looks all good except the experience. ~ trialsanderrors 05:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. Article-space contributions look good, but Wikipedia-space edits are seriously low for 3500+ edits. Unless you are some sort of Wikipedia-space prodigy, merely observing the backlogs that will need to be tended to on becoming an admin is certainly not enough preparation! I have no other concerns, so I'd certainly expect to support in the future. -- Renesis (talk) 06:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. Has excellent potential, but a bit too soon after this exchange [16] for me. Will support Dr. B in future with a little more experience in avoiding incivility. Rockpocket 07:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. Axl 01:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.
HighInBC
Final (76/1/0) Ended 22:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
HighInBC (talk · contribs) – I would like to nominate Ryan, or HighInBC, for adminship. He nominated himself back in June already but decided to withdraw as he didn't have enough experiences yet. Now, he has gathered over 5000 edits in various topics, he contributes to articles, helps resolving disputes over controversial topics, assists newcomers when needed and even helps with the selection of featured contents. Some weeks ago Ryan also started actively participating in XfD debates. He has shown a great comittment to the project overall and I think he should be entrusted the admin tools. Tone 18:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
- Note I just noticed a small mistake in Tone's nomination. It says I decided to withdraw from my first nomination, that is not so, it was kindly withdrawn by User:Freakofnurture per WP:SNOW, which I agreed to after the fact. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I gladly accept this nomination. I enjoy Wikipedia and agree with it's philosophies and look forward to being able to mop the floor. As I have before, I shall continue to seek help when in doubt, keep my personal opinions apart from consensus, leave the keyboard when upset, and always remain civil and assume good faith. I believe any dispute can be resolved if the parties involved are willing. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
- 1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
- I firmly believe that protected(to any degree) pages need a lot of admin attention to be sure protection is still warranted, and to insert legitimate edits from talk page consensus. I also want to able to protect pages that have legitimate need.
- I often welcome new users, and while looking through their contributions I often find patent nonsense, attack pages, and other such things that can be speedy deleted. Blocking users is unfortunately an important part of maintenance here. I will most likely begin with clear cut cases of blatant vandals ignoring warnings. I believe in smaller blocks(less than a day) for users that may have potential for good faith contributions. For cases that are less clear I would seek the advice of my peers.
- I will most likely start out slowly, asking for advice from longstanding admins who I respect. I am always open to discussion on any of my actions, admin or not. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A:
- My image contributions are something I am proud of. I have found articles in need of images, or article who's images are lacking in quality and I take a photo and upload it, releasing it to a free license. I have participated heavily in WP:FPC in both the selection of featured images and in discussion of featured picture guidelines.
- A:
- I have done a lot of work on the article Ethics of eating meat, I did a reformatting, removed a lot of uncited material, added citations and helped bring more editors to an article that badly needed help. This is an ongoing project.
- I have contributed third opinions several times and find it to be a great way to help wikipedia, often all it takes is a fresh mind to settle a dispute.
- Creation is an important form of contributions, but so is removal of content not compatible with our encyclopedic goals. My recent work on AfD has been very fulfilling, both in keeping Wikipedia clean and shiny, but also in giving me more experience with conflict resolution.
- I have gone through articles such as Arguments for and against drug prohibition removing original research and opinion. In the article Health issues and the effects of cannabis I read all the citations and found that many did not support the text in the article. I made the appropriate changes. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
- A:
- Yes, sometimes I get stressed, I usually take a break and relax in my own way. Once I come back I am calm and things are much easier.
- A:
- An example of this is the discussion User_talk:HighInBC/Archive_6#Talk:Blood of the Fold. The user in question would not provide me with the context of the dispute and it was very difficult to proceed because of this. So I took a break and came back with the logical idea to ask him to provide context. In the end the matter was settled and compromise was reached.
- Another event that caused me some stress was when a new user, anon(68.40.167.60), began editing Arguments for and against drug prohibition at an alarming rate without full understanding of Wikipedia policy. This was difficult for me because the user seemed to be acting in good faith. I dealt with this through extensive discussion on the talk page (Talk:Arguments_for_and_against_drug_prohibition/Archive_2). In the end, while most of the users actions were reverted, many useful changes from this user remained. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 4.Please comment on the User:Publicgirluk incident. Specifically, describe how you handled the situation at the time, how you believe it should have been handled by admins, and how you would handle a similar situation if you were an admin. Thanks, SuperMachine 20:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A.
- That was a very confusing and emotionally charged debate. I had the position that we had no reason to doubt the license claim. I think it all went very well. We started a discussion, it got very big, and Jimbo intervened. At first I was confused, then I read this[17] and this[18]. As far as I am concerned the entire event happened well within Wikipedia process. I disagree with the final decision, but that is just my opinion.
- If I had been an admin I would have handled it the exact same way. An issue that contentious cannot be remedied with special tools, only through talk. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A.
- 5.. You said the following earlier: "Creation is an important form of contributions, but so is removal of content not compatible with our encyclopedic goals." That statement seems a little unclear to me. Could you please expand what you mean? --Wafulz 02:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A.
- Good questions today. When determining what is and what is not compatible with Wikipedia, I often refer to the first post I ever received on my talk page, a welcome message from User:Searchme. Amongst the many useful links was Wikipedia:Five pillars.
- A.
- When I see material in conflict with this I ask myself is this a threat to Wikipedia, such as an attack page or copyright violation, if so I mark it for speedy deletion. If not, then I ask myself Is this exploiting Wikipedia at the cost of our reputation in the case of blatant advertising if so I again mark it for speedy deletion.
- Failing the need for speedy deletion I like to use a combination of cleanup tags to call editors in general(via the categorization), and discussion with the author(s) in question. Many times I have simply asked an author for sources and was able to remove a speedy delete tag when I received my response.
- I am not a deletionist, but content in violation of policy cannot remain. This is what I have done in the past and this is what I will do in the future. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 02:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 6.Why do you want to be an administrator? Jorcogα 06:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A:
- As far as my practical reasons for being an administrator, I have spelt these out in question #1. But I think you are asking me more about my personal reasoning.
- A:
- To put it simply, I have the goal of continuing to contribute to Wikipedia in a variety of ways for a long time, and these tools will help in this goal by allowing me to be useful in new ways. I see a bunch of good people cleaning a house during a messy party that isn't going to end, and I want to help. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- General comments
- See HighInBC's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
- Thanks for all the support and usefull critisism. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
Support
- Nominator support. --Tone 18:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Our paths have crossed more than once, and he's always been a top-notch editor. As I told him in my own RfA, I have much respect. Also liked the innuendo in his answer to question 3. Kafziel Talk 20:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I see him everywhere, especially at WP:FPC, a he always makes good and useful edits. He look slike he will be responsible with the mop an bucket. NauticaShades 20:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks like a good editor, with lots of vandal fixing, warnings issued and XfD participation. The admin tools would benefit this editor's work on the project. (aeropagitica) 20:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support from contributions SYSS Mouse 21:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Good editor, and has taken the opportunity since his last RfA to improve and prove himself to the community. Agent 86 21:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Another great candidate, good luck! --Majorly (Talk) 21:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Khoikhoi 21:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - looks good --T-rex 21:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom. Rama's arrow 21:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support despite insufficient horse knowledge. And tell us - what is that way in which you relax? - crz crztalk 21:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hiking the mountains and valleys of British Columbia, that is how I chose my name. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 21:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 22:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- (oh, that sounds like fun.) Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 22:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I have had good experiences with this user in AfD. Specifically, in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hutber's law, he showed a openess and flexibility to adapt to new evidence, and such flexibility and openness and flexibility are useful for an admin to have.-- danntm T C 22:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Contribs seem well rounded and helpful at that.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 23:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support passes my criteria †he Bread 23:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support. I have worked with this user in dispute resolution situations and found him to be extremely level-headed, logical, and civil. Gladly give him the mop. --Aguerriero (talk) 00:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 00:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Everything looks fine here. Nishkid64 01:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Yanksox 01:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support John254 02:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. --KFP (talk | contribs) 02:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as a good editor with meaningful contributions to date, good answers to questions and no issues raised. Newyorkbrad 02:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support semper fi — Moe 02:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Support saw this [19]. A FP should be encyclopaedic and attractive, which that pic is not. Anyway, your contributions looks good to me --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 02:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Good answer to my question. I've probably disagreed with you at an AfD or two, but it's your thought process that matters. --Wafulz 03:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - welcome to BC -- Tawker 03:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought he was one...shows what I know. 1ne 04:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Lol, I was wondering when someone was going to use that line. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 04:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I like your level-headed approach. That and your contributions/participation-level speak for themselves. By the way, I'm extremely jealous of your method of relaxation! -- Renesis (talk) 05:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I've come across this user around the cannabis series of articles and he seemed to be a great contributor. Looking through this nom, his last nom and his edits, I'm confident that he'll make a great admin too. --Rory096 06:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, as the 29 users above can also testify, Wikipedia would be a better place if this user became an admin. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 06:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merovingian ※ Talk 06:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- Chondrite 07:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A damn good editor that would make a brilliant admin. Atlantis Hawk 07:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I've run across this user many times as an editor, and have been consistently impressed. I would like to run across him as an admin as well and believe he'll be a good one. Seraphimblade 08:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to "HighInBCE"Support. (Radiant) 10:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]- I think his username is a reference to British Columba and not before the common era. Yanksox 15:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That is right. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think his username is a reference to British Columba and not before the common era. Yanksox 15:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm Mailer Diablo and I appprove this message! - 10:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No problems here. A good user. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support FireSpike 23:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- El_C 00:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I swear, I see you wherever I go. And that you have people mad enough at you to cause the stuff right after the first oppose is a good sign that you're active in something good. Bonus points for 288 WP talk edits. About the only thing you could do more is some category discussion. -Amarkov blahedits 05:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support seems good to me. James086 Talk | Contribs 08:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A civil and sensible user. Dina 13:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good editor, pleasant to interact with, should be a fine admin. Eron 16:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, per nom. He is a good editor. --Carioca 20:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Ryan rulez! :) - Darwinek 20:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per my encounters with his conduct over some time. Tyrenius 21:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep. -- Steel 23:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per encounters on WP:AIV and the minor User:Akaneon incident. --210physicq (c) 01:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You have convinced me. Jorcogα 01:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. The user dropped me a line about an admin-related action I did, and I liked the congeniality and conversability of HighInBC. I'm fer it. Teke (talk) 02:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, good user. --Terence Ong (C | R) 03:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good user with a great attitude. I think he will do great as admin. Lostkiwi 05:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Shows a willingness to take time out and discuss things rationally with others, new and experienced contributors alike. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - good vandal fighter, per all of above. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 00:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Vandal fighting is amazing. HighInBC is one of those users for whom I have to check the rights log every time I see their userpage. I'll be glad what it finally says something. Alphachimp 03:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. G.He 04:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks good. Sharkface217 04:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom. Acs4b 05:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support should do a great job. And I like his username. riana_dzasta 10:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I've had a couple good experiences with this user in the past. He has always been helpful in the moderation and de-escalation of tense situations while maintaining a firm stance on wikipedia policy. Good qualities for an admin. NeoFreak 15:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks good for every areas, I'm satisfied with his worksMustTC 19:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, OK--Docg 01:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I can't believe I haven't double voted here. ;) Good luck man. ← ANAS Talk 12:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- support --Dario vet 13:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Support User should do a terrific job as an administrator. Hello32020 15:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- --Rudjek 18:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: He is a great person and should be among good administrators. He looks for compromises in case of disputes and a good dispute resolver.--- ALM 19:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --W.marsh 00:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support I hate this guy with a passion for personal reasons. However, you can't deny this guy's mad wiki skillz0rz. Floaterfluss
- Support. Seems allright + I like the picture of him down by the creek. --JJay 02:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I've had a brief chat with this user. He is a kind user, has a great edit count, and I do believe he should be granted admin status. Kyo cat¿Qué tal?♥meow! 03:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, recently ran across this user and have been impressed with what I've seen. Accurizer 17:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- support very helpful this person should become a administrator soon Yuckfoo 00:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: stellar work all around. --Howrealisreal 01:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Bucketsofg 02:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 20:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Oppose, sorry, I didn't like the way you handled the PublicgirlUK situation. -- Samir धर्म 07:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please explain? I'm not sure what you refer to. (Radiant) 10:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure, but I believe it was felt that High-in-BC being soft on the trolling (thereby arguably contributing to it) and difficult on the admins who were attempting to bring it to an end. Perhaps this is what Samir is refering to. I did find his comment to myself regarding similar(?) trolling pretty odd [20], to quote the lead sentence: Your lack of explanation for this ban instills the fear to make comments on this wiki. So that was pretty weird. As I recall, Lar volunteered to mentor the user, with hilarities ensuing. El_C 00:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- El C touches on some of the issues. I understand why so many of you are supporting HighInBC; he certainly is a great contributor and seems like a genuinely good guy. I don't want to rehash the whole Publicgirluk scenario, but I thought that HighInBC came across very strongly in what was clearly a divisive issue. Perhaps this is just a WP:POINT !vote; when he becomes an admin, I hope he understands that there may be many different ways that the community views the oftentimes contentious issues that come up. That's it. Best of luck -- Samir धर्म 01:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry it took so long for me to respond to this, I have been looking over my contributions for the time. I don't think your !vote is pointy at all. This is legitimate criticism, and I would like to address these issues.
- Firstly, El C has pointed out 2 mistakes I made. The first mistake was leaping to the defense of another user without examining that users contribution history first. I made demands that an admin explain himself without looking at the evidence available. My second mistake was not going back and apologizing when I realized my first mistake. Sorry about that El C.
- Samir brings up the more general problem of me being rather forceful in my opinions during the PublicGirlUK controversy. I took the issue very personally and spoke with great authority on topics where multiple opinions were held. This issue was emotionally charged for me because it was not over pictures or ideas or policy, but a person was involved who I felt was being mistreated.
- While I was heavy handed in my words, at no point did I take unilateral action. I had to learn a tough lesson about working with contentious issues. I have learned since that civility is not simply polite words, but respecting the opinions of others(even if I do not agree). HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure, but I believe it was felt that High-in-BC being soft on the trolling (thereby arguably contributing to it) and difficult on the admins who were attempting to bring it to an end. Perhaps this is what Samir is refering to. I did find his comment to myself regarding similar(?) trolling pretty odd [20], to quote the lead sentence: Your lack of explanation for this ban instills the fear to make comments on this wiki. So that was pretty weird. As I recall, Lar volunteered to mentor the user, with hilarities ensuing. El_C 00:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please explain? I'm not sure what you refer to. (Radiant) 10:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose On the grounds that you have conducted yourself poorly and have taken to bullying and badgering new users to Wikipedia! A poor administrator you would make! LoverOfBirds 22:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- User's 3rd edit. --Majorly (Talk) 22:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- (Edit conflict) User registered today. Newyorkbrad 22:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose has been turning wikipedia into his personal playground. a big time powertripper. Mister Shankabout 22:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- User's 3rd edit. --Majorly (Talk) 22:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I disapprove of this user's virulent and disgusting racial remarks. Rufus the Bear 22:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- More of the same. Newyorkbrad 22:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) And again, 3rd edit, I sense sockpuppetry. --Majorly (Talk) 22:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- All blocked, page semi-protected Jaranda wat's sup 22:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.
Renesis13
Final (27/6/8) Ended 21:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Renesis13 (talk · contribs) – I've been an editor here for a little over a year, and I have worked on many different tasks and in many different areas of Wikipedia over that time. I have worked mostly on cleanup tasks and spam/vandal fighting, and these are the areas which interest me most. I don't use the AutoWikiBrowser or anything (besides popups -- I don't see how anyone can live without them!) and I tend to be a little more careful and thorough with my edits so I probably don't have the edit count many are used to around here, but I hope that can be seen as a positive rather than a negative. I'd like to be an administrator here so I can help out more directly with the tasks and problems I come across, and feel I would benefit the community more than I can now for the same reason. I originally started editing Wikipedia because I wanted to return the help it had given me (I'd been using it for research for quite a while already). I am impressed with the progress, particularly in professionalism and presentation, that Wikipedia has made in the time I've been here and I'd like be able to serve it better in the time to come. Renesis (talk) 18:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept (self-nom). -- Renesis (talk) 18:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
- 1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
- A: I have spent a lot of time fighting spam and vandalism, and would like to help out with AIV when needed. I also have been active at RFD and AFD, and recently WP:TFD, and would be able to help clear the backlogs there as well as at other XFD discussions. I'd also like to help at Requested Moves and CSD, and other areas I've often needed help with before.
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A: While more than 60% of my edits are article-space edits, some editors might be wary that I have not participated significantly in bringing articles to Featured status or other similar tasks. However, I'm most proud of the work I've done implementing various Manual of Style standards in badly-needed areas and other beautification tasks. Specifically, I've organized the archives at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not and many other pages, worked extensively on implementing MOS:TM and MOS:DATE, done some fun work with templates and parser functions such as adding the current day to the common usages on Template:Cite web and Template:Cite news, created an AGF spam warning template and organized the spam template set, and initiated removal of the unnecessary "-n" convention on user warning templates. I've also done a lot of cleanup on what seemed to be long-forgotten or poorly-tended areas of Wikipedia such as List of countries by population where I converted the unmaintainable percentages column to a series of expressions that can be easily updated. I also am particularly proud of the work I did rewriting the Ballajura, Western Australia article and adding proper citations.
- 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
- A: Other than brief rough encounters with semi-vandals, I haven't had any conflicts that I wouldn't consider a reasonable discussion. In particular, I participated in quite a lengthy debate at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies) concerning what exactly is a user's nationality. The community gained a pretty good consensus (with the exception of mainly one user), and I learned a lot about policy and Wikipedia's Biography guidelines. I also had quite a long debate with a user over a particular trivia item at Superman Returns where he has been the most prominent editor, but we resolved it, everyone was happy and we have since had pleasant encounters continuing to improve the article. My approach for dealing with edit conflicts has been to take the discussion to the talk page as soon as there is a sign of stress. Even when the initial feelings have been tense, things have always worked out well this way and I would continue to take this approach. I've even had some great discussions this way with users who were originally adding inappropriate external links, and found out that they were doing so because the article's existing links were unbalanced and needed to be mostly removed anyway.
- 4. Optional question from User:Dlohcierekim. Hi, Renesis13. Thanks for submitting your RfA. I did not see in your answer to Question #3 a mention of the matters discussed atUser_talk:Renesis13#Talk:Jack_Vance and User_talk:Renesis13#Personal_attacks..... Can you tell us what happened, what you learned from them, and if you would do anything differently today. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A: Hi Dlohcierekim. Thanks for your question -- that spawned out of the incident I referred to above as "semi-vandals" (in which I meant User:Arvin Sloane and the many IP addresses he uses). User:Peter1968 is a good editor who supported some of the same ideas as Arvin Sloane, and as such got embroiled in an argument against the {{WPBiography}} template that was removed by Arvin Sloane and re-added by me, Gamaliel and others. Arvin Sloane repeatedly blanked the talk page, vandalized Gamaliel's talk page and made numerous personal attacks. The Talk:Jack Vance page seemed to have a cabal that would have none of Wikipedia's biography-related guidelines. I associated Peter1968 with this group after he made a comment referring to our "guideline fetishism". After a couple messages on the {{Blp}} talk page, we took it to our own talk pages and I found out he had nothing to do with Arvin Sloane and was just a little fed up with what seemed to him like policy zealots, and we had a good discussion. In retrospect, I should not have associated him so quickly with the other vandals, but we had a good conversation and I don't regret getting to that point. With respect to Arvin Sloane, I hope we are done with him. He was just trying to cause trouble, and I felt the only way to stop it was to try to reason in some way with him, since his IP changed every few hours and his removal of the templates and reversions of Gamaliel were relentless. In the end, he acknowledged he was just trying to get his way through outlandish behavior, and he did stop. We haven't had any problem since.
- General comments
- See Renesis13's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
Discussion
Support
- I prefer Wankel support! --Aguerriero (talk) 19:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FirstSecond Support I see nothing I don't like. --Daniel Olsen 19:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Support Looks good, with participation in XfD discussions, vandal warnings, etc. (aeropagitica) 20:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support good editor. Rama's arrow 21:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support Surprisingly low edit count. Given quality of edits, should do ok. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 22:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks fine by me, and satisfies my standards.-- danntm T C 23:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support John254 02:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per record of good contributions, solid answers to questions, no issues of concern. Newyorkbrad 02:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support semper fi — Moe 02:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Nice answer to the optional question --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 02:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I like what I see, and I like how you have handled disputes. ViridaeTalk 02:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Good answers to the questions, well-rounded user...sounds good to me. I live without popups, though! :-P 1ne 04:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merovingian ※ Talk 06:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Looks like he will make a good admin. NauticaShades 07:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Kimchi.sg 08:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rotary Support Looks fine. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this candidate! - 17:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support FireSpike 23:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No problems here. A good editor. --Siva1979Talk to me 20:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, Aye. --Terence Ong (C | R) 03:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support although more edits are desirable, I see no reason why this editor would abuse or misuse the tools. James086 Talk | Contribs 13:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Zoom zoom zoom Nothing to oppose and assuming he drives a Mazda, that's a reason to support. SchmuckyTheCat 19:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- --Dario vet 13:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Very good edits, even though the user has a somewhat low edit count. Hello32020 15:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- --Rudjek 18:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Granted, Wiki stats aren't something that is stellar. However, strength and not number of contributions is what matters here. I think if Renesis takes a cautious clear headed approach, he will be fine. His edits display a sound knowledge of policy. Yanksox 03:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Candidate looks well-qualified and dedicated to the encyclopedia. I have no qualms supporting him, despite objections. —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 21:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Oppose This diff shows a misunderstanding of the WP:EL guidelines. There is nothing that says fan sites are not allowed as long as they fall in line with the rest of the guide. The guide recently underwent a full-scale rewrite, but even before a link to a major fansite was acceptable. Now, I have not looked at the link nor am I familiar with the concept of the article, so it remains possible that the link may not have been suitable anyway. However, I would not feel comfortable handing admin tools to this user, as he might be a bit loose with the block button towards users who have done nothing wrong.--Mike 23:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Hi, I don't want to sound defensive, but I do need to say something about this example. About 6 months ago, that article was a magnet for fansite links. There was talk about only allowing one reasonable link, but as I recall, a user more experienced with articles that typically dealt with fansite links said that the usual standard was to not allow any, and all of them were removed. Since that time I've kept the article on my watchlist to maintain this standard, and every week or so someone would re-add the site "chrisdaughtryfans.com" (a site with ads placed prominently at the top and no real new content since May) and I would remove it. I realize that my removal of the latest links (to "chrisdaughtryhome.com") might appear harsh out of context, but considering the circumstances, it is the most fair/proper thing to do. I have studied the WP:EL guidelines quite thoroughly in order to make fair judgments in many other cases. Since they are so subjective, I try to consider each case as it comes, and I feel this is the right thing to do in the Chris Daughtry case. I respect your decision however, and I just thought you should know the background behind those edits. -- Renesis (talk) 05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll switch to neutral given the circumstances. Mike 15:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, I don't want to sound defensive, but I do need to say something about this example. About 6 months ago, that article was a magnet for fansite links. There was talk about only allowing one reasonable link, but as I recall, a user more experienced with articles that typically dealt with fansite links said that the usual standard was to not allow any, and all of them were removed. Since that time I've kept the article on my watchlist to maintain this standard, and every week or so someone would re-add the site "chrisdaughtryfans.com" (a site with ads placed prominently at the top and no real new content since May) and I would remove it. I realize that my removal of the latest links (to "chrisdaughtryhome.com") might appear harsh out of context, but considering the circumstances, it is the most fair/proper thing to do. I have studied the WP:EL guidelines quite thoroughly in order to make fair judgments in many other cases. Since they are so subjective, I try to consider each case as it comes, and I feel this is the right thing to do in the Chris Daughtry case. I respect your decision however, and I just thought you should know the background behind those edits. -- Renesis (talk) 05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Editor has insufficient experience in wiki-process at this time. Xoloz 18:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Xoloz. Jorcogα 04:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose now per Xoloz, especially if you want to close XfD's. Future support likely. ~ trialsanderrors 06:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Since this is becoming somewhat of an issue, and the standard questions didn't really offer me a chance to explain my history with Wiki-process, I should explain what experience I do have. I feel that Radiant's observation below is somewhat misleading, in that although my contributions to various XFD's has increased quite a bit lately, my experience (specifically, in AFD and RFD) goes back to at least last December/January. I participated quite heavily in RFD for a while beginning in December, and have been back many times since then (WP:RFD has been on my watchlist since then). I first nominated an AFD at the beginning of January and have nominated/participated in many since then as well. I may have been through the various processes less than some editors, but I wouldn't like my recent increase in participation to hide the participation I did have in the past. -- Renesis (talk) 06:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Disapprove of "fighting" in an encyclopedia. ... aa:talk 20:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you provide an example? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- From self-nom: I have worked mostly on cleanup tasks and spam/vandal fighting. ... aa:talk 00:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- For more on avriette's approach (quite different from most editors) to RfAs, see the comments at the Gogo Dodo RfA nomination, above. John Broughton | Talk 14:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- From self-nom: I have worked mostly on cleanup tasks and spam/vandal fighting. ... aa:talk 00:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you provide an example? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Xoloz. - crz crztalk 01:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose sorry. Just not enough experience for me. You've been editing for over a year but only have 2000 edits, 232 in WP, 226 in talk. I don't think this is anywhere near enough experience for an admin candidate. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 21:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- User looks good, but appears to have little experience in process except for the last week or so. (Radiant) 10:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral, as per Radiant. --SonicChao talk 16:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral per Radiant. Half of the XfD edits have been made in the last two weeks or so. I would definitely support if I could see a bit more participation in XfD's for the next month or so. Nishkid64 20:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral a good user with a great attitude. I just need to see a bit more experience before supporting Lostkiwi 05:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral per Radiant. I've been here 2 years or so, but I've only clocked about 2 months serious time on Wikipedia. If, say, you had been on here a year with over two or three months solid work, I would be glad to support your Rfa. However, until that time has come, I must remain Neutral. If you do run again sometime after 3 or so months, I would be glad to vote for you. Sharkface217 04:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral changed from oppose. The standard was never not to allow any fansite links, but given the circumstances I can understand Renesis' actions toward the article. I still don't feel 100% comfortable supporting this RfA, but I don't think there is a need to oppose. Good luck! Mike 15:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral a good user with a helpful attitude. I need to see a bit more experience before supporting. Chavatshimshon 03:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral inasmuch as, whilst I am altogether sure that Renesis is possessed of the cordial demeanor and deliberative disposition the presence of which in a prospective admin is quite auspicious and am thus quite confident that Renesis would not, qua admin, abuse or misuse volitionally the tools, I can't conclude to any reasonable degree of certainty that he/she is sufficiently well-acquainted with policy as to be unlikely to misuse the tools avolitionally (e.g., by acting whereof he/she does not well know), such that I don't think it categorically plain that the net effect on the project of Renesis's becoming an admin will be positive, and so, consistent with my RfA guidelines, I must, rather regretfully, remain neutral. Joe 19:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.
Nae'blis
Final (104/0/0) Ended 16:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Nae'blis (talk · contribs) – I made an offer to nominate Nae'blis for adminship three months ago, and for good reasons. Nae'blis is a detail editor, working across all namespaces to help keep the project running. With over 7,000 edits since first joining us in August 2005, Nae'blis also has over 1,500 edits to wikinamespace, contributing to Afd's and other deletion categories, and has now informed me that the tools would be welcomed. Nae'blis works in all areas of the the wiki and there is little doubt that this editor is civil, well established and provides excellent contributions. It's my pleasure to nominate.--MONGO 06:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Having fallen deep into the Wikibyss, I accept. -- nae'blis 16:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
- 1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
- A: I have helped out with unambiguous closes in XfD, and orphaning those that clearly look like they will be deleted by an admin at closing. I've also got a penchant for patrolling Candidates for speedy deletion, as while I can't delete problems there now, I can occasionally help lower the backlog by redirecting too-specific titles, or expanding/sourcing/AFDing borderline articles. In addition to those, I expect I'll be able to help out with copyvio articles and images (only the blatant ones at first), and two that are near and dear to my heart, Requested Moves and merging page histories. Protected templates are also an area I have confidence in my ability to assist; being an administrator on A Wheel of Time wiki over on Wikia gives me some familiarity with the tools, including blocking, fixing cut-and-paste moves, and editing the MediaWiki namespace.
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A: I've tried to keep track of articles I've started or significantly improved; no Featured Articles or the like, but to my knowledge no page I've started has ever been AFDed or Speedied, probably because I take time to ensure that even my first "progressive save" has some reliable sources and a summary of why the topic needs an article. I've also added sources on a number of articles that I both do and don't have an interest in; the {{fact}} tag draws me like a moth to a flame. *laugh* Actually, I'm working right now on an idea to make the {{unreferenced}} tag "dated" like the {{wikify}}/{{cleanup}} tags are; we've got to get a grip somehow on the number of unsourced articles, even though I don't agree with timed deletion as the answer. I'm recently proud of rescuing Free Hugs Campaign from deletion, and translating Raymond Ditmars from the French Wikipedia.
- 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
- A: My edits tend to be to out-of-the-way articles for the most part (there's enough eyes on George W. Bush, but vandalism on domestic goat can stay for hours or days), so I don't get into a lot of tenditious editing or conflicts. The biggest situations that come to mind are:
- Rigoberto Alpizar - in January 2005, there was a persistent effort to label the shooting death here a "murder" before any trial or formal inquiry had occurred. The talk page ended up in quite a stink over the whole affair, but my NPOV edits/reverts had the backing of most editors involved, although it later led to related problems on Police state.
- Megadeth - on 16 May 2006, a user started adding what appeared to be fan art on this page in rapid-fire fashion. This was spectacularly frustrating because it was literally being redone every few minutes, with unrelated edit summaries. There seemed to be some language-barrier/policy understanding issues going on, but eventually the user got blocked for more than 3 reversions of the page, and has calmed significantly since then.
- Ancient Anguish - a MUD I still visit, and which attracts strong opinions from some players and ex-players. It's on my regularly patrolled pages list, and a user had some strong words about my tendency to remove opinions and criticisms from the article on the talk page.
- Mostly, though, I don't edit often enough or contentious enough topics to get into edit wars. I'd rather fill in the blanks and tidy up the place, than get into a pissing contest. So I'll go edit elsewhere if things get hot, or go do something in the real world for a time.
- A: My edits tend to be to out-of-the-way articles for the most part (there's enough eyes on George W. Bush, but vandalism on domestic goat can stay for hours or days), so I don't get into a lot of tenditious editing or conflicts. The biggest situations that come to mind are:
- General comments
- See Nae'blis's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
Discussion
- Cool, this is probably going to reach 100 people. -Amarkov blahedits 00:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support
- As nominator.--MONGO 17:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, as per nom. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, even if we disagree on a few things. The few things that worry me don't affect me enough otherwise. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom. Seems good. ↔ ANAS - Talk 17:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support from past experience with this user, I believe the user can be trusted with admin tools. The user also passes their own standards at User:Nae'blis/Standards. Carcharoth 17:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Grue 18:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Demonstrates a clarity of vision regarding site policies that mirror the founding principles. Any new tools granted to this user are highly unlikely to be abused, and that's really the most important standard of all. Unfocused 18:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I wasn't able to find anything that would hurt the nominee's case. Also, coming across edits like this make me feel very comfortable with Nae'blis' potential adminship. --Brad Beattie (talk) 18:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Good answers, especially question 1. Good luck! --Majorly (Talk) 18:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per answers, and not only good edit summary percentage, but good edit summaries. --Daniel Olsen 18:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Though it isn't an admin-chore, I'm especially glad to see someone attacking those {{fact}} tags! -- Renesis (talk) 19:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I've seen this user around being helpful, thoughtful and most importantly, civil. Looks like a good candidate. —Doug Bell talk 19:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I support. Conscious 19:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Highly qualified, he's done well around AfD, and I'm happy to support.-- danntm T C 20:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support ~ trialsanderrors 20:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - per Brad Beattie --T-rex 20:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks like a good candidate. (aeropagitica) 20:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Khoikhoi 21:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SNOW Support ST47Talk 21:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support very good editor. Rama's arrow 21:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- - crz crztalk 21:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - good devoted editor, and, frankly, I thought he is an admin already Alex Bakharev 22:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I thought he was an admin this summer. ~ crazytales-talk- 22:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support...as long as I can call you "Moridin." :) --Mr. Lefty (talk) 22:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, so long as I can call you Mister Sinister. -- nae'blis 04:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Nae'blis would make a great admin. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 23:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I performed a review of his contributions (though admittedly not as deep as for someone I nominate) and found nothing wanting. Outstanding candidate, and should be given a mop with extra big mop head. --Durin 00:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you flirting with me, Durin? -- nae'blis 04:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support From what I can tell, this user qualifies. =) Nishkid64 00:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, civil and well spoken. Must obviously be patient and driven as well since he made it through all 9,685 pages of the Wheel of Time series. :) Kuru talk 01:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Despite the fact that nae'blis read all 9,685 pages of the Wheel of Time series --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle
- Support per good answers, comments above, no concerns with this editor. Newyorkbrad 02:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support semper fi — Moe 02:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Liked your answer to question 3. Very comprehensive --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 02:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. You deserve it. bibliomaniac15 03:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support; of course. Flcelloguy (A note?) 03:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Just don't fall into the Wikibyss again! ;-) 1ne 04:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good answers to questions as well! Jam01 06:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support, I've seen Nae'blis around the place often (although never actually talked to him), and everywhere I have his input and edits have been thoughtful. Wikipedia will benefit if this user gets the mop. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 06:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merovingian ※ Talk 06:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support (rubs eyes in disbelief) Jorcogα 06:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. What have you been waiting for? Dragons flight 07:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 24 hours ago, I'm sure I could have said... now I'm looking at the RfA so far and couldn't tell you. *sheepish grin* -- nae'blis 13:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. A good editor. NauticaShades 07:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Kimchi.sg 08:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Kusma (討論) 08:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I thought he already was one. Eluchil404 09:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- RFA cliche #1. And I don't say that often ;) (Radiant) 09:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Good and responsible contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this candidate! - 10:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support, per above/answers, plus when I was rather a casual user on wikipedia, still having it bookmarked under references along with Webster’s online dictionary, I was rather upset to have my first category placed on cfd around aug, Nae'blis was considerate enough to drop a message helping me understand better. I'm not supporting based on that alone, however it is why it's strong ▪◦▪≡Ѕirex98≡ 11:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support - In my dealings with Nae'blis, I have gotten the impression that he already not only was an admin, but was one of the most pleasant to work with. I was wrong on the first point, but I have no reason to believe that this promotion will change my opinion on the second point. Badbilltucker 14:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A familiar name on AfD's. Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. For your work at the help desk. yandman 16:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Without any reservation. Khukri (talk . contribs) 20:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Zaxem 23:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom. VegaDark 23:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- El_C 00:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support a good candidate --Steve (Slf67) talk 02:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support He seems to know what he's doing. Will be a good admin? Yep. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 03:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Geez, are you kidding me? I thought he was an Arbitrator... well, not really, but you know what I mean. Titoxd(?!?) 05:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, hey look, it's a round 60. Please let there be more admin candidates like this. -Amarkov blahedits 05:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support ViridaeTalk 11:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I've run into him occasionally. Good editor. Give him the mop already. - Mgm|(talk) 12:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support sounds good, very good. James086 Talk | Contribs 13:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - good guy. Tom Harrison Talk 15:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Thought he was one. Haukur 17:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nomination. --Siva1979Talk to me 18:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support #include i-can't-believe-this-one-not-an-admin-already.cliché Guy (Help!) 18:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom. --Aude (talk) 20:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, as per nom. Very good editor. --Carioca 20:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, great user. Looks good. --Terence Ong (C | R) 03:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A big YES to much-needed sanity and reason. metaspheres 04:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Support The Wheel of Time thing does show deep psychological issues but otherwise great user who can be trusted with admin powers. Good luck Nae'blis! You should also consider getting active in dispute resolution tasks as your levelheadness and great communication skills would be very valuable in those aspects of Wikipedia Lostkiwi 05:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, can I really say anything that 72 others haven't already said? :) riana_dzasta 06:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sniper support Right on target. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 10:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I though Nae'blis already was one... — Gary Kirk // talk! 13:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per above, thought he was one as well. ;o) Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support Emerging from my flu-induced haze to sing the praise of this candidate, thoughtful and kind. There is no one better suited for the job. Xoloz 23:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I see nothing wrong here. Nae'blis is very, very patient. This is a quality that many more Wikipedia admins need. Give him the mop!Sharkface217 04:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. G.He 04:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Knowledgeable, solicitous, and committed editor. -- Satori Son 06:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Very, very, *very* obvious. —Nightstallion (?) 12:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom and comment above.MustTC 19:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support (almost superfluously) --Docg 01:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nominator. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 05:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, of course. Grutness...wha? 05:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- strong support --Dario vet 13:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, too tough to find a good reason not to support! Mathmo 14:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Very capable of becoming an administrator. Hello32020 15:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- --Rudjek 18:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- JoshuaZ 23:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- JYolkowski // talk 00:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Axl 08:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- strong support- Nileena joseph (Talk|Contribs) 17:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Accurizer 17:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I, too, watch the vast herds of goats alone. ... aa:talk 20:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- SUpport - clearly knows ins and outs of WP. Rich Farmbrough, 22:42 27 November 2006 (GMT).
- WP:97 Support Yanksox 23:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wheel of Time support! I was going to wait to be number 100, but I think everyone else has the same idea, and I'm not very patient. ;) I've been wondering when someone was going to nom you... Nae'blis is a fantastic candidate: he's a civil user, great vandal fighter AND participates in XfDs. Srose (talk) 01:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support and gripe about not getting to be the magic 100th supporter. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Bucketsofg 02:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. No doubts here. Good luck! -- AuburnPilottalk 03:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support; looks good: I see everything I like. Antandrus (talk) 03:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support good editor, hopefully better admin. Tbeatty 05:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, three months late but finally done ;). NoSeptember 11:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Oppose
Neutral
- The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.
Viridae
Final (48/2/1) Ended 13:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Viridae (talk · contribs) – I nominated Viridae a couple months ago (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Viridae). Obviously I believed then that we should have promoted him, but some users felt 3 months was not enough experience. Viridae has been editing for over half a year now and has over 5,000 edits. He just finished the school year and will have plenty of time for helping Wikipedia.
To summarize my previous nomination: Viridae, an undergraduate student, is a dedicated RC patroller, communicates intelligently and civilly, is helpful, reacts well in the face of conflict, and has participated in many administrative areas. Viridae is unlikely to abuse admin tools and would use them to benefit Wikipedia. —Quarl (talk) 2006-11-21 07:10Z
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. ViridaeTalk 11:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The answers to the base questions in this this RfA will be very similar to/if not the same as those from my previous RfA. They will still echo my current feelings, or will be modified to suit. ViridaeTalk 11:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
- 1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
- A: As an admin I would help close discussions in WP:AFD, WP:CFD and WP:RFD but at the same time, not limiting myself to closing disscussions - also continuing to be involved. I will not close any discussion in which I had been involved unless the concensus is clear. I would also reguarly check on CAT:CSD to make sure speedy deletions are exactly that. I would have WP:AIV and n my watchlist, nothing is to be gained from a backlog building up there, something I have seen with increasing regularity recently. I would also have the various Administrator noticeboards (such as WP:AN and WP:ANI for instance) on my watchlist in a similar way to how I currently have WP:HD and WP:VPA on my watchlist now. I find the administrator noticeboards very useful for dealing with complex situations needing administrator, and I wish to help others as others there have helped me. I can see myself involved in WP:RM too because that is frequently backlogged. Last but not least I would continue RC patrol and new pages patrol. This is all just a starting point , I hope to utilise my new mop, if I get it, wherever it may be needed within the project.
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A: My largest and most time consuming edit was definately the addition of the Non-viral methods section to Gene Therapy. This was also the article that prompted me to sign up to Wikipedia and start editing. I am (as mentioned by Quarl) a third year molecular and cell biology student, so noticing that non-viral methods was severely lacking from that article prompted me to leave a note on the talk page asking someone to expand that section. When noone did, I did it myself. It took several hours of research, looking through review papers on pubmed and my own lecture notes to write but I think it has been a worthwhile contribution and I hope those who read it find it useful and interesting. My involvement in writing the encyclopedia will probobly continue to revolve around my studies - as I learn fascinating things, I come and look at the relevant wikipedia articles (if they exist) and if I notice that they lacking in some department, I will research and add to them as needed.As mentioned in the nomination I have recently concluded my 3rd year of studies and I will hopefully be heading into honours next year. As my expertise grows in my field (I will be working in the same subject area as I hope to do my honours in over the summer break) I will feel more confident in adding to the relevent wikipedia articles. Just as I have used wikipedia as an entry point for my research for papers etc, I hope to expand and improve the quality so other may do the same. That said, the research and translation of material from scientific jargon into quality articles takes a lot of time and brain power and the latter is not something I have a whole heap spare of these days so for the most part my involvement in the encyclopedia is with minor edits and vandalfighting. But I will continue to slowly add as I see fit.
- 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
- A: I have been in some minor editing disputes at times, some of which have temporarily raised my blood pressure but nothing serious. I find the best way to deal with disputes is to approach them calmly and thoughfully. Calling names, and getting very angry is useless. The first violates Wikipedia policy and achieves nothing and the second shortens your life span and also achieves nothing. I suppose the best example of how I handle a dispute would be this dispute with the now blocked editor Ste4k. As you can see, I tried to remain calm and literate and present my argument as I saw it. The dispute was not resolved, but as you can see it was concluded when we agreed to disagree on the matter. I was also frustrated with the amount of ridiculous information in the Mini Mammoth article and ended up removing large chunks of hoax material, in the process leaving an edit summary of "removing crap" (which I immediately regretted). My deletions led to a minor dispute with another editor with him implying I was a vandal and my pointing out to him that the inclusion of hoax material in an article was vandalism, not its removal. This dispute finished when I decided that I did not want to be involved in a dispute over something so trivial, especially when the AfD was progressing rapidly to a deletion consensus.
- A more ongoing dispute is my involvement in the notability of schools, and thus their relevance to Wikipedia. I am a strong supporter in analyzing each article/school on its merits and not the blanket "all schools are notable" viewpoint taken by some editors. This has lead to frequent discussions in AfD nominations and at times some frustration on my part. I always try and remain calm however and argue the point in a rational manner. If I do have the fortune to be granted with a few extra buttons, I will never close an AfD discussion in which I have been involved that does not have a clear consensus. A point that paticuarly applies to the articles about schools - in which I obviously have a vested interest. I believe conflict of interest when making decisions such as that can only be harmfull.
- Optional Question from User:Robdurbar
- 4. The aim of this question is to gauge something about your attitude towards Wikipedia. It may seem a bit specific and it is just for myself so if you don't feel like going through the whole effor of answering it, then don't; I won't hold it against you. Furthermore note that I have been invovled in some of the debates on relative policy pages for such issues - do not feel that you have to support my POV! Hope its not too confusing! ;) --Robdurbar 12:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- aLook at the page Karen Dotrice, Protection logs from September 9 and its history from September 9. Without looking at policy or the debates around the page (i.e., using your current level of knoweldge), what do you feel about the period of semi-protection and latter period of move protection on the page? What (if any) actions would you have taken on the page that day?
- The page protection was not justified. It wass a front page article, which means it has high exposure and articles featured on the front page generally improve greatly because of their exposure. The move protection however, especially because of the WOW moves, was justified. The article is a bio which means that unless the subject changes their name, a move will not be required. It is therefore allowable to move protect it while it is on the front page. Anyone who wished to legitimately move it could take up the issue on the talk page. (something which would not in the slightest practical with regards to small changes that anonymous ips/users could contribute if the article had been edit protected.) I also believe that the move protection was removed appropriately after the article was no longer on the front page. ViridaeTalk 13:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- aLook at the page Karen Dotrice, Protection logs from September 9 and its history from September 9. Without looking at policy or the debates around the page (i.e., using your current level of knoweldge), what do you feel about the period of semi-protection and latter period of move protection on the page? What (if any) actions would you have taken on the page that day?
- bNow consider the relative policies and recent discussion about such issues (See WP:NOPRO and Wikipedia talk:Semi-protection policy. To what extent were you aware of these (does not matter if you wern't) and how would these policies have affected your actions if you had been aware of them i) in the state that they were on 9 September and ii) in the state that they are now?
- I am aware of WP:NOPRO but I was not aware of the discussions surrounding it. The front page is the face of wikipedia (sorry Jimbo) and since Wikipedia proclaims itself to be an encyclopedia anyone can edit, I believe protecting or semi protecting the front page article in reponse to vandalism for more than a few minutes will always do more harm than good. The front page article always has a lot of people with it on their watchlist so vandalism should never take too long to be reverted - ussually within seconds. I feel that most people understand that an "anyone can edit" policy also means that "anyone can screw about with it" and are therefore for the most part mindfull of this and may even be encouraged to participate by removing the vanalism themselves, rather than waiting for someone else to do so. ViridaeTalk 13:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- bNow consider the relative policies and recent discussion about such issues (See WP:NOPRO and Wikipedia talk:Semi-protection policy. To what extent were you aware of these (does not matter if you wern't) and how would these policies have affected your actions if you had been aware of them i) in the state that they were on 9 September and ii) in the state that they are now?
- Optional Question from Brad Beattie
- 5. I was looking at your edits and I see a sharp drop off in the past 3 months. Obviously things come up in one's life outside of Wikipedia, but I was wondering what your perspective is on the timing between that and your RFA. --Brad Beattie (talk) 13:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It was actually in reponse to university work taking over - being a third year student, I found that I could no longer accomodate the levels I had been participating in wikipedia and had to limit myself. Althought I was not necessarily editng as much, I still found time to do what I what I did when I first came here - read the articles for hours on end. That is why I am doing a science course - my insatiable curiosity. ViridaeTalk 13:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- General comments
- See Viridae's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
Discussion
Support
- Support, as nominator. —Quarl (talk) 2006-11-21 07:10Z
- Support per strong participation in admin-like duties already, XfD, anti-vandal and RC patrols, and strong skills in handling conflict. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 13:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Aguerriero (talk) 14:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Good user -- Lost(talk) 14:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. User's answers are good. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 15:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I like this user. The adding of copyrighted image to a userbox is eye-brow raising, but the user has accepted his fault there, and I believe this reason is not enough to blemish the wonderful contributions this user has made. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 16:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A one-off mistake hardly erases the value of his contributions and aptitude for adminship. Rama's arrow 16:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I believe user is a good candidate. ↔ ANAS - Talk 17:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Nominee is well suited for the tools. Agent 86 18:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I said I was winnable and you've just about won me over, though answer to question 5 unsettles me somewhat; however my question was answered well and that and talk page respone have allayed my main concerns that Viridae would show a lack of an overview of Wikipedia. Will make, I suspect, a good admin. --Robdurbar 18:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Can I clarify something to set your mind at rest? ViridaeTalk 21:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well you allayed my initial concerns, as I said. To me answer 5 raises a couple of questions about commitment and whether you'd actually enjoy being an admin; but that is just one possible interpretation, and not one I am accusing you of. --Robdurbar 19:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Can I clarify something to set your mind at rest? ViridaeTalk 21:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support One image problem is not fatal to the RfA, just be careful about the Fair Use policies.-- danntm T C 20:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - someone's opinions on an issue shouldn't count against them at RfA ST47Talk 21:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - as per ST47 and others - it's crazy that someones opinion should count against them come RfA time. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 22:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, strong work in AFD (notably the Mini Mammoth spectacular). Solid contributor. Kuru talk 01:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support John254 02:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - The few interactions I've had with Viridae were positive, and there is an excellent contribution history to show that we have a serious editor here. No qualms about giving this one some extra tools :) Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 02:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support looks good -- Samir धर्म 02:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hell Yes! Jorcogα 06:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. People are overreacting. He said that his view on talk page warnings would not interfere with his acts as an admin. NauticaShades 08:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support seems like he would make a good admin. James086 Talk | Contribs 09:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per above. MER-C 09:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support per last RfA and answers above. Eluchil404 09:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 10:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, no issues. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - seems like he would be a good admin --rogerd 01:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Support on further review. ~ trialsanderrors 07:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - live and learn, per Rama's arrow, Nearly Headless Nick. Tom Harrison Talk 15:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 18:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. DarthVader 22:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Learning from his/her mistakes. That's what I like to see in admin candidates. Nishkid64 02:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Terence Ong (C | R) 03:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A good Wikipedian who will help the community well. –- kungming·2 (Talk) | Review 06:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as Viridae has shown great qualities and a will to learn and adapt following feedback --Lostkiwi 06:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sniper support Right on target. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 10:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Per Rama's Arrow and Nick. riana_dzasta 11:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - seems to have all the qualities of a good admin. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 21:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – User has some very minor blemishes, but fewer than I did when I was promoted. I think he'll make a fine admin. – ClockworkSoul 21:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Although Radiant brought up some good issues, I still believe that Viridae will make a good admin.Sharkface217 04:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. G.He 04:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Changed from neutral after further review of the issue Radiant raised, plus the nominees execellent responses here and demonstration of the demeanor needed in an admin. —Doug Bell talk 19:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 05:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Excellent answers given above and the way the nominee addressed concerns brought up earlier, looks good. ▪◦▪≡Ѕirex98≡ 07:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- --Dario vet 13:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good answers to the questions asked, great user to give the tools to. Hello32020 15:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- --Rudjek 18:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Ding Dong. Special Delivery From FedEx: A New Mop! hehe, good work. Wikipediarules2221 02:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Bucketsofg 02:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
OpposeSorry to say, but you just added a userbox with a copyrighted image to your user page ten days ago. See Wikipedia:Fair use#Policy #9. ~ trialsanderrors 11:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]- To be honest I didnt even think to check where the image came from - and I am fully aware of fair use and what it entails - indeed I have asked other users to remove fair use images from their userpages before. Rest assured I did not create that userbox, and will now remove the image from it. I hope you can overlook this as a simple mistake. I may be able to hunt down a demonstration of where I asked someone to remove fair use images from their userpage if it would satisfy you. ViridaeTalk 11:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 's ok, I'm not encouraging others to oppose you because of it. To all others: I hope the lapse in judgment is covered with my oppose and everybody else evaluates you on your other contributions. ~ trialsanderrors 11:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I found the userbox on this userpage: User:Adamm. I have removed the userbox from my userpage and contacted those others that are using the image in that userbox, asking them to remove it. ViridaeTalk 11:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 's ok, I'm not encouraging others to oppose you because of it. To all others: I hope the lapse in judgment is covered with my oppose and everybody else evaluates you on your other contributions. ~ trialsanderrors 11:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- To be honest I didnt even think to check where the image came from - and I am fully aware of fair use and what it entails - indeed I have asked other users to remove fair use images from their userpages before. Rest assured I did not create that userbox, and will now remove the image from it. I hope you can overlook this as a simple mistake. I may be able to hunt down a demonstration of where I asked someone to remove fair use images from their userpage if it would satisfy you. ViridaeTalk 11:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, coona. Auroranorth 11:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)- Please explain. MER-C 12:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- !Vote stricken; !vote made in bad faith with the intent to vandalize. Essjay (Talk) 05:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I object, per Viridae's strong opinion on removing talk page warnings ("Deleting valid vandalism warnings is wrong, they should be restored and an additional warning given, and if repeated this should lead to blocking or talk page protection, even in the absence of other disputes"). (Radiant) 12:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]- I respect that, but may I point out that as in the case of schools (see the questions) I will never let my view on a matter such as that cross over into my actions as an admin. If I felt that something I was doing may not be in line with consensus or my judgement could be questioned due to involvement such as that I would always try and guage the feelings of the greater majority at WP:AN or get someone else to act for me (ie another admin). This policy of mine will cover all my admin actions. ViridaeTalk 12:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Radiant, I haven't formed an opinion on this user yet, but is it really appropriate to vote against someone because of how they voted in a poll on how to make policy? The user didn't say, "I'm going to make it this way", he (or she?) said the policy ought to reflect this particular thing. I count 25 other people to agree with this user, including 5 admins. If we're not going to let someone become an admin because of how they feel on a personal matter, I'm afraid our standards are so stringent that almost no one will become an admin. I'm afraid it's also compromising the integrity of the poll - "if you vote this and this way on the poll, and I disagree with you, then later I will vote against you if you come up for RfA). I hope I'm not too strongly worded here; it's possible I missed something. But that's how I see this one. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 22:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How this user voted in whatever poll is irrelevant. What is important, is that this user believes it is appropriate to revert war to keep warnings on a talk page, and to block people for removing warnings from their talk page. I am concerned that this person will, if promoted, make inappropriate blocks. And therefore I believe he is not a suitable candidate. (Radiant) 09:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- At the risk of being seen to be argumentative by arguing with the oppose votes on my RfA, I have to say this because I feel you have misinterpereted my position. Those were not my words that you quoted, but the words most appropriate in the poll at the time. I do feel that as a dedicated RC patroller, pre-existing warnings do have a bearing on how I give further warnings - Indeed, I believe Vandalproof, the program that I use during RC patrol relies on pre-existing warnings to give you a summary of the warnings already given to allow you to choose an appropriate one. I have never said that I would take it to the point of edit waring with someone over warnings on their talk page, but had that been a choice that would have been stated. My point with that poll was that a vandalism warning is of benefit to the community, thus I would prefer if they stayed on the talk page/were moved to an archive but NOT simply deleted. I never condone edit waring with someone and I always feel that if a revert war is pointless. That is why I always restrict myself to a 2RR rule at a maximum unless it is a case of clear vandalism. I have already stated that my personal views about how policy should be conducted (as in this case) will never be allowed to affect my actions as an admin, and if I feel they are or coould be I will always ask for further advice. ViridaeTalk 17:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that's a reasonable answer, and withdraw my opposition. (Radiant) 11:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- At the risk of being seen to be argumentative by arguing with the oppose votes on my RfA, I have to say this because I feel you have misinterpereted my position. Those were not my words that you quoted, but the words most appropriate in the poll at the time. I do feel that as a dedicated RC patroller, pre-existing warnings do have a bearing on how I give further warnings - Indeed, I believe Vandalproof, the program that I use during RC patrol relies on pre-existing warnings to give you a summary of the warnings already given to allow you to choose an appropriate one. I have never said that I would take it to the point of edit waring with someone over warnings on their talk page, but had that been a choice that would have been stated. My point with that poll was that a vandalism warning is of benefit to the community, thus I would prefer if they stayed on the talk page/were moved to an archive but NOT simply deleted. I never condone edit waring with someone and I always feel that if a revert war is pointless. That is why I always restrict myself to a 2RR rule at a maximum unless it is a case of clear vandalism. I have already stated that my personal views about how policy should be conducted (as in this case) will never be allowed to affect my actions as an admin, and if I feel they are or coould be I will always ask for further advice. ViridaeTalk 17:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How this user voted in whatever poll is irrelevant. What is important, is that this user believes it is appropriate to revert war to keep warnings on a talk page, and to block people for removing warnings from their talk page. I am concerned that this person will, if promoted, make inappropriate blocks. And therefore I believe he is not a suitable candidate. (Radiant) 09:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Radiant, I haven't formed an opinion on this user yet, but is it really appropriate to vote against someone because of how they voted in a poll on how to make policy? The user didn't say, "I'm going to make it this way", he (or she?) said the policy ought to reflect this particular thing. I count 25 other people to agree with this user, including 5 admins. If we're not going to let someone become an admin because of how they feel on a personal matter, I'm afraid our standards are so stringent that almost no one will become an admin. I'm afraid it's also compromising the integrity of the poll - "if you vote this and this way on the poll, and I disagree with you, then later I will vote against you if you come up for RfA). I hope I'm not too strongly worded here; it's possible I missed something. But that's how I see this one. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 22:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I respect that, but may I point out that as in the case of schools (see the questions) I will never let my view on a matter such as that cross over into my actions as an admin. If I felt that something I was doing may not be in line with consensus or my judgement could be questioned due to involvement such as that I would always try and guage the feelings of the greater majority at WP:AN or get someone else to act for me (ie another admin). This policy of mine will cover all my admin actions. ViridaeTalk 12:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Per Radiant! semper fi — Moe 02:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey Moe. Could you please go into a bit more detail? I'm not sure what about voting in an honest poll is not grounds for becoming an administrator, especially like, as I said, 5 administrators voted this way themselves. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 02:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As above. It's not about the poll, it's about when this user would use the block button. (Radiant) 09:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Pat. As Radiant! has stated, its not about his position in the poll, but about what his immediate opinion on the situation about it was and when he would use the block button. I feel that blocking for the reason of removing warnings from your talk page is wrong. There is currently no policy or guideline to follow on removing warnings from talk pages as it is common practice to archive conversation from your talk. I feel giving him adminship under his mindset is currently unneeded to what were trying to present to people. Telling people they could be blocked for that or revert warring over it is more disruption than it is helpful. Willingness to block someone for removing warnings is against policy is anything, as they are meant to be preventive, not treated as a punishment, and theres nothing preventive about blocking for archiving/removing talk page comments. I'm not saying that he would, but taken into consideration what he said on the poll, it sure seems like he could possibly block someone for the all the wrong reasons. In fact, I've been encouraging editors who report this as "vandalism" and want admin intervention to go about other ways with users who persistantly remove warning from thier talk page, other than blocking. I would like him to take that in consideration when dealing with editors (not saying that he doesn't though). semper fi — Moe 20:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As above. It's not about the poll, it's about when this user would use the block button. (Radiant) 09:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey Moe. Could you please go into a bit more detail? I'm not sure what about voting in an honest poll is not grounds for becoming an administrator, especially like, as I said, 5 administrators voted this way themselves. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 02:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Radiant!. 1ne 04:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- Suspended support awaiting further discussion and answer to questions, but I'd like to see evidence that the user has a full range of Wikipedia experiences - his contributions show a large concentration in RC patrolling and votes for deletion. --Robdurbar 12:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Following answers to questions etc, have gone with full support --Robdurbar 18:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rather than clutter this page further, I have answered your second part on the talk page. ViridaeTalk 13:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Robdurbar (minus the Suspended Support part). 1ne 17:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Changed to oppose. 1ne 04:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. The unmotivated promotion of several problem admins last week makes me pause. Better be cautious, especially as Radiant's concerns are valid (as usual with this wikipedian). --Ghirla -трёп- 18:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
Kafziel
Final: (74/22/5) Ended 03:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC) (following 37 hour extension)
Kafziel (talk · contribs) – Second nom. First nom withdrawn in June.
It is my pleasure to nominate Kafziel. He has been a dedicated user since January '06 and began editing way back in June '05. Kafziel is experienced in policy, thoughtful, and intelligent. He has 5K mainspace edits, lots of talking, and over 1000 quality projectspace edits. There are some FA's under his belt (see answer #2). Overall, there is no doubt that Kafziel has sufficient experience to be an effective administrator.
At the previous RfA several users raised legitimate concerns about incivility, which caused Kafziel to quickly withdraw his self-nom that same day. I believe that this user learned his lesson. I have reviewed his contributions since RfA #1, and can report that I didn't find this user to be incivil. Hopefully, enough time has passed to allow the community to express confidence in Kafziel. Thanks. - crz crztalk 13:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In my humble, completely disinterested opinion, the opposers are making a really big deal out of equivocal stray remarks. We have lots of backlogs, and we need dedicated intelligent sysops to combat them. I like his style, and I think he'll make a fine sysop. Besides, he's on board for recall, so if it comes to pass that he abuses the tools - an unlikely prospect - then you can come forward then and put an end to it. Lay off my nominee, please. He's a nice guy. - crz crztalk 23:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I appreciate your confidence and humbly accept. Kafziel Talk 14:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
- 1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
- A: I currently spend a lot of my time fighting vandalism, so my admin activities would be an extension of that. But in addition to AIV, I would also like to help out with requested moves and articles for deletion. There's always a backlog there and sometimes clearing it means putting a good deal of work into the articles themselves, which I enjoy. My focus on Wikipedia will always be the articles, so the sysop chores directly related to article improvement and article protection will always be my priority.
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A: My favorite article most recently is Compact Cassette, which I rewrote, reorganized, sourced, took photos for, and brought up to FA status. It was featured on the main page last month. I also created the notability guideline for royalty. The guideline ended up being much more controversial than I expected, but it was a good learning experience and I think it's heading in a positive direction. I keep my own work there to a minimum, to encourage new points of view and to avoid any perceptions of WP:OWN, but I'm still proud of it.
- 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
- A: Generally speaking, I find it best to take any project or article in moderation. If I start to feel stressed, I move on to something else. Wikipedia is a big place, and there is plenty of work to be done without conflict; that's the essence of my first rule. One of my most common methods of relaxing is editing articles related to my local area; I live in a small town so there's very rarely any conflict there. On the other hand, though, I don't back down from bullies. If someone is adamant about pushing POV content, spam links, or an unhelpful stylistic change, I will see the situation through. Sometimes that leads to conflict, but I strongly belive that as long as conversation continues, progress is made. If policy and consensus are with me, I'm willing to lead the discussion and, if need be, to be the "bad guy" who posts warnings, fills out 3RR reports, and gets his userpage vandalized.
- 4. From User:W.marsh: Concerning your 5 rules of Wikipedia, rule 5, No anonymous editor has ever added anything of vital importance to the Featured Article of the Day. How would you act concerning the main page FA as an admin?
- On a philosophical level, I never let my own opinions influence my behavior here; I disapprove of Wikiprojects, but I'm still a member of three of them. On a practical level, I've never had much to do with the main page; my bookmarks bring me to my watchlist, not to the main page. While I would support any proposal to allow semi-protection of the article of the day, I would never do so on my own against policy. In general, I agree that page protection should be used sparingly; in fact, a user who thought I was an admin recently asked me to protect a page, and you can see my response here.
- 5. From James086: Do you think being an admin will help help your point of view in discussions and on talk pages? i.e. will being an admin mean people listen to you more in content disputes, talk pages, XfD's and the like?
- I should certainly hope not! I believe in arguing the issue, not the man, and that goes both ways. It's wrong to oppose a proposal just because the nominator is a bad editor, and it's wrong to agree with a proposal just because the nominator is a good editor. I suppose, realistically, I can't speak for everybody; I don't know everyone's motivations. But I do know that a person's status as an editor or admin has never influenced my own opinions, and I wouldn't expect my status to influence anyone else.
- 6. From HighInBC: Do you feel your personal rule #4 is compatable with the guideline Wikipedia:Consensus?
- I didn't realize that rule was unclear before, and I think I've fixed it now. As I explained below (before seeing this question): This rule is talking about admins who say, "Much better reasoning from the opposition but I'm going with the vote count on this one." It's also, tangentially, about the Wikiprojects that help stack the "vote". I believe it's of absolutely vital importance to disregard vote counts and look for consensus instead. I would never make a decision based on a tally. The rule is saying how things are, not how things should be. It's about taking admins and voters to task on the real meaning of consensus. In that way, it's perfectly in line with Wikipedia:Consensus and I hope I've clarified that, both here and on my userpage.
- 7. From Laleena: Aren't Wikiprojects vital to help Wikipedia? I think so, at least, and I also think that a potenial admin should be part of more projects than that. Laleena 12:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Long answer – My strong suits are military topics and New York history and geography (and, by association, Native American history in the Northeast), so that's what I do. I could join lots of other groups, but I wouldn't have anything to add to them on a regular basis so I don't see the point. I edit a very wide range of topics, but I don't really need a group to suggest them to me. I find them on my own.
- Short answer – If I had a better education, I'd probably be part of more groups. :)
- As for whether they're vital to Wikipedia, I say no. In fact, I think a lot of time is wasted on organizing the projects, voting for leadership, tagging article talk pages, etc. that could be better spent improving the articles themselves. But everyone has their niche, and some people like the organizational aspects of Wikipedia more than they like writing articles. That's cool, as long as they use their powers for good instead of evil. I've seen some quality work come out of WikiProjects, but usually due to some measure of WP:OWN. Hence, Rule #3. Kafziel Talk 13:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- General comments
- See Kafziel's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
- I'd like to make it known that, if successful, I intend to list myself on Category:Administrators open to recall. I know the recall process itself has been the subject of some controversy, but many of the best admins I know are in that category and I'd be happy to join them. I have faith that whatever review process we eventually choose will be created for the good for the project as a whole. Kafziel Talk 20:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Bureaucrat's note: This RfA is hereby extended in 24 hours as of now, per the situation exposed here. Redux 03:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, I think it makes absolutely no sense. What "situation"? Are you punishing me for asking for a closure? - crz crztalk 03:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course not, I thank you for bringing up the fact that this RfA was very much overdue. The extension is granted mainly as a way of fixing the situation created by the Bureaucrats' absence which left the RfA open way past closing time. People are allowed to participate as long as the RfA is not closed, and this resulted in a very close call. We do know that people often hesitate in participating in a RfA that is already overdue, but not officially extended, and that can impact the outcome in a very real way. Considering that there was a visible pick-up in traffic during the later hours of this RfA, with a real impact in the resulting consensus, which coincided with the circumstance that there was no Bureaucrat available at the original closing time, the extension is an attempt to be as fair as possible with the candidate and the community. Redux 04:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, I think it makes absolutely no sense. What "situation"? Are you punishing me for asking for a closure? - crz crztalk 03:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just like to say that I, for one, don't have a problem with the deadline extension. I only want to be an administrator because I think I can help the project; if the community doesn't want me, I'm fine with that. I'd rather fail this nomination than have people think I somehow snuck in under the wire. If an extra 24 hours will do that, I'm all for it. Kafziel Talk 13:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
- It may not be good to have as an administrator a user with this many concerns about civility. Administrators must be civil and not hasty. —Centrx→talk • 23:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, since this is in the Discussion section, I guess I'm supposed to reply.
- As far as I can tell, it's only one concern. Some other people agree with the concern, but it's still just the one thing. Others (the majority, evidently) don't even agree that it was uncivil, much less that it was an egregious mistake. It was a direct, no-nonsense response to an unfair accusation. I'm a New Yorker and a former Marine; that's how I was raised and that's how I talk, in real life and online. No, I do not coddle vandals and spammers. No, I will not pretend to do so for the sake of adminship. I'm always fair, I don't bite newcomers (which that guy was not), and I go to great lengths to avoid getting disruptive users blocked. Sometimes that may mean I come off a bit harsh while I discuss the situation with them, but I think most people would prefer a serious conversation rather than a couple of friendly template warnings followed by a week-long block. Wouldn't you? Kafziel Talk 01:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support
Beat-the-russian support, unless someone can provide a reason not to. You appear to have improved significantly since last time, so I see no major reason not to support your nomination. Daveydweeb (chat/review!) 14:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Strong answers to the question and nothing worrying in the user's edit history. A nice spread of edits too. I'll keep looking, but unless I stumble on something worrying I have no problems with this user getting the mop. --Brad Beattie (talk) 14:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Great user, with good answers to the questions. Hello32020 14:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 14:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support - I have no single doubt about this valuable user. -- Szvest Ω Wiki Me Up ® 14:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Terence Ong (C | R) 15:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per contributors above. --RedZebra 15:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support his "rules of Wikipedia" are pretty well thought out, and while I don't totally agree with #5, his answer to my question about it is fine. --W.marsh 15:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. I would prefer if your interaction with process diversified a bit beyond AFD. (Radiant) 15:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support per nom and answers. Rama's arrow 17:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator - crz crztalk 17:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support! Any current concerns over "civility" are over-reactions—there is a difference between patient but sometimes blunt discussions and real incivility (irrational edit wars/reverts, rude edit-summaries and first warnings, etc.). We need admins like this user. -- Renesis (talk) 18:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support and concur with Renesis13 re: incivility concerns. I see a conscientious editor that knows how to be flexible in dealing with people - different situations require different approaches. --Aguerriero (talk) 18:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support - strong because the arguments to oppose are so weak --T-rex 20:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Being a little less civil dosn't take away his good work. --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 21:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support — Personal differencs aside theres no reason why he wouldn't make an okay sysop.
Oppose— opposing per User:Dlohcierekim and: I've ran into him before, sorry but I could never support someone who is trying to create a guideline to automatically make anybody "royal" notable and article worthy (see Wikipedia:Notability (royalty)). MatthewFenton (talk • contribs • count • email) 14:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support - I see very little in that archive to make me go queasy. When a user has got NPA tags all over their talk, chances are they fully deserve a ticking off. No point in crawling to the trolls. Moreschi 22:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support maybe you should've posted this last week ;) I supported last time, still supporting now - well-thought-out answers reflect a well-thought-out approach to editing. (I'm guessing we could easily gather some empirical evidence in favor of his #5.) Said this many times before, but this kind of forthright and direct approach to wayward users is both more effective and more respectful of others' time than lockstepping through a series of warning templates that don't apply to every situation. Kafziel will make a great admin who doesn't take any crap. Opabinia regalis 00:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Upgrading to... uh, super-strong support, or whatever the next superlative is, by virtue of the continued weakness of the oppose reasoning and the odd extension of this nomination. Opabinia regalis 04:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The extension of the RfA does nto in any way reflect on the candidates suitibility for adminship. ViridaeTalk 04:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No, but it reflects on the eventual accounting, and thus how that suitability is judged. My purpose is to emphasize the fact that the new opposition after the original deadline did not add new information that requires further discussion. Opabinia regalis 05:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The extension of the RfA does nto in any way reflect on the candidates suitibility for adminship. ViridaeTalk 04:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Upgrading to... uh, super-strong support, or whatever the next superlative is, by virtue of the continued weakness of the oppose reasoning and the odd extension of this nomination. Opabinia regalis 04:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Potential good in fighting vandalism outways any civility concerns. This isn't 2004 and we don't have 200,000 articles and limited page views anymore. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 01:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Will make a good admin, I believe. Liked his answers. ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support passes my criteria, like the WP:CIVIL comment that some guy opposed because of †he Bread 05:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - passes criteria; opposition below are taking a single comment out of context, the kind of comment that frequently comes from well-established admins. User is qualified, and we need qualified admins on that backlog, as czr pointed out. Most any admin candidates will have a few contributions we can pick on if we look hard enough. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 05:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support. Telling someone not to be "that guy" is not being incivil. It's telling someone not to be that guy (who I know we've all had problems with on Wikipedia. A misunderstanding of regional colloquialisms?) Very strong encyclopedic contributions, and furthermore, I don't think I've ever run into you, but I really like your style, after reading your userpage and answers to the questions. Grandmasterka 06:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - good editor, reasonable wiki-philosophy, have not seen really bad examples of incivility. Good admin material Alex Bakharev 06:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support unless something else comes up. The comment below might fall under WP:NOBULLSHIT but doesn't cross into WP:CIVIL when read in context. ~ trialsanderrors 09:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. No reason not to. Proto::type 11:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support re-evaluated my position. It is weak beacuse I still have mild misgivings (see my struck out oppose) however I have decided to assume good faith and give them a go. I hope however, that time does not show my original thoughts to be correct. Thanks and good luck. ViridaeTalk 12:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per answers to questions and I think the civility questioning is a bit out of proportions. James086 Talk | Contribs 13:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. He has made excellent contributions to the encyclopedia, with fine photos, a good FA, and a useful guideline. He is rough around the edges, but not mean, even the combative comments he made are below the level exhibited by some respected current administrators. His rules of Wikipedia are those of a skeptic, but note that he's not forcing them on anyone else, they're just his. He's an ex-marine, being tough is part of the job description, but he's not vindictive - read the exchanges, they turn out all right. He may be one of the rare users who will be both a good article writing editor and a good order maintaining administrator. We need more of that combination. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Competent and committed. I find his communications clear, helpful, direct and human, but not uncivil. Tyrenius 16:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support to be honest, a lot of his 'rules' which are causing controversy are a little harshly written but generally quite incitive. "There are some cool people and some cool pages just waiting for you, and it doesn't always have to be a battle" indicates that despite some civility concerns, he's basically a good guy. --Robdurbar 19:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, struck neutral. riana_dzasta 19:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support We need reasonable and rational people here. DragonRouge 21:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I'm swiching from neutral, I appreciate Kafziel's kind response and I've decided to trust him.-- danntm T C 22:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Support; civility problems (see Oppose/Neutral below) abound. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 23:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Ergh, this was a tough call for me. However, I think Wikipedia's best interests will be kept here and the 'pedia will be allowed to expand without any damage being done. Yanksox 01:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Jayjg (talk) 01:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Looks like we can trust this user. He's a solid contributor who contributes a lot of article content. I'm all for it. ♠PMC♠ 19:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Overdue in my opinion Jaranda wat's sup 22:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- El_C 00:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Thoroughly decent sort - will be an asset.--Brownlee 17:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support -- I have read the comments many others have seen as inappropriate and uncivil. When I went through the entire context of these exchanges, I thought they were very temperate, given the provocations. They just did not happen to be written in very formal, dry or stuffy language. I thought "...Aw, don't give me that "civil" stuff. was great and cut to the chase. The person writing on his talk page had just inappropriately accused Kafziel of being uncivil in response to what I thought was a well-reasoned, correct and temperate comment by Kafziel. I think Wikipedia needs more of that sort of genial directness (properly applied as Kafziel did). I'm usually very conservative when looking at RfA candidates and one of the editors most likely to oppose a nomination. --A. B. 18:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Daniel575 | (talk) 19:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Although civility is important, requesting robotic, constant perfection in this category as a reqiurement for admin status detracts from the project. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 20:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I went over the examples of alleged incivility, and while Kafziel doesn't sugar-coat his replies, I didn't find his responses to be rude or out of line. We often let vandals enjoy the benefit of the doubt far more than they deserve, and Kafziel draws the line earlier than some of us, but in all cases I examined this was well justified. His philosophies, as listed on his user page, are a keen observation on this society, and his ideas for improving things, such as semi-protecting featured articles, are right on the money, although unlikely to be adopted in the current atmosphere. Kafziel will make a strict but fair admin. Owen× ☎ 20:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I, too, examined these incivil incidents. He's a bit rough, but that's something you find in other admins, and despite the fact that lots of people disagree with his ideas, I feel they're in the spirit of improving the community rather than simply accepting the status quo. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 01:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - He has much to offer, and if you accept the grounds advanced by his opponents, you'd have to de-sysop at least 100 current admins!--Londoneye 12:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support I'm not really worried about the civility claims that I may note have no been backed up with diffs, but his opinions on WikiProjects concern me. Still, Kafziel is a very productive member and I doubt that he will abuse the admin tools. Mike 15:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I can understand the concerns of those who are opposing, and I do agree with most of them pertaining to civility. We do need more responsible and productive admins. Since the candidate is willing to join the category of admins open to recall, this gives me the confidence to give my support here. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 20:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Tells it like it is without bowing down to the civility police. - Hahnchen 01:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - this user seems very adept at distinguishing between civility and passive aggressiveness. Kafziel is a very intelligent Wikipedian who has an aptitude to handle extremely complicated situations on Wikipedia. His approach may appear superficially polarizing, but there is a clean underlying logic to it. The way this RfA nomination has evolved to date is simply not representative of the strengths and capabilities of this Wikipedian. If one seeks to find fault, one can always find it. I'd encourage a closer look at his collaborations, as well as his other archives. Full support. --HappyCamper 06:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Civility matters a great deal to me, so I gave serious consideration to the opposition's objections here. However, I trust Crz's judgment, and I am encouraged by the candidate's openness to recall. His excellent editorial skills are not in doubt, and I think he will be an asset with the mop. Xoloz 18:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support why not, seems sufficient.MustTC 19:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- --Dario vet 13:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support guts and sense. KazakhPol 19:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Per above. Yankee Rajput 21:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per Xoloz, Yanksox, and Mike and inasmuch as I am quite confident that Kafziel will neither abuse nor misuse (even avolitionally) the tools and will, qua admin, be sufficiently civil as to be able to interact productively and collaborate successfully with other editors, such that it is, I think, plain that the net effect on the project of his becoming an admin will be positive (the latter is my RfA standard). Joe 08:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Very strong support from somebody who has interacted with the user in several different (and not always to either of our liking) circumstances. We may not always agree, but I most definitely trust his judgement. ... aa:talk 20:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, you are lucky I just about signed Oppose. The civility problem worrys me but I think if you work on it you will be a fine admin.__Seadog ♪ 21:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support While there are a few areas needing work, I don't think the concerns raised below will hold this user back from being an effective admin. Good Luck! -- AuburnPilottalk 23:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Weak support The civility concerns brought up by the oppose votes are worrisome but most of the relevant civility issues pointed to are simple cases of sarcasm which IMO doesn't constitute incivility per se. JoshuaZ 03:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. He's of at least average civility and above-average utility. --tjstrf talk 04:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I did not find the comments pointed out by the first oppose voter to be incivil. Furthermore, I found the responses to the oppose voters to be reasonable and clear, and not combative. Based on the previous support votes, and the candidate's pledge to be open to recall, I support this candidate being given the administrator tools. Carcharoth 04:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I will, however, note here my concerns with crz's 'campaigning' on behalf of "his nominee". I find comments like "Lay off my nominee, please. He's a nice guy.", and crz's suggestions to a bureaucrat that the RfA be closed as successful[21] to be inappropriate. It is posible that crz's actions could do more harm than good. Carcharoth 04:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I support these sentiments. I understand that crz wishes to see a candidate he nominated successful, but there is a limit. ViridaeTalk 04:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Not that this should reflect on the user in any way. Furth discussion on the topic should take place elsewhere. ViridaeTalk 04:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest here. Carcharoth 04:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No no, I did not suggest it be closed as successful. I understand 7X% is a judgment call, and I suggested the crat close it. Period. The lay off stuff was in jest, obviously. Italics are there for a reason. - crz crztalk 04:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If you insist on responding here, I'll reply here, but I do suggest we take this to the venue suggested above. I apologise if I misunderstood your comment that I linked to, but I still think that
badgering a bureaucrat to close the RfAasking a bureaucrat to close the RfA after they said they would extend it is not appropriate. It gives the impression that you want to see the RfA closed now, in case oppose votes are added. Please, step away for a bit and let the bureaucrats do their job and let the community make their decision. Carcharoth 05:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC) strike out performed and correction (in italics) added Carcharoth 13:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]- Well, there goes civility and good faith out the window. How informing the crats they missed a deadline can be seen as badgering is quite ridiculous. If anything, crz should have been thanked for pointed out the oversight...Let's try to remember the focus of an RfA (the candidate). -- AuburnPilottalk 06:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- I think you've possibly misunderstood what happened here. Please look at the way the discussion developed here. I will explain further on your talk page. Also, crz has been thanked for pointing out the oversight. See Redux's comment on this page here. I fully agree (as I said before) that the focus should be on the candidate, and I hope we can end this subthread here, continuing on talk pages elsewhere if needed. Carcharoth 12:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC) correction added above Carcharoth 13:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]
- Well, there goes civility and good faith out the window. How informing the crats they missed a deadline can be seen as badgering is quite ridiculous. If anything, crz should have been thanked for pointed out the oversight...Let's try to remember the focus of an RfA (the candidate). -- AuburnPilottalk 06:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- If you insist on responding here, I'll reply here, but I do suggest we take this to the venue suggested above. I apologise if I misunderstood your comment that I linked to, but I still think that
- No no, I did not suggest it be closed as successful. I understand 7X% is a judgment call, and I suggested the crat close it. Period. The lay off stuff was in jest, obviously. Italics are there for a reason. - crz crztalk 04:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest here. Carcharoth 04:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Not that this should reflect on the user in any way. Furth discussion on the topic should take place elsewhere. ViridaeTalk 04:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I support these sentiments. I understand that crz wishes to see a candidate he nominated successful, but there is a limit. ViridaeTalk 04:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I will, however, note here my concerns with crz's 'campaigning' on behalf of "his nominee". I find comments like "Lay off my nominee, please. He's a nice guy.", and crz's suggestions to a bureaucrat that the RfA be closed as successful[21] to be inappropriate. It is posible that crz's actions could do more harm than good. Carcharoth 04:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 08:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A good editor and a well deserved promotion--Looper5920 09:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I think he'll do good — Lost(talk) 10:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, I see no problems here, he should be fine as an admin. NoSeptember 11:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Kusma (討論) 14:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Sandy (Talk) 14:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. --Ghirla -трёп- 14:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per the candidate's overall record and with my usual caveat that this does not signify agreement with every word the candidate has ever written on the site. Newyorkbrad 15:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. While I am somewhat concerned about the candidate's civility issues, I feel that it's not enough to deny the candidate adminship, and I'm somewhat confident that now that it's been pointed out to the candidate that he needs to be more civil, the candidate is likely to change his ways. --Rory096 20:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I really do trust crz's judgment, despite the concerns brought up below I'm sure Kafziel will do a good job. Alphachimp 22:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. There are good arguments on both sides but I am swayed to support. -- DS1953 talk 01:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Per all above. Wiki Warfare to Infinity 03:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Oppose Still seems a little condescending, impatient, and perhaps even imperious. The frequent sarcasm laceing this archive raises a question of incivility. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 16:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This goes back to my answer to question 3, as well as my second rule. I don't back down from bullies, and I am willing to be the one to take the flak when editors are uncivil or disruptive. I don't need to assume good faith if bad intentions are clear, and I don't feel that being obsequious toward spammers and vandals gets anything done; sometimes a genuine conversation with a stern tone makes far more progress than warning templates. If you look at my contribs you will see far more substituted warning templates than original comments; a stronger tone isn't needed in 99% of cases, but I feel it's important for editors (particularly admins) to be able to muster one up when appropriate. I never use personal insults and I don't think my language is anywhere near as condescending as templates like {{behave}} or as impatient as {{blatant vandal}}. It's suited to the situation, and usually quite effective. I know there are different schools of thought on this, but I believe that a stern talking to is much better than a series of overly polite warnings leading up to a sudden block. Kafziel Talk 17:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Upping to strong oppose based on supermachine and evidence of lack of maturity/combativeness per user's response above. Wikipedia is not a battleground, and adims should put out fires, not pour on gasoline. One can be firm about one's position without perceiving onesself as "not backing down from bullies." One can guide or correct or coach without incivility. In fact, it works better without it. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This goes back to my answer to question 3, as well as my second rule. I don't back down from bullies, and I am willing to be the one to take the flak when editors are uncivil or disruptive. I don't need to assume good faith if bad intentions are clear, and I don't feel that being obsequious toward spammers and vandals gets anything done; sometimes a genuine conversation with a stern tone makes far more progress than warning templates. If you look at my contribs you will see far more substituted warning templates than original comments; a stronger tone isn't needed in 99% of cases, but I feel it's important for editors (particularly admins) to be able to muster one up when appropriate. I never use personal insults and I don't think my language is anywhere near as condescending as templates like {{behave}} or as impatient as {{blatant vandal}}. It's suited to the situation, and usually quite effective. I know there are different schools of thought on this, but I believe that a stern talking to is much better than a series of overly polite warnings leading up to a sudden block. Kafziel Talk 17:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Oppose. Per responses to other users such as this (last month): "...Aw, don't give me that "civil" stuff. Have a look at #2 on my Wiki philosophies. Don't be that guy. That's such a noob thing to do, and you've been around long enough to know that...". Admins need to be able to deal with trolls and vandals in a calm manner and I don't have confidence that Kafziel is there yet. SuperMachine 17:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I really don't intend to reply to every "oppose" vote—everyone is entitled to their opinion—but I do think this is unfairly taken out of context. What about the paragraph right before that, where I took a lot of time to patiently explain the issue and what was needed to solve it? Did you see anything there that would warrant his comment to me about civility and good faith? I warned him about 3RR (which is required by policy) and I went even further by telling him how he could cite the material to make it acceptable. He has been around long enough to know that his reply was in poor taste, particularly after the time I took to help him, and he obviously realized as much when I called him on it. Kafziel Talk 17:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- When dealing with vandals and trolls (especially), admins frequently face rude and unwarranted comments. A sarcastic response is only going to make the situation worse. It's a matter of opinion, but I believe that "polite, yet firm" is the only appropriate way to respond. SuperMachine 17:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- He wasn't a vandal or a troll. He was (still is) a generally good and well-established editor who was caught up in a bad edit war. I helped snap him out of it before he got himself into trouble again. It wasn't sarcasm, it was a reality check. It helped him avoid a block, and he didn't complain. Kafziel Talk 18:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- I think I did a poor job explaining myself. My point was that admins are going to encounter some rather unpleasant and rude users. Since you plan on fighting vandals, these encounters would likely be quite common. Sometimes a "reality check" might be effective, while other times it's going to make the situation a whole lot worse. I just fail to see a scenario where civility wouldn't be the best option. I realize that my opinions aren't held universally, and I may be in the minority. However, while I appreciate your explanation, I'm still maintaining my oppose. SuperMachine 18:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's cool. Thanks for the input. Kafziel Talk 18:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I did a poor job explaining myself. My point was that admins are going to encounter some rather unpleasant and rude users. Since you plan on fighting vandals, these encounters would likely be quite common. Sometimes a "reality check" might be effective, while other times it's going to make the situation a whole lot worse. I just fail to see a scenario where civility wouldn't be the best option. I realize that my opinions aren't held universally, and I may be in the minority. However, while I appreciate your explanation, I'm still maintaining my oppose. SuperMachine 18:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- He wasn't a vandal or a troll. He was (still is) a generally good and well-established editor who was caught up in a bad edit war. I helped snap him out of it before he got himself into trouble again. It wasn't sarcasm, it was a reality check. It helped him avoid a block, and he didn't complain. Kafziel Talk 18:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- When dealing with vandals and trolls (especially), admins frequently face rude and unwarranted comments. A sarcastic response is only going to make the situation worse. It's a matter of opinion, but I believe that "polite, yet firm" is the only appropriate way to respond. SuperMachine 17:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I really don't intend to reply to every "oppose" vote—everyone is entitled to their opinion—but I do think this is unfairly taken out of context. What about the paragraph right before that, where I took a lot of time to patiently explain the issue and what was needed to solve it? Did you see anything there that would warrant his comment to me about civility and good faith? I warned him about 3RR (which is required by policy) and I went even further by telling him how he could cite the material to make it acceptable. He has been around long enough to know that his reply was in poor taste, particularly after the time I took to help him, and he obviously realized as much when I called him on it. Kafziel Talk 17:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Very weak oppose I do not think this user has gotten past his civility problems. Things like don't give me that "civil" stuff. Have a look at #2 on my Wiki philosophies. Don't be that guy. That's such a noob thing to do would really disturb me if I heard it from an administrator. His response is that it's context somehow makes it acceptable, I disagree. You could have said the same thing without name calling. One of the biggest things admins have to do is deal with people who do not understand, or do not want to understand the rules. They must remain civil regardless.
I also disagree with his rule #5 as I think it is probably not true, and a little insulting to our anon editors who are helpfull. I would like to ask if you really checked the history of all the main page articles to confirm that?HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]- I'll reply since you asked: Rule 5 is just an opinion on my user page, not meant to be a proposed policy or anything, and as I noted in question 4 it doesn't have anything to do with my day-to-day Wikiing. Lots of people have their own "rules" on their userpages that they've written based on personal experience. Some even write entire essays about them. I certainly don't see it as an insult: I don't think it's insulting to say IP editors can't vote at RfA, and I don't think it's insulting that regular editors can't edit the main page, so I don't think it's insulting to say that anons shouldn't be able to edit the article of the day. I have, in past discussions, asked for evidence to disprove the rule—just one truly phenomenal edit that made up for the huge amount of vandalism surrounding it—and I haven't seen one yet. I'm always open to examples, though. If I found one, I'd put it up for display on my userpage. As for the rest, my reply to SuperMachine pretty much sums up my feelings on the issue, and I just have to be okay with that. Kafziel Talk 18:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks you for your prompt reply. I read your answer to question #4 where you say your rules are personal rules and you would not apply them to others. I also saw you refer to your rule #2 when chastising another user. This confuses me a bit because it seems you are applying the rule to another here. What I really wanted you to reply to was my question as to whether you have gone through the histories to see if no anon has ever helped a featured article. I agree it is not insulting to say anons cannot edit the featured article. However I do think it is insulting to state No anonymous editor has ever added anything of vital importance to the Featured Article of the Day, unless it is true, which I seriously doubt. If I am wrong about this I will retract that point of contention, but negative proof is difficult to come by. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- When I referred him to my second rule, I wasn't telling him to follow it; I was showing him that it's a very cliche response given by people who are being unfairly defensive. In other words, what he said was so predictable that I already had a rule up about it. It's what vandals and trolls do, not what good users do, and I was just pointing that out. I would never tell anyone to obey my rules; my rules, like every other userpage rule, are meant to illustrate how predictable things are. If I refer to them, it's only for that purpose.
- As for the FA thing, yes, negative proof is difficult to come by, but positive proof isn't. I'm willing to bet that if you look at today's FA, the last anon edit will be vandalism or, at best, a self-reverted test. I can't effectively demonstrate a total lack of good edits, but if you can show me one anon edit that a) was factually correct, b)was properly cited, c)was properly formatted, d)was not redundant, and e)couldn't possibly have waited until the next day, then I'd be happy to recant. Kafziel Talk 19:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Very well, I drop my contention about rule #5. I have already weakened my oppose. I wish you luck, I find you a very good editor, should you be granted admin privilidges I would not be upset. Oh, I found this[22] but the user is only undoing his own edit. hehe . HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Ha ha ha! That was my best-case scenario! But seriously I've always found you to be a good editor when we've run across each other in the past, so your input means a lot. Thanks. Kafziel Talk 19:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I am going to change to very weak oppose, because this is the only fault I can find with an otherwise very fine candidate. I cannot retract my oppose because Kafziel has not at any point that I have seen admited that the incivility I mention was a mistake(please correct me if I am wrong about this, it will make a difference). Instead he claimed it was acceptable because of the context.
- Of course an admin, or even a potential admin can make a mistake, or even break civility once in a while, but it is essential for that mistake to be recognized as a mistake after the fact by the admin. Others disagree that this was incivility, I see it as a mistake but not a serious one.
- I ask those who opposed based on my opinion to consider that my sole reason for opposition is the lack of expressed regret in the incivility mentioned in my original opposition. The incivility itself is not a concern due to the fact it is the only example I have found.
- Thanks you for your prompt reply. I read your answer to question #4 where you say your rules are personal rules and you would not apply them to others. I also saw you refer to your rule #2 when chastising another user. This confuses me a bit because it seems you are applying the rule to another here. What I really wanted you to reply to was my question as to whether you have gone through the histories to see if no anon has ever helped a featured article. I agree it is not insulting to say anons cannot edit the featured article. However I do think it is insulting to state No anonymous editor has ever added anything of vital importance to the Featured Article of the Day, unless it is true, which I seriously doubt. If I am wrong about this I will retract that point of contention, but negative proof is difficult to come by. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll reply since you asked: Rule 5 is just an opinion on my user page, not meant to be a proposed policy or anything, and as I noted in question 4 it doesn't have anything to do with my day-to-day Wikiing. Lots of people have their own "rules" on their userpages that they've written based on personal experience. Some even write entire essays about them. I certainly don't see it as an insult: I don't think it's insulting to say IP editors can't vote at RfA, and I don't think it's insulting that regular editors can't edit the main page, so I don't think it's insulting to say that anons shouldn't be able to edit the article of the day. I have, in past discussions, asked for evidence to disprove the rule—just one truly phenomenal edit that made up for the huge amount of vandalism surrounding it—and I haven't seen one yet. I'm always open to examples, though. If I found one, I'd put it up for display on my userpage. As for the rest, my reply to SuperMachine pretty much sums up my feelings on the issue, and I just have to be okay with that. Kafziel Talk 18:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I don't want to be a trendfollower (I set the trends, man!), but Dlohc does bring up some good points. An admin must maintain his cool at all times, regardless of the situation. If you can't keep your calm in simple conversations with "noobs", then how can you expect to be civil to users who will make personal attacks at you (which should be expected if you become admin)? Also, I wouldn't have made this such a big deal had this occurred months ago, but this was just 3 weeks ago! I don't think you can totally morph into a new personality in just three weeks. If it happens, it's only superficial. Nishkid64 21:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In my humble, completely disinterested opinion, the opposers are making a really big deal out of equivocal stray remarks. We have lots of backlogs, and we need dedicated intelligent sysops to combat them. I like his style, and I think he'll make a fine sysop. Besides, he's on board for recall, so if it comes to pass that he abuses the tools - an unlikely prospect - then you can come forward then and put an end to it. Lay off my nominee, please. He's a nice guy. - crz crztalk 21:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I deeply respect the Russian, but as bad as the backlogs are, I think it may be better to prevent a problem than remedy it after it occurs. In the nom statement, we were assured that the civility issue had been laid to rest. And yet, in the most recent of Kafziel's talk achives, is plenty of indications that it has not. I believe that the user is a fine, valuable, outstanding contributor. He will a fine admin-- someday. He's is just a little too testy. A little too pugnacious. He needs more time to calm down before he can be trusted to not whack someone with that mop. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 22:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Per my comments above, I agree with Russian. I'm not sure that the comments aren't being overemphasized; I've seen plenty of admins come across in a more harsh manner, and probably most admin candidates have something we could pick on if we looked hard enough. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 05:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I deeply respect the Russian, but as bad as the backlogs are, I think it may be better to prevent a problem than remedy it after it occurs. In the nom statement, we were assured that the civility issue had been laid to rest. And yet, in the most recent of Kafziel's talk achives, is plenty of indications that it has not. I believe that the user is a fine, valuable, outstanding contributor. He will a fine admin-- someday. He's is just a little too testy. A little too pugnacious. He needs more time to calm down before he can be trusted to not whack someone with that mop. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 22:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In my humble, completely disinterested opinion, the opposers are making a really big deal out of equivocal stray remarks. We have lots of backlogs, and we need dedicated intelligent sysops to combat them. I like his style, and I think he'll make a fine sysop. Besides, he's on board for recall, so if it comes to pass that he abuses the tools - an unlikely prospect - then you can come forward then and put an end to it. Lay off my nominee, please. He's a nice guy. - crz crztalk 21:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per HighInBC, SuperMachine, and others. Sorry. 1ne 23:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Per Dlohcierekim, SuperMachine and Nishkid64. Zaxem 00:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose This editor is biased. He removes other editor's contributions and is not tolenent of opinions.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.90.174.174 (talk • contribs)
- Anons may not vote support or oppose, though you can ask questions or comment in the comments section. James086 Talk | Contribs 02:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the reply to Dlohcierekim. I am worried that you are confrontational, and have not learnt that it is a far better option to deal reasonably with those disrupting wikipedia rather than being straight and too the point. Being polite means they are less likely to get offended and cause further damage. The same thing applies in edit wars, defusing the situation works far better than arguing it straight out. Try and reason. For this reason I am not supporting your RfA. However, if you show improvement I would be happy to reconsider ina few months time.ViridaeTalk 07:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]- it is a far better option to deal reasonably with those disrupting wikipedia rather than being straight and too the point - I'm afraid I don't understand this comment; would you mind clarifying? 'Dealing reasonably' and 'being straight and to the point' don't seem like opposites, and the latter is usually described as a good thing. Have I misread something? Opabinia regalis 07:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel that straight to the point does not necessarily need to be oppostite from dealing reasonably, however I much prefer a softly softly apprach rather straight to the point because I feel that being blunt with some users, paticuarly those involved in edit wars or vandalism can only inflame the matter further. (for me straght to the point is: "Stop vandalising or be banned" as against "Please can you stop vandalising the encyclopedia." - if they need further reinforcement, a more direct apprach may be needed but early on in a confrontation/incident I feel that being polite and assuming good faith are the way to go.) If I have misinterpereted Kafziel, please feel free to point it out. ViridaeTalk 11:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There is further discussion on this on my talk page if anyone else would like to discuss it, you may like to read that first. ViridaeTalk 12:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel that straight to the point does not necessarily need to be oppostite from dealing reasonably, however I much prefer a softly softly apprach rather straight to the point because I feel that being blunt with some users, paticuarly those involved in edit wars or vandalism can only inflame the matter further. (for me straght to the point is: "Stop vandalising or be banned" as against "Please can you stop vandalising the encyclopedia." - if they need further reinforcement, a more direct apprach may be needed but early on in a confrontation/incident I feel that being polite and assuming good faith are the way to go.) If I have misinterpereted Kafziel, please feel free to point it out. ViridaeTalk 11:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- it is a far better option to deal reasonably with those disrupting wikipedia rather than being straight and too the point - I'm afraid I don't understand this comment; would you mind clarifying? 'Dealing reasonably' and 'being straight and to the point' don't seem like opposites, and the latter is usually described as a good thing. Have I misread something? Opabinia regalis 07:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunate oppose.Civility is paramount for me, and your "rules" do not show good faith or the ability to necessarily sympathise with newer editors. Be honest, when was the last time anyone, anon or not, added a well-sourced, vital edit to the Featured Article of the Day while it was there? By the time they get to the Front Page, they should be fairly complete to begin with. I think your standards are unattainable; I found plenty of examples of anons reverting vandalism or fixing grammatical errors/faulty bot behavior on the FAotD, which is valuable for the integrity of our encyclopedia as well. In addition, Rule #4 shows a fundamental misunderstanding of consensus as it should function here on Wikipedia; if you believe it is being misapplied, that is one thing, but to capitulate to the "voters" is not the right answer. -- nae'blis 17:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Whoah, whoah, whoah - big misunderstanding there: Rule 4 is lamenting the current state of things, not saying it's right. Admins who say, "Much better reasoning from the opposition but I'm going with the vote count on this one," (and the Wikiprojects that stack the "vote") are what that rule is talking about. I believe it's of absolutely vital importance to disregard vote counts and look for consensus instead. I would never make a decision based on a tally. The rule is saying how things are, not how things should be. It's about taking admins and voters to task on the real meaning of consensus.
- I've answered the bit about Rule 5 in the questions section, on my talk page, and in the replies above. Keeping the Featured Article of the Day open to editing is official policy and not remotely subject to my opinion, so I don't see why it's relevant. It doesn't matter what I think about it, it is what it is. But if you still want to oppose, that's okay with me. The most important thing to me is that you understand what I'm saying with Rule 4. Kafziel Talk 17:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- About rule #4: That's odd, then, because now that I look closer, two of your rules (#3 and #4) are descriptive and the other three are proscriptive. Initially I thought they were all proscriptive, if-Kafziel-were-God-Emperor sort of stuff. Have you considered wording them more similarly to #1? I think that's a very good piece of advice, there. My concern though isn't so much with the words on the page as the sentiment of the user, of course, but I am considering my opinion still, no worries. Rewording the title on 5 probably does make it less inflammatory, yes. -- nae'blis 18:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The section used to be part of a larger "My Wikipedia philosophies" or something like that; I changed it a while back because calling them rules just made them easier to refer to. Until yesterday, very few people bothered to look at my page besides me, so it was never an issue. I'll take a look and try to clarify some points, and maybe retitle the section again. Kafziel Talk 18:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for all your replies. While I cannot support, I no longer stand in opposition to this RFA. -- nae'blis 04:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- About rule #4: That's odd, then, because now that I look closer, two of your rules (#3 and #4) are descriptive and the other three are proscriptive. Initially I thought they were all proscriptive, if-Kafziel-were-God-Emperor sort of stuff. Have you considered wording them more similarly to #1? I think that's a very good piece of advice, there. My concern though isn't so much with the words on the page as the sentiment of the user, of course, but I am considering my opinion still, no worries. Rewording the title on 5 probably does make it less inflammatory, yes. -- nae'blis 18:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose This editor is biased. He removes other editor's contributions and is not tolenent of opinions.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.90.174.174 (talk • contribs)
- Oppose Way too combative with the oppostion presented in this RFA. Civilty is big with me. semper fi — Moe 02:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per all of the above. Dionyseus 10:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose An admin cannot be too combative and must be willing to concede ground if need be. Also per concerns raised by Dlohcierekim and SuperMachine. I would be able to support a future try (if any), provided that behavior becomes less...flaming, shall we say. --210physicq (c) 20:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - with regrets. I am not an admin, and, because of my occasional combativeness, there is no way I would vote for me if I ran anyway. Not saying that Kafziel is as bad as I am in this regard, but admins should preferably not be very combative, as it could occasionally interfere with their function. I agree he is excellently qualified in all other ways, and maybe I'd be in favor of him in a few months if this tendency went dormant, but my concerns on this point are such that I can't support him now. Badbilltucker 23:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose as per Physicq above --Lostkiwi 06:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - Unfortunately I have to oppose. I've seen what everyone has said & they have brought up way too much stuff for me to support or stay neutral. I'm sorry man. Maybe in a couple of months you can come back & try if you've had no arguments (as was the case in my RfA... which failed miserably ;) Have a good day! Spawn Man 06:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per his very telling archive 8. I seriously want more people who can take the ugly red stuff away from the top of C:CSD once and for all, but someone who argues that bitingly is not the person to do so, IMO. Kimchi.sg 17:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose: discussion of this adminship has made way out into Talk pages, and this whole RfA seems more like a political race where Kafziel is trying to appease everyone with answers that don't always seem to be in agreement with one another. This, in my strongest of opinions, is not what Wikipedia ought to be. Utopianheaven 08:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Dlohcierekim, SuperMachine and Nishkid64. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 23:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Per Nishkid64. Wikipediarules2221 02:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Oppose Per Nishkid64. Dinojerm 02:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. I had some doubts earlier about experience with process other than AFD, but there are simply too many users here concerned about combativeness. (Radiant) 12:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Fully oppose. combativeness. does not hesitate to destroy work of others (= attitude which is incompatible with AGF and collaborativeness). wants to get the last word. find pretexts (=excuses) to repeat when his first reason is rebutted. will not in all likelihood to hesitate being similar with admin tools. bad experience. his candidature hereby rejected. ObRoy 15:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What are you refering too? Do you have diffs to back this up? Was this about an article being deleted? More information is needed. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- ObRoy, if those diffs are the same actions you are concerned about, then you may want to read WP:CITE and reconsider your vote. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Kafziel was so bold as to erase my work by edit comment "rvv", that is, calling it vandalism. In other words, Kafziel clearly did not understand what vandalism means here. Then, there is no POV in my edits, and yet Kafziel even today tries to imply that they are POV. Despicable. A sign of his comative, and "try to maintain a pretext" attitude. Lastly, the source question: Kafziel has been around to put his weight to various issues about royalty, and therefore it is to be reasonably expected that he would also himself know the standard sources of royal genealogies, such as (the very easily obtainable) Europäische Stammtafeln's internet version (at euweb-royalty or whatever it is), for example, and thus add citations of those facts himself if he really feels such citations are necessary. Next, the procedure to request citations is actually not that one erases, but to use a tag (so, if someone erases because of feeling that sources are lacking, without first using the tag, that's actually close with vandalism and at least a deplorable and non-constructive working style). In my opinion, citations of that well-known genealogy are not necessary; our cite policy says that such details that may be controversial should be backed by citations, and, well, Charles II's and Joseph Ferdinand's immediate pedigrees are NOT in any way controversial. In fact, they are so well known as to almost to belong to general knowledge. An analogy: we do not need to back with citations the fact that Charles, Prince of Wales happens to be a son of Philip, Duke of Edinburgh and Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. So, there actually came some affirmation from Kafziel himself that my opposing vote is very valid. ObRoy 21:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per above. Naconkantari 15:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per above. Candidate probably would make a good admin but it's clear that there are a number of people that I respect who think Kafziel needs to adjust his combative and biting tone. Recall and ARBCOM are "sledgehammers" to deal with egregious behavior. The RFA is our last chance to make a point about undesirable behavior which is something less than "a federal case". Kafziel doesn't seem to have gotten the point that the opposers are making so let's have him think about it awhile between now and his next RFA. --Richard 17:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per civility issues. I held off on this one as I haven't had any interactions with this editor, but felt I needed to look into it based on the number of concerns raised. Looking at the past interactions, I'm afraid this editor doesn't meet my standards as an admin. —Doug Bell talk 18:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Neutral — I've ran into him before, sorry but I could never support someone who is trying to create a guideline to automatically make anybody "royal" notable and article worthy (see Wikipedia:Notability (royalty)). MatthewFenton (talk • contribs • count • email) 14:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Switched to oppose per oppose #1. MatthewFenton (talk • contribs • count • email) 16:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral from previous support. As much as I'd like to support you, civility is a fundamental aspect of adminship, and based on the concerns above I don't believe you meet the standard I expect from candidates. I won't oppose, since it's clear enough you're competent and experience enough for the job; however, administrators of all users must take extreme care to always be civil to users even under fire, and so I cannot bring myself to support. Sorry. Daveydweeb (chat/review!) 03:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral Firstly, I wish to point out that you are a great editor. Moreover, your answers to the above questions were excellent. However, civility is a very important part of adminship and I feel that you have not met the high standards of civil behavior based on the concerns from the other users. You do not deserve an oppose opinion due to your excellent contributions to this project, but I can't support your nomination for the time being. But please do not get discouraged over this. If this RfA passes, I would be happy for you. If it fails, I would like you to try again for adminship after these concerns regarding civility are met. --Siva1979Talk to me 03:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - This is a difficult choice to make. I don't feel I can support right now, despite my respect for the nominator and your excellent work. Incivility is not something I can overlook easily. That said, I can't exactly oppose you either. Trust me when I say that this is a very respectful neutral opinion, and I don't give it lightly. All the best, riana_dzasta 05:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Apparently, it was given more lightly than I thought... eh, you're not that bad, we put up with worse from some people. Sorry about the flip-flopping. I promise it won't become a habit. riana_dzasta 19:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]Neutral This should have been a simple, one line support for a great and dedicated editor, but it's turned out to be one of the fhardest RfAs for me as an RfA !voter. However there's still something about the five laws that don't sit right with me. I've been mulling this for over a day, and right now I'm still somewhat on the fence.-- danntm T C 18:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Well, if it helps at all, I made some changes to them at the same time you were writing this. I changed the "rules" title back to the original "philosophies" and (I think) clarified my stance. I appreciate all the thought you've put into it. Kafziel Talk 18:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Switched to support, please see above.-- danntm T C 22:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral Kafziel is extremely combative. Although I do not doubt his experience, he does not exhitbit the self control needed to be an Admin. Sorry man.Sharkface217 04:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral, switched from Oppose above. I cannot support because of concerns outlined above, but I no longer view the granting of the administrator bit to Kafziel as something worth my full opposition. Whatever happens as the outcome of this, I hope he gains a little faith in his fellow anonymous users, as they make up a large segment of our work here. -- nae'blis 04:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. While I do not think the civility issues are as grave as other editors make them out to be, this candidate is still extremely blunt, which seems to (inadvertently?) escalate situations that could otherwise be resolved with a minimum of stress. I would encourage this candidate to choose his words very carefully from now on, making that extra effort to try to understand other people's points of view and not just callously stating the relevant policies. —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 21:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
About RfB
Requests for bureaucratship (RfB) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become bureaucrats. Bureaucrats can make other users administrators or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here, and remove administrator rights in limited circumstances. They can also grant or remove bot status on an account.
The process for bureaucrats is similar to that for adminship above; however the expectation for promotion to bureaucratship is significantly higher than for admin, requiring a clearer consensus. In general, the threshold for consensus is somewhere around 85%. Bureaucrats are expected to determine consensus in difficult cases and be ready to explain their decisions.
Create a new RfB page as you would for an RfA, and insert
{{subst:RfB|User=Username|Description=Your description of the candidate. ~~~~}}
into it, then answer the questions. New bureaucrats are recorded at 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 often viewed negatively by the community, some users find it helpful to place the neutrally worded {{RfX-notice|b}}
on their userpages – this is generally not seen as canvassing. Like requests for adminship, requests for bureaucratship are advertised on the watchlist and on Template:Centralized discussion.
Please add new requests at the top of the section immediately below this line.
Current nominations for bureaucratship
Related requests
- Requests for permissions on other Wikimedia projects
- Requests for adminship or bureaucratship on meta
- Requests for self-de-adminship on any project can be made at m:Requests for permissions.
- Requests to mark a user as a bot can be at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval.
- Requests for comment on possible misuse of sysop privileges
- A summary of rejected proposals for de-adminship processes, as well as a list of past cases of de-adminship, may be found at Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship
If this page doesn't update properly, either clear your cache or click here to purge the server's cache.
- ^ Candidates were restricted to editors with an extended confirmed account following the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I § Proposal 25: Require nominees to be extended confirmed.
- ^ Voting was restricted to editors with an extended confirmed account following the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I § Proposal 14: Suffrage requirements.
- ^ The initial two discussion-only days are a trial measure agreed on following Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 3b: Make the first two days discussion-only (trial). It applies to the first five RfAs opened on or after 24 March 2024, excluding those closed per WP:SNOW or WP:NOTNOW, or until 25 September 2024 – whichever is first.
- ^ The community determined this in a May 2019 RfC.
- ^ Historically, there has not been the same obligation on supporters to explain their reasons for supporting (assumed to be "per nom" or a confirmation that the candidate is regarded as fully qualified) as there has been on opposers.