Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

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

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

if nominations haven't updated.

Current time is 17:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC). —

Current time is 17:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC). —

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

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

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

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

About administrators

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

About RfA

Recent RfA, RfBs, and admin elections ()

Candidate	Type	Result	Date of close	Tally
				S	O	N	%
Worm That Turned2	RfA	Successful	18 Nov 2024	275	5	9	98
Voorts	RfA	Successful	8 Nov 2024	156	15	4	91
FOARP	AE	Successful	4 Nov 2024	268	106	242	72
Peaceray	AE	Successful	4 Nov 2024	270	107	239	72
Sohom Datta	AE	Successful	4 Nov 2024	298	108	210	73
DoubleGrazing	AE	Successful	4 Nov 2024	306	104	206	75
SD0001	AE	Successful	4 Nov 2024	306	101	209	75
Ahecht	AE	Successful	4 Nov 2024	303	94	219	76
Dr vulpes	AE	Successful	4 Nov 2024	322	99	195	76
Rsjaffe	AE	Successful	4 Nov 2024	319	89	208	78
ThadeusOfNazereth	AE	Successful	4 Nov 2024	321	88	207	78
SilverLocust	AE	Successful	4 Nov 2024	347	74	195	82
Queen of Hearts	AE	Successful	4 Nov 2024	389	105	122	79

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

Nomination standards

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

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

Nominations

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

Notice of RfA

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

Expressing opinions

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion, decision, and closing procedures

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

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

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

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

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

Monitors

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

Current nominations for adminship

Current time is 17:09:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Purge page cache if nominations have not updated.

---

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

JForget

Final (73/0/0); Originally scheduled to end 20:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC). Nomination successful. --Deskana (talk) 20:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

JForget (talk · contribs) - JForget has been a Wikipedia contributor since March 2006. He is a prolific editor and has created over 300 articles. For those interested in numbers, he has made over 17 000 mainspace contributions (24 000+ edits to Wikipedia in total). His main areas of contribution are articles relating to Canada (he is a member of WikiProject Ottawa) and Tornadoes. He has shown the full range of editorial skills - adding well written and referenced content, categorisation and general cleanup. His interactions with other editors appear to be calm and civil at all times.

JForget is an efficient vandal fighter and has made over 100 reports to AIV. He gives appropriate warnings and his report can my experience always be relied upon. He has also requested page protection on over 100 occasions and, again, I believe he does so in appropriate cicumstances. JForget's contributions to AfD discussions are thoughtful and show a thorough understanding of the relevant policies and guidelines. His deleted edits show a good knowledge of Wikipedia's speedy deletion criteria. He had a previous unsuccesful RfA from March where issues were largely lack of Wikipedia-space experience, low edit summary use and little need for the tools. These concerns have evidently been addressed and I think that, given the wide array of admin-related work he is now involved in, JForget now not only has a need for the tools but would be able to make sensible and skillful use of them. WjBscribe 18:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept the nomination.JForget 20:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: As an admin, I would intend to work in several areas, including deleting articles issued from AFD or TFD discussions as well as candidates for speedy deletion - I also started to do some new page partols via the recent changes. Since after my first RFA nomination last winter, I have also been more involved in discussions regarding to article deletions, and more recently at a lesser extent templates and categories for discussion/deletion which is why my number of Wikipedia edits have nearly ten-fold since February.

Of course, being a vandal fighter for several months, I intend to clear up possible backlogs when it happens on WP:AIV, WP:RFPP and WP:3rr and thus blocking offenders of vandalism, personnal attacks, offending user names or edit warring as well as protecting and unprotecting articles (the latter one seems to have several being protected for an extremely long period of time). I could also intend on working on WP:RCU and WP:SOCK if I improve the understanding on the sockpuppet policy which I believe I've mixed the two at times when I made reports.

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

A: I have worked in numerous domains throughout the encyclopedia since I started to be a member in March 2006 and thus it is the reason why I'm involved in multiple WikiProjects (although the main one been WP:OTT). So far I have created over 350 articles related to politics in Quebec, as well as local and geographical features, Quebec Provincial Highways, Quebec artists and singers and just recently Quebec municipalities - the most recent ones being as of today. However, it is difficult for me to pinpoint what were my best contributions so far since I have made so many especially since I have made 13 000 edits since my RFA.

Although among those that I have created, and/or participated a lot, are the articles about Meteorology/Severe Weather events, because they are the ones that had the highest assessment-class including a GA article for the February 2007 North America winter storm as well as a likely-future GA or possibly higher rank-article being, the May 2007 Tornado Outbreak (waiting on conformation on some of the content). What contributes to the quality of those particular articles, is that many were currents or historical events, that meteorology is a domain that I am very interested of following (although not for a career) that sources are more available via multiple parties (like the NOAA in particular) and that many veteran editors are also involved.

Two other articles, (although clean-up and splitting would be needed soon) is both the Foreign policy of the Harper government and Domestic policy of the Harper government articles which, much like the George W. Bush sub-articles, discuss about the policies made by the current Conservative government and are extremely rich in sources and elements. Although not assessed, after a clean-up, it may be close to a GA-class article.

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

A: Obviously, when I had to do vandal fighting I had disputes sometimes with various IP or users which resulted in edit warring (most often on the user talk page). Following policies, those disputes if it persisted generally resulted in a report to WP:AIV, WP:RFPP or WP:3rr depending on the case, generally without being too stressed.

However, the biggest dispute has been with the editor that I called the AOL vandal (the 172.xxx) who has been vandalizing, via numerous computers at the AOL headquarters, several articles on left and center-wing politicians (the vast majority Canadian ones). After giving repeated warnings, he started to make-up/posted personal attacks again and again until I finally decided to stop warring with him. While I did not experienced a lot of stress, I did requested a RFPP and haven't issued warnings anymore to the vandal after some time (although I had reverted a lot less of his vandalism - mostly due to the timing (or maybe he got caught at work). Maybe in the future, I can wait more longer before protecting my page and also maybe I should also try to not feed too much the trolls which I have also been told in my talk page.

Outside of vandalism, I have been not very often involved in major disputes - as I am not necessarily someone who wants to start or doing a dispute. However, I do sometimes participate in some of the dispute discussions by giving up my point of view and remained WP:CIVIL. If someone criticizes something, I often do some fixes suggested or at least some compromises (like the Quebec Road Templates). In my earlier months on Wikipedia before I became more familiar with some of the policies on notability, I had sometimes short-term disputes on local articles which were in AFD's due to lack of notability but I had fixed most of them per more experience obviously.

General comments

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

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/JForget
• Requests for adminship/JForget 2

• Links for JForget: JForget (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. Remain civil at all times. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/JForget before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. Support as nom. Impressive and thorough question answers too - all looks good to me. WjBscribe 20:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
2. Support I don't overlap with you at all so have dip-sampled more thoroughly than usual into your contribs, and I can't see a word out of place — iridescent (talk to me!) 20:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
3. Support — excellent participation at AfD and the main namespace. --Agüeybaná 20:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
4. Support Have come across him a lot, always satisfactorily. A very good editor with a thorough grasp of the policies. Will be a great admin. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
5. Strong support I wanted to nominate... JForget is a brilliant editor with a great deal of experience here and a lot of common sense. Will be an exceptional addition to the admin crew -- Samir 21:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
6. Support - WJBscribe covered it perfectly. --Thε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 21:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
7. Support yes, looks excellent. Good luck! Majorly (talk) 21:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
8. Support Will be excellent. -Lemonflash_{(do something)} 22:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
9. Support Looks like a good candidate to me. CitiCat ^♫ 22:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
10. I've seen JForgot around a good deal, and I'm sure he'll do just fine. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 22:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
11. Support Candidate is obviously ripe for adminship. Not to call you a fruit or anything... VanTucky ^Talk 23:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
12. Support Can't see any problems here at all. Good luck, ELIMINATORJR 00:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
13. Support Jmlk17 00:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
14. Strong support Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
15. Support All interactions so far have been positive.--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 02:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
16. Support --Oxymoron⁸³ 02:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
17. Support ON WHEELS! Excelllent editor, thought he was an admin already! Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 03:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
18. Support Excellent candidate for the tools. Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 03:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
19. Support Another RfA-cliche moment! Obviously skilled and trustworthy. Xoloz 04:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
20. Support civil editor with lots of experience. Melsaran (talk) 05:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
21. Support No major concerns here. He will make a fine admin. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 05:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
22. Support Major concerns here. I'm majorly concerned he's not an admin yet. Bo-yah! Dfrg.msc 07:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
23. Support Shoo in. Recurring dreams 08:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
24. Support No reasons to turn down.--Kerotan^{Leave Me a Message} Have a nice day :) 08:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
25. Support no obvious problems here + the nom from WjBscribe sealed it! --Chris  G  10:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
26. Support - Great contributor. -- Chris B • talk • contribs 11:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
27. Support - the questions raised last time have been strongly addressed in the answers and the extensive contribution to WP. Beware the troll-feeding, though your past experience will probably make this less likely going forward. Euryalus 12:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
28. Support – Excellent vandal-fighter. — madman bum and angel 14:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
29. Support I read through the user's edits and it is impressive. Phgao 15:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
30. Jaranda ^{wat's sup Sports!} 15:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
31. Support. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
32. Support. As with anyone wanting to do speedies - I look at deleted edits to see whether they understand the criteria. S/he does. Carlossuarez46 17:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
33. Support. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 17:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
34. Support - looks good to me, and if WJBscribe trusts 'em.... - Philippe | Talk 17:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
35. Support Excellent editor. Good luck!--SJP 20:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
36. Support. Good editing, the tools will be a good addition. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 21:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
37. Support. excellent work at WP:AFD and many good articles. Fantastic number of edits. Bearian 22:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
38. Support as per co nom WjBscribe. Pharaoh of the Wizards 23:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
39. Decent editor. Acalamari 00:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
40. Support Qualified. -Sharkface217 02:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
41. Support - Looking forward to welcoming you into adminship. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 02:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
42. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 03:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
43. Strong Support Great Wikipedian! I think he will do a great job as an admin. RS1900 09:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
44. Support - excellent candidate. Addhoc 15:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
45. Support - Excellent editor. R O ^{A M A T A A} | msg  15:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
46. Support I don't mean to pile on, but I have to support. Editor seems to have addressed all issues raised in previous RfA, plenty of experience and a top-notch contributor (over 300 articles!). faithless (^speak) 19:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
47. Support I'll pile on. What the heck. I've seen quite a bit of his work and have been impressed by it. Into The Fray ^T/C 20:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
48. Support per all of the above. Marlith ^T/C 23:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

    Support Great user. I am shocked he is not an admin already. Good luck:)--SJP 23:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

    Thank you for supporting JForget. However, you already supported him at 34, and you're only support. I realise you really want JForget to admin, but I'm afraid WP:IAR doesn't apply here. :D Maxim_(talk) 01:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

49. Support We can always use more new page partollers. Great editor, as far as I'm concerned. Caknuck 00:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
50. Support. In addition to the answers he gave above, I've had opportunity to work with him (probably on AIV). And he left a positive enough impression that I saw his name and said, "I need to weigh in with support here." So I have. —C.Fred (talk) 00:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
51. Support' - No concerns. --Hirohisat ^Kiwi 01:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
52. Support I think your well prepared to be an admin. Good Luck! Icestorm815 01:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
53. Support. This is an editor I am familiar with and would trust with adminship. Yamaguchi先生 01:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
54. Support After a trip to Ottawa, I became interested in reading more about the city/local attractions/culture. JForget has made some superb edits in this regard.--Hokeman 03:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
55. Support - Yes, of course, can be trusted and is well liked. Scarian^Talk 04:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
56. Support, don't see a reason not to. Wizardman 05:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
57. Oppose ;) - More AfD! :P LaraLove 05:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC) ^{(Yes, it's a support vote!)}
58. Strong Support This candidate is extremely familiar with many vital aspects of Wikipedia. JForget has been an excellent editor for well over a year, consistent in style and tone, with a highly impressive record of created articles. In addition to the editor's devotion to creating articles about places, the contributions to politics and weather are superbly helpful. With consistent contributions to both WP:AIV and WP:AFD and WP:RFPP, JForget demonstrates a knowledge of policy and procedure with ease, as well as the ability to properly communicate guidelines and policies to other editors. I am impressed by this editor's use of the appropriate warning level, and the use of helpful edit summaries, that specify what warning level was given and for what infraction, i.e.: (t2 Olivia Chow), as illustrated here. This is extremely helpful to other editors and administrators, and shows a respect for the process. Additionally, the editor seems to have experience with, and good judgment regarding WP:SSP, identifying and appropriately tagging several suspected alternate accounts of Puppetmaster Jagjagjagjab, a particularly prolific abuser of the system, and My words can laugh. All of these things add up to someone who is not only careful and considerate, but an editor who would be a most valuable member of the community in the role of administrator, and I look forward to JForget's successful promotion. ^Ariel♥Gold 05:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
59. Support, excellent contributions, you have the experience to be an admin. Good luck. Carlosguitar 07:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

    Jaranda ^{wat's sup Sports!} 19:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

    That's what you said at #30 ;) --JayHenry 20:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

60. Support, Excellent involvement in all areas of the project, great knowledge of policy, demonstrates a need for the tools, and Wikipedia will definitely benefit from his editing in an administrative capacity. Arky ^¡Hablar! 01:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
61. Support - I've seen this guy around and I like what I see - He's level headed, well rounded and would benefit well from the tools. I can't see him abusing them, and surprisingly, as far as I can see, he meets every single one of my RfA Standards. One big support from me. You deserve it. :) Spawn Man 03:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
62. Support--MONGO 05:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
63. Support Good judgement and amazing contribs. Just what we need in mop-wielders. No doubts here --Bfigura ^(talk) 21:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
64. Support JForget is both a talented editor and vandal fighter combined. I've seen him around numerous times. I'm sure he'll make a fine administrator.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 23:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
65. Support. Everything looks great. Kudret abi^Talk 04:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
66. Support Looks good.--Sandahl 01:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
67. Support - has done superbly since last RfA. What a turnaround! No problems at all here - Alison ^❤ 05:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
68. Yes. I've seen ya around the wiki. You've always seemed civil, and, you seem to understand the policies. Do I beleive you can be trusted with the extra buttons? Yep. Keep up the good work! :) SQL^{(Query Me!)} 01:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
69. Support seen this user around the project a lot and have liked what I've seen. —Moondyne 03:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
70. Support—no concerns. --Paul Erik 04:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
71. Support - definately a very fine candidate here - hardly any faults at all. This user is experienced and knows what he is doing and will make a great admin. :-) Lradrama 08:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
72. Support Hiberniantears 14:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
73. Support See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools. Davewild 16:53, 20 September 2007 (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.

iridescent

Final (83/1/0); Originally scheduled to end 20:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC). Nomination successful. --Deskana (talk) 20:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

iridescent (talk · contribs) - Iridescent is a highly active Wikipedian with over 10k edits to his name. A veteran of the XfD processes, he has an advanced understanding of the deletion policies and would be invaluable at CAT:CSD and in closing XfDs, both areas which frequently become backlogged. He is also an experienced vandal-fighter, and has a number of content contributions in a variety of articles; he's particularly active in expanding and improving stubs. All in all, Iridescent is long overdue for adminship, and I urge the community to support this nomination. Walton^One 13:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Co-nom from Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk)

I first encountered Iridescent in my first RfA, and even then he gave intelligent, knowledgeable comments. I've seen plenty of them since, and I've always wondered why he didn't want to be an admin. Anyways, good ol' Walton-boy finally managed to convince him to run for adminship (here), and I offered to nom soon after. I don't have that much to say about Iridescent, other then he's one of the most hardworking, and one of the best, users we have around here. If anyone deserves the mop, he does. So let's give it to him! Although he is English, which kinda weakens my support :P Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 23:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, you're just sore because you guys got beaten in Twenty20 cricket by Zimbabwe the other day! :-) Walton^One 13:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The day after that, you guys lost to us guys in Twenty20 cricket! :P Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 00:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: To be honest, probably not a lot at first, other than closing the occasional unquestionable delete in the CSD/prod/AfD hoppers & blocking blatant vandals & spammers. (The "oppose, doesn't need the tools" posse may as well skip to the end now.)

Since quite early on I made a conscious decision to pick a few particular fields & rotate between them, rather than either try to spread myself too thin doing a lot of things badly, or become obsessively focused on one particular area. The areas I currently rotate between are article creation/expansion, stub-sorting, RFF, AFD and RFA), with the occasional bit of recent-changes patrol, mainly when I'm on the phone or watching something on TV as there's less need to keep up a steady train of thought.

Aside from the AfDs, the only one of those fields where admin tools would be any use is the stub-sorting, to get rid of some of the sorrier nonsense pages & blatant spam that Alaibot periodically dumps into Category:Stubs. As I get used to the buttons, I'd expand into further deletions & blocks. While there are some admin fields I know I'd never touch (I'd be terrible at editing the user interface, for instance) I assume there are other areas I'd find myself drifting into since (because I deliberately limit myself) there are large swathes of Wikipedia-space I currently don't have many dealings with.

One area which I won't touch is deleting anything to do with fiction. My time loitering on XfDs and assorted article cleanups have shown me that I have a very different opinion of the notability of fiction to community consensus (without wanting yet another rerun of WP:Pokémon test, I personally find it ludicrous that Chronology of the Harry Potter stories is 50% as long again as History of the United States), so I'm aware that any fiction-deletion I carried out would be controversial, even with a clear consensus.

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

A: Even though it's twice failed at WP:GAC, I personally believe the best thing I've written here is Broadwater Farm. (I take no responsibility for the POV-pushing & edit-warring trainwreck of its sister article, Broadwater Farm riot.) While the name might not be immediately familiar to non-UK editors, this is arguably the most controversial location in England, and I wanted to write a genuinely neutral piece on it that showed why it became such a byword for failed social engineering experiments (and how the underlying geography shaped the modern architecture, which in turn shaped the area's history), and to explain why the area's been on such an up-down-up-down boom & bust cycle compared to the surrounding area, without turning into either an attack-piece on or a puff-piece for the area, and I think I succeeded.

Whilst it's a truly dull article, I'm also proud of how Metcall turned out. This was my first long article, and even in its current improved state it still betrays some newbie mistakes, but I think the article's as close to investigative journalism as it's possible to get in the tertiary-source model. For an organisation that performs such an innocuous and uncontroversial role, this organisation has a ludicrously paranoid level of secrecy (even the organisations own website doesn't even admit that the place exists) and it's ridiculously hard to find sources on it. While every fact in the article is legitimately sourced, it's all pieced together from occasional paragraphs here and there to build up what, I believe, is the only (relatively) complete description either online or in print of what the organisation actually does and how it functions. I know from real life (yes, I have one...) that law enforcement personnel do now use this article as a standard reference when trying to find out information about the organisation.

I'm also pleased with some of the "glimmer of potential" articles I've fished out of the {{prod}} mulcher or AfD and built up into valid articles. While I've done a lot of these, the two that stand out for me are the rewriting that ended a nasty revert/BLP war on Beki Bondage, and the mega-expand-and-merge that took an eminently deletable stub from this to this.

Oh, and I can't leave out the oddest character I've yet written on, Almeric Paget; while the rewritten article is very much a work in progress, has some extremely rough edges and still needs major expansion, my initial rewrite of the article has taken him from one of the dullest biographies on Wikipedia to one of the most unusual.

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

A: I've never been involved in a full-scale edit war. I've had assorted "how dare you nominate my article for deletion" posts (so many that I wrote a lengthy standard reply to people coming to my talk page) but they've never developed into outright arguments. The closest thing I've had was this incident back in April. As (I hope) is obvious, I didn't understand the accusations, and I think it was a case of mistaken identity. I was also very tangentially involved in the Arbuthnot Family business a few months ago, after proposing two members for the family for deletion (albeit !voting keep on many of the others), but I managed to avoid getting caught up in the arguments and recriminations that stemmed from it.

I think I unnecessarily annoyed some people a couple of weeks ago, whilst assessing the members of Category:Streets in London for WP:LT, as I nominated ten of the articles for deletion prompting some editors to complain that I was nominating too much for deletion; however, I stand by it; the articles I nominated for deletion were only the absolute worst cases - mostly one or two line substubs. Should anyone really care, you can read the full debate on the matter here.

A few days ago, I reverted this edit. I admit that I made a mistake in reverting it; I saw the first line of the diff & the edit summary, spotted it as either anti-American POV-pushing or a lame attempt at humour & reverted it without noticing that the remainder of the diff was a legitimate edit. I mistakenly tagged it as vandalism (which, since they hadn't received a warning about NPOV, it technically wasn't), and for the next few days received assorted abuse on my talk page from the IP (much of it since toned down) as a result.

It may be because I tend to work in fairly obscure areas, and because I generally write pages to a certain level and then hand them over rather than continuing to work on them, but aside from the above I honestly can't think of a genuine argument I've had here. I've had plenty of disagreements (mainly at WP:UKT and WP:LONDON), but they've all been resolved amicably.

General comments

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

RfAs for this user:

• Links for iridescent: Iridescent (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. Remain civil at all times. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/iridescent before commenting.

Discussion

• Support Knows what to do. 82.165.187.34 21:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
• Wow... out of the 3 people I've nominated for RfA, it looks like iridescent will be the 3rd to pass unanimously. This makes me think highly of my own judgment. :-) Walton^One 13:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Better luck next time. :-) Pascal.Tesson 23:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, maybe not unanimously, but 71 Support to 1 Oppose is close enough. Walton^One 16:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The anon hasn't turned up yet - that'll make at least one more. Incidentally, that "the free world, plus other places such as the United States" is still on Nicorette if anyone else feels the urge to clean it up; I have no intention of getting into a 3RR war over as trivial a subject as chewing gum — iridescent (talk to me!) 16:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Support

1. Support beat the nom support - great work at AfD, obviously knows policy, will make a great admin. ELIMINATORJR 19:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
2. Support woohoo. Yes, good luck. The Rambling Man 19:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
3. Support, looks good. Wizardman 19:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
4. Support - good reputation, broad experience. No problems that I can see. Should make a fine admin - Alison ^❤ 19:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
5. Support Per contributions, civility, personal interaction, and (dare I say it) - trusted noms. I see all the hall marks of a great admin here, but particularly your reasoned and considered judgement, with a great knowledge of policy thrown in. Very Best Wishes. Pedro |  Chat  19:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
6. Double-edit-conflict Support. a hard-working editor who will make a great admin. --krimpet⟲ 20:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
7. Support as (late) nominator. Walton^One 20:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
8. Support. User's contributions demonstrate dedication to the project as well as a strong understanding of policy. No doubt this user will make good use of the mop. Figured this user was already one! ɑʀкʏɑɴ 20:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
9. Strong support. Great editor, with lots of fine contributions. Melsaran (talk) 20:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
10. Support, since there's always stuff to clean up in CAT:CSD. I like the answers to the questions, and Iridescent's talk page shows a good ability to reason with people who aren't always reasonable. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 20:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
11. Support — I like seeing more active participation in the main manespace from admin candidates (not just fixing typos), but your other contributions are great, so I have no problems with you becoming an admin :-) --Agüeybaná 20:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

    I do do things aside from fix typos; among other things, I've written four GAs from scratch or from stubs (the last one less than a week ago), written a long series of articles on the geography of North London (one of which, to my annoyance, is currently at AfD), the railway stations of East Anglia and numerous obscure-but-notable-in-their-subculture musicians. My recent edit history looks swamped with typo fixes as I sometimes leave AWB open in another window, running a check through my "extended watchlist" of every article that's come to my notice, keeping an eye out for any typos that have crept in since I last checked, and you can rack up 30 minor edits in the time it takes to make one substantial one. I dare say most people here have already heard my opinion on minor edits being kept on contribution lists — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

    Yeah, I know. I checked :-) I just meant that you should focus on writing more of those wonderful articles you have already created. But, feel free to ignore this; typo fixing is important, too :-) --Agüeybaná 21:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

    The typo fixing doesn't really take up much time - I just leave AWB running in the background, and periodically flip windows, check whatever it's proposing is a change that actually ought to be made, and click the button. I'm surprised more people don't do it — iridescent (talk to me!) 23:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

12. Strong Support Wow, I thought you were already an admin! GlassCobra 21:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
13. (ec2)Support A good editor with a good understanding of the project. Will be a great admin. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
14. Support. Solid contributions to encyclopedia building. Espresso Addict 21:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
15. Support - And nobody informed me about the nom. --Thε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 21:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
16. Strong Support I really thought that you were an admin already! -Lemonflash_{(do something)} 22:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
17. Yep - thought he was one. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 22:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
18. Massively belated support! Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 22:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
19. Support Good candidate. Xiner (talk) 23:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
20. Support No explanation is required, the evidence speaks for itself on this one. In other words: duh! VanTucky ^Talk 23:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
21. Strong Support This should have been done long ago! I have no doubts you'll make an excellent admin. Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 00:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
22. Support Jmlk17 00:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
23. Suport Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
24. Support --Oxymoron⁸³ 02:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
25. Support. Candidate has made solid contributions to articles and should make a fine admin. Majoreditor 02:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
26. Support Have had some good expieriences with this user. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 03:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
27. Support Major RFA-cliche moment for me; abundantly qualified. Xoloz 04:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
28. Support -- I've had nothing but good experiences with this user, and I believe they will use the tools intelligently and fairly. --Haemo 04:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
29. Support No problems here. It is time to give this user the mop. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 05:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
30. the_undertow ^talk 06:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
31. Support: I've seen him on XfD, and while I don't always agree with his stances, I've always felt he's a thoughtful, reasonable editor with a long record of excellence.  RGTraynor  06:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
32. Support: Get on it. :) Dfrg.msc 07:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
33. An editor who I genuinely thought was already an admin. Support, Sebi _[talk] 07:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
34. Support more than able to be admin.--Kerotan^{Leave Me a Message} Have a nice day :) 08:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
35. Support Excellent contributor; will make a great admin. -- Chris B • talk 11:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
36. Support - good answers and plenty of experience in WP policy. It's not a particular factor in discussion but the Almeric Paget article is both interesting and bizarre, and a credit to your research skills. Euryalus 12:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
37. Support. WjBscribe 15:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
38. Support Great answers to questions, no doubt will use tools effectively. Phgao 15:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
39. Support. Experienced and trusted user. utcursch | talk 16:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
40. Support. Unqustionably. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 17:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
41. Support I assumed you already were! Carlossuarez46 17:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
42. Support Looks good, don't think he'll abuse the tools. —Ignatzmice^talk_contribs 18:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
43. Support - I see no evidence that this user will abuse the tools.--Danaman5 19:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
44. Support I can't remember a bad experience with this editor. J-ſtan!^Talk_Contribs 19:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
45. Support Great editor, what more can I say? GDonato (talk) 20:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
46. Support Why not? Good luck:)--SJP 20:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
47. Support Is this redundant or pointless in supporting him after all this above? •Malinaccier• ^T/C 21:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
48. Support - excellent experience. Deletionist, but not extremist; straight but not narrow. Can be safely trusted. Bearian 22:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
49. Support - looks to be another solid administrator, significant contributions to the Wiki-related pages and significant experience.--JForget 23:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
50. Support. It is inevitable. bibliomaniac15 15 years of trouble and general madness 00:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
51. Support no reason to believe the user would abuse the community's trust. Ealdgyth | Talk 02:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
52. Support - Hopefully, I got in early enough on the support train so people don't think I'm just following the crowd. The candidate is highly qualified and has great user name. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 02:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
53. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 03:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
54. SupportGreat Track no concerns whatsoever.Pharaoh of the Wizards 12:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
55. Support Has all the right temperament to be an admin. It also says something about me when I thought (s)he was one and I have a script to tell users' rights! :-P —[[Animum | talk]] 14:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
56. Support An outstanding user, with more than adequate knowledge in Wiki-cleanup. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 18:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
57. Support The Evil Spartan 18:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
58. Support, good answers, decent participation in discussions. Conscious 18:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
59. SUpport, lots of expeoremce jere/ Marlith ^T/C 22:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
60. Support Epbr123 23:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
61. Support Will use the mop well. --Sharkface217 02:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
62. Yes - Ofcourse. --Hirohisat ^Kiwi 04:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
63. Per that water guy...or whatever his name is. --D_arkF_alls ^talk 08:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
64. Support See that he's experienced with Wikipedia, no evidence that he would misuse the tools. Good luck! SirFozzie 17:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
65. Unnecessary pile-on. — [ aldebaer⁠] 21:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
66. BIG THANGS POPPIN', and little thangs stoppin. Miranda 02:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
67. Support and good luck to you :-) --Ben^chat 05:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
68. Strong Support One of the strongest candidates I've seen at RfA. Particularly liked the comment about avoiding deletion re fiction articles - someone aware of their own POV issues is a goodie. Trustworthy? You betcha. --Dweller 09:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
69. Support A great user who Im sure can be trusted with admin tools. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 17:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
70. Support Admittedly, I almost wanted to go neutral since I'm not real sure what the "newspeak" issue is. But however much an "advocate" he may or may not be, I'm not worried he won't be throwing a wrench in the works. So he has my support. -WarthogDemon 20:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
71. Support Very good. Kudret abi^Talk 03:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
72. Support Pfft... Easy choice :-D Scarian^Talk 10:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
73. Support with your experience, definitely you will help. Carlosguitar 17:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
74. Support I've seen a lot of excellent work from this user lately, especially at AfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

    Support - excellent contributor with a great track-record. I've met this guy again and again and it's always been good. I certainly trust him with the mop - Alison ^❤ 05:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

    Already supported, see #4. I've struck this and left a note on Alison's talk page. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 06:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

75. Support should do well. Sumoeagle179 21:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
76. You seem to be civil, sensible, smart, and, calm, with a great grasp on policy. Would I trust you with the extra buttons? Yesirre bob. :) SQL^{(Query Me!)} 02:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
77. Support, fantastic work at AfD, coupled with a hard working and friendly attitude. No reservations whatsoever to this excellent candidate. Phaedriel - 03:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
78. Support, per nom, seen them around and been impressed. --John 06:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
79. Suppose - definately a great candidate - I thought he was already an admin! Lradrama 08:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
80. Support seems very capable and has the right attitude. - Modernist 11:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
81. Support Very trustworthy! Hiberniantears 14:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
82. Support See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools. Davewild 16:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
83. Support Can't see any probs. Sarah 17:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Candidate is an advocate for newspeak. --Fljm 16:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

   Comment Can you forgive my ignorance and elaborate? It doesn't sound to me like he's "advocating" anything. It seems like he's saying (this is an example I made up) something like: "Iraq seems to be having a bad connotation with terrorism. Does that mean Iraqs are all bad?" Though this is how I see it. If my view and comparison shows my lack of education here, please clarify for me. -WarthogDemon 18:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

   Comment For full disclosure, I'm neither for nor against because I really don't know much about the issue, hence why I'm asking. -WarthogDemon 18:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

   As it stands, most policies and guidelines are subject to interpretation; ask twelve editors how they interpret WP:IAR and you are likely to get just as many differing perspectives. Given this discrepancy, the last thing needed is to have those in authority spouting ideas which fail the duck test as fact. (I can just see it now — "...things will go easier for you if you will just repeat after me: RFA is not a vote; it is a !vote...") --Fljm 22:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

   So you're saying that Wikipedia would be better off if it avoided giving admin responsibilities to anyone who disagrees with you on a minor wikipolitical discussion? How about perhaps sharing your thoughts in that thread of the discussion rather than bullying the candidate here? Pascal.Tesson 23:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

   Well, Fljm's entitled to his opinion. We're not going to change his mind by harassing him. Epbr123 23:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

   Hey hey! I don't see any bullying here. Let's just leave Fljm alone, surely we have better things to do? :)  * Aillema 00:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

   To be honest, I do have to say Fljm has a good point. It sounds like he's saying Iridescent is trying to quelch any politically incorrect language about voting (ahem, *!voting*). I do have to agree that it is a pain in the neck to put that exclamation point in front just to prove to anyone, "I know it's not a vote" (not to mention that, in fact, RFA really is a vote - tallies have to fall into the slim 70-80% margin for a 'crat to use his/her judgement). That said, I think that's not a good reason for Iridscent not to have the tools. The Evil Spartan 23:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

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

---

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

Tanner-Christopher

(19/10/4); Originally scheduled to end 18:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC). No clear consensus to promote. --Deskana (talk) 20:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Tanner-Christopher (talk · contribs) - Hello, this is my first time applying for an Administrator position. I first started out with Wikipedia editing articles for the WikiProject Wine. After finding the WikiProject Food and Drink which is the parent project of the wine project I decided my efforts were better spent there. In the time I have been with the project I have completely updated the project page for visual appeal and ease of use. I have moderated discussion on the project's talk page as well as worked with the project's upkeep. I have assessed and tagged many of the articles for the project and when I found I was overworked by doing that and working on articles and other items for the project I sought out new members to assist me in the task of tagging. I also created the monthly newsletter that goes out to our members. Since I became a member and spread the presence of the project through Wikipedia, our membership has gone from sixteen members to thirty-nine. I also update the Food Portal each month, which had been abandoned some months before hand.

My articles contributions are all in the realm of food and wine, but mostly food. My largest contributions so far have been on the French cuisine article and I am working on the Italian cuisine article amongst many others. I am also extremely diligent in reverting edits identified as vandalism and I attempt to warn and submit vandals when deemed necessary. I am a strong supporter of Wikipedia and feel that if I was given the abilities of an administrator on Wikipedia, I would be able to better serve the members of Wikipedia by being a definitive person that they can goto for assistantship with their personal work here. I thank you for your consideration and look forward to answering your questions. Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 18:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Before the nomination closes and this page goes into archives, I just wanted to say thanks to the people who supported me and an equal thanks to the people who opposed as most of you gave me some great perspective into how I can be helping out Wikipedia even more. I truly support Wikipedia and would love to see it one day accepted as an appreciated academic source. As a graduate student one often hears how Wikipedia is not to be trusted, but it is those of us who work through proper editing and those of you whom are administrators that respect the tools you have that will bring Wikipedia to the level of our hard-copy encyclopedias. The advantage we have is that we have many more experts in many more subjects than they do. Thanks again and I hope to get to know more of you after this. If any of you are into food or drink, I kindly invite you to the WikiProject Food and Drink to help out. If the probable happens and my nomination does not got through, you will see me at the end of my semester applying again (I do more work during the semester, don't tell my professors).--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 03:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: Numerous, including deletion of articles deemed to be not to the standards of Wikipedia, locking articles with excessive unregistered user vandalisms, blocking of users that are vandals after proper review, etc.

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

A: I have revitalized the WikiProject Food and Drink and work toward keeping it active, I revise the Food Portal monthly which had been adandoned for quite a few months, Creation of WikiProject Food and Drink Monthly Newsletter, for articles French cuisine, Italian cuisine (A work still in progress) and others.

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

A: I have had discussions over edits on a few articles such as Italian cuisine and my use of the Chicago citation format on the Chef article, but in each instance the discussion has ended in amicable terms. I strive to not get involved in conflict. When I first started I had an issue with an article entitled Wine country and learned from that initial incident that we all need to work toward the better good of the whole of Wikipedia, not just our own personal viewpoints and since then the issue has resolved itself.

General comments

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

• Links for Tanner-Christopher: Tanner-Christopher (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. Remain civil at all times. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Tanner-Christopher before commenting.

Discussion

• Regardless of the eventual outcome, I want to commend the candidate for his mature and level-headed behaviour during this RfA. Unlike most candidates, he's responded to criticism calmly and reasonably, and in a few months I hope to see him re-apply for RfA. Walton^One 10:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, one has to take it in stride, Wikipedia is fun and enjoyable to me. The thought just came to me the other day that I could help out more when I was doing something if I had some of the extra tools. If people take this too seriously, then that is why we end up with arguments all the time in regular life, let alone on Wikipedia. Working on Wikipedia however has certainly helped me to increase my academic knowledge as a chef and a graduate student. With or without administrative tools I wouldn't stop being a part of the community, thanks again.--Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 13:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Support

1. Moral Support - As Pedro says, you need more experience with the deletion policy and other admin-related areas. Don't be discouraged, though; you're a good editor, and your careful and well-written nomination statement shows that you certainly have the potential and maturity to be an admin one day. This request will probably fail, but I urge you to try again in a couple of months; I'd be happy to give you any help and advice you need. Walton^One 20:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

   Not a problem, I appreciate the support. Besides getting to know some administrators, this has given me some advice even to work on the project I support. Thanks again for the kind words, if my 16 credits of grad school doesn't get to me this semester, you will see me in a few months perhaps.--Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 20:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

2. Support appears to be a quality editor. Acalamari 20:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
3. Support--U.S.A. (talk contribs) 21:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
4. Support. There is no reason to believe this user will abuse the tools, so there is no reason to oppose. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 21:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
5. Support - I agree. Deb 21:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
6. Support Switched from oppose. The more talk page comments I read, the more I see a calm, polite person with the reasonable disposition suitable for someone who has access to a few extra tools. I don't think, based on what he's saying above, that he wants to delete things from CAT:CSD or WP:AFD, but rather articles he comes across in his normal editing on wiki, and probably those related to his subject area, of which he has valuable specialist knowledge. Even if Christopher takes a few moments to figure out the difference between hard blocks and soft, I can't see how the net effect of his adminship could be anything but positive. Per RyanGerbil10. --Chaser - T 09:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

   Thank you for the comments, my intention is only to use the tools for articles in my "specialty" area as I am an academic chef and would honestly only be using them in the areas in which I am familiar with. It is my opinion that areas of Wikipedia are best addressed by people who have expertise in that area. I also would not use a tool unless I completly understood it, it would be detrimental to Wikipedia and myself as many new colleagues from the hospitality industry have met me through Wikipedia.

7. Very weak support Although this is someone I'd usually oppose due to lack of experience, the very fact that he seems to have always confined himself to his specialist field gives me the confidence that he'd only stick to areas he understood — iridescent (talk to me!) 15:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

   Thank you and yes, my intention is to only use the tools in my area of expertise.--Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 17:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

8. Support Unless there are incivility issues I've not seen, i doubt nom will abuse the tools. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 17:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
9. Support I don't see any problems, looks like a quality editor. Tiddly-Tom 19:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
10. Extremely Weak Support. Good editor, but has little admin related experience. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 21:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
11. Support. Has barely sufficient number of edits, but has worked on many high-quality articles. He has learned to use edit summaries more consistently. Wikiproject edits are, in my mind, as good as AIV, XfD, or AfD work. It's possible that he doesn't need the mop, but on the other hand, will probably not abuse it. Bearian 22:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

    "Has barely sufficient number of edits..." He has nearly 4,000 edits! For crying out loud. ➪HiDrNick! 15:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

12. Support I normally would be more uncertain with a user with fewer project-space edits, but I think I will be more lenient here because of the good things I see. Captain panda 00:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
13. Why the hell not? Ral315 » 05:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
14. Support Even though this RFA may not succeed due to a lot of "lack of experience" type opposes below, I still want to offer my support per your valuable contributions as an expert in your area, as well as your calmness, humility and composition that you show here, including this very nice response above: "With or without administrative tools I wouldn't stop being a part of the community, thanks again.--Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 13:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC) ". Best of luck, Kudret abi^Talk 02:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
15. Support - I see no evidence that this user will execute the tools in anything but a mature and level-headed manner. --Haemo 03:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
16. Support. While agree with those below that more experience would be desirable, everything in your contribs looks good. You seem calm and sensible and make good comments in deletion discussions. Vandal-fighting activity suggests you'd know when to use the block button. Not all vandals keep going past the last warning and need to be reported to WP:AIV and sometimes another will report them first - the reports you made were appropriate. Hopefully if this request fails you'll pass without incident in a couple of months or so - I suspect a bit more contribution in admin areas, and perhaps some experience of tagging articles for speedy deletion (Special:Newpages is a useful starting point) would address the concerns below. WjBscribe 14:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
17. Support You may not have all the experience in the world, but your contributions and conduct during this RFA show that you have the temperment and restraint to use the tools appropriately. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 16:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
18. Support User:Tanner-Christopher has made substantial contributions to Wikipedia's coverage of food and drink, and I am confident he would make a good admin. --Daniel11 06:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
19. Support In line with iridescent's reasoning. Hiberniantears 14:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weak oppose. You're a good contributor, and your WikiProject is doing great, but I'm concerned that you may have a bit of a lack of experience in the project namespace (with no contributions to XfD, admin-related areas or anything except WikiProjects) and that you may need some more experience before becoming an admin. Try to gain some familiarity with the criteria for speedy deletion and the notability guidelines. Voice your opinion in some XfDs. I'd be glad to support you in a few months' time. Melsaran (talk) 18:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

   Thank you for your comments, I will follow your suggestions.--Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 19:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

   Weak oppose switched to support You don't really have enough non-admin contributions in areas that you plan to use the admin tools to tell me about how you would use them. For example, you want to block editors, but I see three eight reports to WP:AIV and no requests for blocks elsewhere. You also want to deleted articles, but I don't see any WP:AFD discussion or WP:CSD tagging. I suggest you do a little new page patrol and counter-vandalism and re-apply. It's helpful to predict how you'll handle the admin tools. Best of luck with your WikiProject, which looks to be coming along nicely.--Chaser - T 19:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

   I usually discuss the deletion proposals on the pages themselves, but I see what you mean. As for only three reports to WP:AIV, I know I have reported more than that, but not recently. I'll keep up with you suggestions though, thank you.--Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 19:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

   You're right. I missed some. It was eight.--Chaser - T 19:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

2. Weak oppose per above, try to participate at WP:XFD especially WP:AFD, you gain much experience about WP:PG. You are doing a good job to main space. Good luck. Carlosguitar 19:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
3. Strong oppose changed to Weak oppose. Gross lack of experience in general is concerning - but contribs seem to be good. I hope to see you back here in a few months, however. --Ben^chat 19:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

   So why the strong oppose?--Chaser - T 19:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

   That's what I meant :-) --Ben^chat 04:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

4. I agree with Melsaran. 8 AIV edits, but you want to block vandals...nada. More project space experience, and come back soon! Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 22:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose I'd like a bit more expierience. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 22:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
6. Weak Oppose candidates has a good attitude, but more experience is required for me to fully support. VanTucky ^Talk 23:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
7. Oppose You need more experience. In the meantime, do not be discouraged over this and try again after a few months. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 05:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
8. Oppose Per lack of overall experience. Jmlk17 09:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
9. Oppose per lack of exp. I would suggest working for another month or two before returning. Thanks. Marlith ^T/C 22:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
10. Oppose - more experience needed yet, although you are moving in the correct direction. Keep up the great work and in two or three months time, your RfA should look more attractive. :-) Lradrama 08:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
11. As above - let me know at your next RfA in 2-3 months, and I'll support then. For now I have to oppose. DS 19:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral I see no reason to pile on. The concerns by others in oppose are very valid, and I really can't support this RfA. However I don't see anything that can't be "fixed". This is simply a question of gaining some experience in admin related areas, perhaps though more input at WP:XFD and via Recent Change patrol and New Page patrol with resulting contributions to WP:AIV and WP:CSD. Do not be discouraged and certainly do not think that your work so far is not appreciated. If you would like to discuss further my talk page is always open, as, I am sure, is that of all contributors to this RfA and wider. Very Best. Pedro |  Chat  20:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

   I appreciate the suggestions, thanks.--Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 20:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

2. Neutral I am in agreeance with Pedro, user has demonstrated calmness, and experience in his area. But use of AIV is a tad low, but no doubt will make great admin in future. Phgao 15:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
3. Neutral In terms of civility and maturity I see absolutely no problem, but I'd be a bit concerned about experience. I can see you've made some great edits and contributed well but, unfortunately, experience is the key. Contributing to an area where you are comfortable in is a plus for me. I would definitely support in the future if you had just a tad more experience in admin related areas. Hooah. Scarian^Talk 10:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
4. Neutral but moral support. Would love to give support, but you're just too inexperienced in crucial policy areas, even for occasional tool usage. But I can't wait to support you next time. Please do drop me a line when you next run at RfA. --Dweller 15:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

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

---

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

MarSch

Final: (2/20/1); Ended 00:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC) Closed early in accordance with WP:SNOW. Acalamari 00:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

MarSch (talk · contribs) - This is my second self-nom. I filed my first one in May 2005: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MarSch. As before, the primary reason for doing this is that I've been annoyed that I lack privileges needed to fix certain things, such as doing non-trivial page moves. In the past I have done new-page-patrol and I have been involved with templates-for-deletion for a while. My content-edits are mostly in the areas of maths, computer science and physics. MarSch 11:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: A little of everything as I encounter things that need doing.

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

A: I am currently the most pleased I think with how Manifold turned out, although my edits to that page are all in 2005, I think I had a lot to do with making the article more complete. More recently my edits have been more dispersed and there is no single article that stands out in my mind. For instance, I added/edited articles to make sure major Scheme implementations and important books about Lisp had at least a stub.

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

A: I have been in a few situations where I disagreed with the direction an article was going, Manifold comes to mind again. I have always tried to reason with my collaborators to convince them or to find a way to cooperate and if I was not succesful I tried to find something else to work on. I will continue to do so in the future.

General comments

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

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/MarSch
• Requests for adminship/MarSch 2

• Links for MarSch: MarSch (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. Remain civil at all times. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/MarSch before commenting.

Discussion

• I suggest withdrawal. This has no chance, at 14% support. Note WP:SNOW. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

  I raised this issue earlier today on IRC, and was told not to, since there were 2 supports (and 6 opposes). Perhaps someone will reconsider that now though. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 08:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

  The candidate does not appear to have been on Wikipedia since yesterday afternoon (server time). I would think it only fair that they at least get the opportunity to provide some input or feedback aginst the opposers concerns. Pedro |  Chat  08:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

  Thank you Pedro, I wasn't really sure if a response to your and others' concerns would be appreciated. Some people seem to object to my discussing on my talk page the disappearing of some of my own edits to my user page by an admin (presumably executed by User:Netsnipe) who informed me of this also on my talk page. It is not clear to me whether the act of discussing or the place where it took place seems inappropriate to some as it seems clear to me that I had the right to discuss this and the right place to respond to Netsnipe's message on my talk page was also on my talk page, right below it as is usual. Unless discussing something is now an act of disregard for the project and consensus, Shell babelfish?

  So perhaps some other aspect of my behaviour is the object of the concern (at least for some), though since Walton^One, who isn't even opposing, seems to have been the most explicit you'll have to excuse me if I address the wrong concern. To the best of my knowledge there was never any official decree by Wikipedia management or Jimbo Wales to disappear from Wikipedia all mention of the number in question and as such I still think there were no grounds for breaking WP:CENSOR and I felt it as my duty to speak up and I believe I have done so while being WP:CIVIL and while not disrupting Wikipedia to make a WP:POINT. All I did was discuss the matter. I am now using Image:Free-speech-flag.svg and some silly story which seems to be an acceptable compromise.

  Finally I would like to mention that the AACS encryption key controversy page now contains the number and also there is now a comment that says:

Before editing this article or commenting on this article's talk page please read the

Electronic Frontier Foundation's legal primer on this issue:
* http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/005229.php

An essay on the AACS key on Wikipedia:
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Keyspam

PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE THE KEY
Consensus was reached via this article's talk page to post the key in the article.
If you think this is wrong, there is an on-going discussion.  
Consensus CAN change, but it should be done so through discussion.
DO NOT remove the key and start/continue an edit war

• Make of that what you will. --MarSch 12:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

  Thank you MarSch, for taking the time and trouble to explain further the issue I raised. To be clear, the rights and wrongs of having the key on Wikipedia are neither here nor there with respect to this RfA. What concerned me was the "tone" of the postings within the thread itself. WJBScribe has summed up nicely how I feel (below). Specifically your first reponse of " Please don't be (a vigilante)/(judge, jury and executioner) of your own doubt-inclusive fear-enhanced DMCA/EUCD. Don't be part of the problem.". That is not the attitude of someone I could entrust with a block button. Other opposers no doubt have their own take on what the issue is, but I'd be willing to bet that it's not so much your disagreement with policy but the way that you disagreed that is the bigger problem. Best. Pedro |  Chat  13:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

  Thank you for that clarification. I feel strongly about the issue and my strong reaction was based on the fact that User:Netsnipe did not ask me to remove the key or remove the key himself, but instead used some special power to disappear my edits. While my reaction was one of strong disagreement I do not think I crossed WP:CIVIL.

  Your concerns about block buttons are unfounded. If anything, the whole issue should instead have convinced you of my intense distaste of abuse of (administrator) power. Do you really think I would want to do similarly to anyone else? --MarSch 14:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Support

1. I have seen this editor's work over a period of years (we work in the same area) and I remember the discussions we had over manifold. I'm confident that MarSch will use the extra tools to the advantage of Wikipedia and thus I gladly support the request. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
2. Support. I don't know the background to all this encryption key stuff, but looking at the article AACS encryption key controversy, it looks like the number he published on his userpage is exactly the same as that already quoted in the lead section of the article. Although I know next to nothing about this, it's a mystery to me how publishing it on his userpage could cause more legal trouble for Wikipedia than publishing it in an article. As such, it doesn't seem to me a sufficient reason to oppose an otherwise adequate candidate. Walton^One 16:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Not withstanding your long standing (allthough sporadic) contributions you have virtually no input in admin areas such as WP:XFD, WP:AIV etc. Mostly though this discussion on your talk page is deeply worrying. I can't trust you with block or protection buttons after looking at the ramifications of that. Sorry. Pedro |  Chat  13:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose The discussion Pedro mentions is also troublesome to me. It does not show a willingness to build concensus or good conflict resolution skills. --Fabrictramp 14:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose per the discussion that Pedro brought up. The proper place for the discussion of the censored 16-digit hexadecimal number is AACS encryption key controversy, not your user page. It's one thing to protest censorship, but when it could cause legal trouble for Wikipedia, it's not worth proving the point. That's the same reason we don't allow fair-use images on user pages. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose per Pedro, as the discussion shows a lack of flexibility and misunderstanding of the issues involved; how can we be sure that candidate won't take advantage of admin tools to support his (proven wrong in the referenced discussion) points of view? plus, candidate should not seek the mop as a solution to being "annoyed" at the lack of "privileges". Roadmr (t|c) 16:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose per all the above reasons. I suggest you try again after a few months. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
6. Strong Oppose per Pedro and all others above. --Ben^chat 19:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
7. Oppose per concerns over the discussion Pedro pointed out which show a misunderstanding of key policies, a lack of understanding the appropriate use of userspace and disregard for the project and consensus. Also your userpage appears to have always been nothing more than a point (and a fair-use image). Shell ^babelfish 22:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
8. Oppose per the candidates obvious unfamiliarity with the position and its duties. VanTucky ^Talk 23:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
9. Oppose per the userpage discussion. Daniel 00:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
10. Oppose per Pedro. Jmlk17 00:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
11. Oppose as above. I would consider supporting you in future if you showed an understanding of the concerns raised during the key controversy. Also, I would like to see more contribution in general (over the last four months, you've averaged somewhere around 40 edits per month). Sarah 03:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
12. Oppose per the discussion that Pedro brought up. KTC 04:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
13. Strong oppose. The candidate's conduct during the encryption key controversy showed that he did not have the project's best interests at heart. Someone who cannot distinguish between censorship and a refusal to allow Wikipedia to be used as a medium to further software piracy is fundamentally unsuitably to be an administrator. His actions were disruptive, aggressive and showed a complete misunderstanding of the underlying law and policy, never mind a lack of common sense. WjBscribe 11:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

    The primary purpose of having an AACS decryption key is being able to play your DVDs using a free software player on a free operating system such as GNU/Linux. So if you ever want to able to play DVDs on your Ubuntu installation you should be happy that some people uncovered this key. Even on Windows you might want to do something other than what most players allow (they may only allow playback), such as re-encoding your DVD so that it takes less space, or using some small part of the movie for creative purposes (making your own movie/sketch/commercial/spoof). On the contrary this key does not aid copyright infringement at all, as encrypted data is not any harder to copy than is any other data. --MarSch 08:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

14. Oppose - no particular reasons for wanting to be an admin and concerns about policy understanding. The answers to the questions and the fairly low edit rate bother me too. Euryalus 12:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
15. Oppose User would do well with reading up on admin requirements and familiarise themselves more with the process of the adminship process. Would consider supporting next time, if such concerns are addressed. Phgao 15:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
16. Oppose I dislike opposing over single incidents, but admins need to know how free speech and censorship applies on Wikipedia. If the whole First Amendment applied to Wikipedia, our policies would be unconstitutional and there would be very little need for admins. Its one thing complaining about people removing stuff from your userspace, but complaints should be grounded in policy, not claiming that your free speech is being infringed upon. Mr.Z-man 20:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

    The policy is WP:CENSOR and it did come up. Also I'm sure you are aware that you don't go messing with another user's Userpage without a very good reason. This is also policy Wikipedia:User page. The fact that the key is now back in the articles where it belongs shows that that very good reason was not there. --MarSch 08:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

    Content on user pages that is meant to illustrate a point may be removed on sight. Removing it isn't "censorship" (if we wanted to censor the key, we wouldn't include the exact string in an article). I won't oppose for this one incident because it happened several months ago, but the fact that you still believe that the content was an appropriate use of userspace deeply troubles me. Melsaran (talk) 09:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

    I didn't put it on my user page to prove any point though, but even that would have been okay as doing this on my own user page does hardly disrupt the wiki. The fact is that the software that Wikipedia runs on was at the time changed to check for this number such that it was impossible to save some pages that obviously contained the number. I used my user page to investigate exactly what the software was checking for. Unfortunately as these edits were disappeared I cannot prove what happened and I also don't know if there is any evidence that I could find for the software change. The fact is that at the time the discussion happened on my user page this number was actively being censored. I am very happy that this is no longer the case, but you can hardly use that as an argument to deny censorship ever happened. I am also confused by some of your other arguments. You're saying the number is only appropriate on a few particular articles and if some silly user wants to put it on his user page that is not okay? Just like it is not okay to put snippets of other articles on your user page?--MarSch 09:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

    Then why did you put it on your user page? To test the software? That's hard to believe, particularly because you still have a similar section (about illegal numbers) on your user page right now. Melsaran (talk) 09:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

    I give you [1] which I was doing at the same time you were composing this question. --MarSch 09:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

17. Oppose per above. The answers to the questions don't show what administrative tasks that you are going to be involved with. Low edit rate also. I suggest a withdrawal, and more experience needed. Miranda 21:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
18. Strong Oppose. 11 edits in the past year? •Malinaccier• ^T/C 21:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

    please check your facts, I have over 1000 edits this past year.--MarSch 08:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

    11 edits in project namespace, yes. Melsaran (talk) 09:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

19. Oppose. Not active enough for my taste, need a few hundred edits per month to meet my criteria. Based on current consensus, I'd recommend withdrawing per WP:SNOW. Useight 22:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
20. Oppose. Essentially an inactive, single-purpose account. Sorry. Bearian 22:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

    please check your facts, I have just shy of 8000 edits on my name, all with the single purpose of improving the wiki, yes.--MarSch 08:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I'm not so sure. You look like a good content contributor with a lot of experience, but you have only 11 contributions in the past year (not counting this RFA). Melsaran (talk) 13:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

   Melsaran - did you mean last month ? Candidate has made 1,121 contributions so far this year based on Interiots tool. Pedro |  Chat  13:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

   Oops, no, I meant contributions to the project namespace. :) Melsaran (talk) 13:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

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

---

---

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

Madman

Final (44/1/0); Originally scheduled to end 21:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC). Nomination successful. --Deskana (talk) 21:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Madman (talk · contribs) - I'd like to present another user who I believe has the experience and the loyalty to become an administrator, Madman bum and angel. If you work a lot in bot requests (his bot is User:MadmanBot), or Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations, you might recognize him. Madman does quite a lot of speedy deletion work, making him yet another user we should add to our CSD-backlog-fighting corps. For those of us afflicted with edit-pox, Madman has an adequate 6600+ edits and about 6 months of experience. While some of you might complain that his mainspace or Wikipedia edits are not enough, I believe that his tenure of vandal fighting, copyright-vio finding, and CSD tagging has given him more than enough experience to become an administrator and to make it a better place than it was before. bibliomaniac15 15 years of trouble and general madness 22:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Many thanks, bibliomaniac15. — madman bum and angel 01:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I do have an older account, HoodedMan (talk · contribs). When I stopped editing more than a year ago, I didn't expect to return; when I did (apparently Wikipedia is addictive... who knew?), I no longer had the account password (my KeePass database was lost when my hard drive crashed.) I didn't feel my contributions as HoodedMan were anything of note (my usual vandal-fighting and WikiGnoming), so I didn't attempt to regain the account. An administrator inquired a month ago as to the state of any previous accounts (my first edit was installing WP:TW, after all), so I recreated my old e-mail account on my server and had my password reset. User:HoodedMan and User talk:HoodedMan now redirect to the more pertinent pages.

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: As aforementioned, the venues in which I work most needing an extra mop are recent changes patrol and (suspected) copyright problems (speedy deletion). CorenSearchBot also notices cut/paste moves, and I'm learning quickly how to deal with those. However, I've always been willing to lend a hand to whatever backlog looks most shiny, and I welcome greater opportunity to do so.

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

A: I actually like to think that some of my best contributions are among those that our encyclopedia's readers are least likely to notice. I'm fond of drawing a parallel between my current work on Wikipedia and my former work as a theatrical lighting/sound technician. If I'm doing my job right, the audience members won't notice the light cues that give the play its atmosphere. They're subtle and natural; the atmosphere is just there. The thespians on stage shouldn't sound miced; they're just having an argument, or a conversation, and the audience is a part of that. And just as the audience will notice if the lights or sound go out, our readers would notice should WikiGnomes such as myself stop contributing. We keep the gears of Wikipedia running smoothly and remove the sand so readers have the best impression of the project possible.

On a less abstract note, I have 6634 edits as of this writing, and 296 deleted edits. The elimination of copyright-infringing content and of vandalism is what I do to help maintain the reputation of our encyclopedia. I'm also an active, elected member of the Bot Approvals Group, and I'm proud of my participation in the requests for approval process. When there's consensus for a change that requires major page modifications, a bot request should be approved quickly, but there also still needs to be room for community input, and it needs to be proven that the bot is harmless and useful. I believe I've done the best I can to make sure that when bots reach their production stage, they're as well-developed as can be, and they cause as few complaints as possible.

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

A: Every bot operator receives complaints, but I've done my best to comply with users' wishes as much as possible and to make sure my bot has a minimal impact on the project. Our editors are the most important contributors to Wikipedia, not our administrators, our bots, or our bureaucrats, to name a few of our more "powerful" usergroups. My bot has been blocked twice, both times while it was executing a trial approved by the Bot Approvals Group, once during execution, and once twenty-four hours later. Such blocks cause Wikistress, especially as multiple tasks are halted while the bot waits for my response, then an administrator response. But both times the bot was unblocked quickly, and I withdrew the bot task request of my own volition, as it was clearly controversial. My bot has also been affected by two rangeblocks of class B networks; those were sorted out quickly. I was also blocked once because an administrator believes I was running an unauthorized bot, when I was simply using a semi-automated tool -- this was early in my Wikicareer and caused a bit of stress, but it was nothing more than a minor inconvenience.

In short, most of my stress is not Wikistress; it's coming from outside the house. If I'm too overworked, I take a short break from everything non-essential. I'm fully cognizant of the fact that we're all volunteers.  :)

Question from Majoreditor

4. Please discuss what articles you've written or expanded.

Well, as you can see from my user page, I'm an avowed metapedian. Unfortunately, I don't have a lot of free time on my hands, and the amount of research I do in real life pretty much precludes any research I do for Wikipedia, which is my escape from said work.  ;)

So I'm not sure that I have an answer that'll satisfy you. Sometimes when I spot a new page, instead of flagging or tagging it, I'll do my best to clean it up (example: [2] [3]). But otherwise, my modus operandi is WikiGnoming and performing other "quasi-administrative" tasks; I can't recall any articles that I've created. — madman bum and angel 13:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Question from 201.216.215.177

5. Please tell us why you should be an admin when you haven't written any articles, and may not a clue with article disputes and edit warring.

A. I believe I've answered the first part of your question, and I'm not sure I understand the second part. I'll expand, however. I don't believe that adminship has anything to do with writing articles. There are no additional "article-writing powers" granted to administrators. I do realize that the purpose of the project is to write an encyclopedia; that's why I think that the editors are the most important persons working on the project. I believe that administrators are here to help the editors, so they're not bothered by the "minutiae" and can focus on their task at hand. Does that answer your question? — madman bum and angel 21:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

100% optional question from Alpta

6. Should we really make a Madman an admin :) ?

A. Probably not. :D — madman bum and angel 17:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from —[[Animum | talk]]

7. What has your aim on wikipedia been? Have you reached that apex?

A: I know this question is optional, but I'm going to answer anyhow, even though the answer is a hard one. I don't know. I'm not afraid to say it, and I'm not afraid to continue saying it if I need to. I'm not sure what the long-term goal of my involvement in the project is. Taking that into account, I doubt I've reached that apex. Right now, I'm satisfied with both learning as much as I can about Wikipedia and its philosophy and doing what I can to contribute positively to Wikipedia. — madman bum and angel 02:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

General comments

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

• Links for Madman: Madman (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. Remain civil at all times. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Madman before commenting.

Discussion

• Oppose Madman is not a civil user and doesn't write articles. This is an encyclopedia, not a botpedia. 201.216.215.177 20:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I'll sit on the fence until he answers my question. 201.216.215.177 21:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry you feel that I am, in general, uncivil. I'm not sure how my actions have given you that impression, but I'm perfectly willing to review any diffs you may provide and apologize if need be. We all make mistakes, and I am not exempt from that generalization.  :) — madman bum and angel 21:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
      • The IP 201.216.215.177 is a TOR proxy. Alpta 04:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nominator. bibliomaniac15 15 years of trouble and general madness 20:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
2. Support This user has a lot of experience. I don't see why adminship should be denied. Minesweeper.007 (talk · contribs) 21:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
3. Support Don't see a reason to oppose user. good luck!--SJP 21:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
4. — [ aldebaer⁠] 22:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
5. I was going to check your HoodedMan contribs but preferred checking your old talk page and thanks was the main word used by many contributors seeking help. That's a proof and evidence of a very helpful and easy-going attitude though w/ a mad skin now ;) → Mad support. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
6. Support I like what I see, and I trust the nom quite a bit. Jmlk17 22:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
7. Support. Seems to know what he's doing. WjBscribe 23:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
8. Support For a bot operator to have a talk page that's not a mess of hate-mail, you must really know what you're doing — iridescent (talk to me!) 23:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
9. Support. Most definitely. Helpful, friendly, open, honest, able to leap tall backlogs with a single bound. I asked about his previous experience and am completely satisfied with response. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
10. Support forthright, intelligent answers and a solid experience. VanTucky ^Talk 23:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
11. Support - informed answers to the questions, good edits, nice bot. Have fun with the mop. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 23:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
12. Support. The tools will greatly add to this user's contributions. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 00:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
13. Support with plenty of edits, no problems or concerns, good work so far. Bearian 00:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
14. Support Absolutely. As per Rick Block. Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 02:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
15. Support Why not? --Hirohisat ^Kiwi 02:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
16. Support, impressed with Madman's participation in most areas of Wikipedia. Sebi _[talk] 05:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
17. Support - in similar fashion to Moonriddengirl, such a lot has been achieved in a relatively little amount of time. Good candidate. Lradrama 08:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
18. Support Impressive. The request for the tools to aid your work within the copyright violations area sits very well with me. As the 'pedia grows and becomes ever more popular on the net the community needs to focus strongly on this problem. You contribution history demonstrates how much more help you will be able to bring with a couple of buttons. In addition, previous interaction has allways been positive and, of course, civil. Best. Pedro |  Chat  09:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
19. Support, looks fine. Melsaran (talk) 11:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
20. Support Looks fine with me. A great editor as well. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
21. Support will be a good administrator. Acalamari 17:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
22. Support OK. Use the tools wisely!  : ) AdamBiswanger1 17:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
23. Support seen him at the speedy delete world and his judgement is good. Carlossuarez46 17:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
24. Support Seems like Madman will be valuable in the ongoing struggle against copyvio and vandalism. :)--Fabrictramp 19:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
25. I really did think you were an admin until very recently... Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 22:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
26. Support as per above. Tireless contributor, and great knowledge of areas where he will mainly be working in. Phgao 15:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
27. I've not supported yet? I feel ashamed. —DerHexer (Talk) 15:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
28. Concordo — Slade (TheJoker) 20:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

    Support. We badly need admin gnomes. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 21:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

    You already supported in #12. Miranda 22:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

29. Support Great Track has done well in relativly short span of time.Pharaoh of the Wizards 00:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
30. Support - Yep, yep, yep. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 00:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
31. Support this madman – Adminship is no big deal, and he is, after all, a madman. Who can dream of a madman misusing the admin tools? —[[Animum | talk]] 02:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
32. Support Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 03:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
33. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 03:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
34. Alpta 14:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
35. Support, An admin must work behind the scenes for Wikipedia. I see many Wikipedia space edits. Marlith ^T/C 16:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
36. Support. Whaaaat, he's not an admin yet? -- Kl4m ^{Talk Contrib} 19:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
37. Support Smokizzy (talk) 14:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
38. Support I haven't edited in some time, but I've known Madman for too long not to vote. If there's anyone I'd trust to use the admin tools wisely, it's him. — Zazou 20:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
39. Support - Madman knows and follows policy, is active, operates a bot responsibly, and has a cool name. Give me a good reason not to support. :) Nihiltres^(t.l) 00:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
40. Support. I'd prefer a bit more article work, but my personal interactions with you have been positive and you certainly have benefited the encyclopedia. You've done enough to convince me you wouldn't abuse the buttons, so you have my support.--Kubigula (talk) 03:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
41. Support. I see this man around a lot, good contributions, good answers, honestly I also thought this man was already an admin. Kudret abi 10:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
42. Support - Strong editor. LaraLove 04:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
43. Support See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools. Davewild 07:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
44. Support A great contributor who would undoubtedly benefit from the extra tools. -- Chris B • talk 20:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose Fails my criteria. Matthew Richardson 18:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

1. Oppose Sorry, but I'm concerned about your hasty actions towards long time users. I know you do good work in on suspected copyright violations, but I see you tagging articles created by long-time Wikipedians for speedy deletion. Such as here, on this article created by User:Liftarn who is a long-time Wikipedian. The article was tagged by User:CorenSearchBot [4], then Liftarn removed the tag, with a comment saying the text came from "his own site". The next edit was by Madman, placing a speedy tag on the article,[5] despite Liftarn's comment. He did that before discussing anything with Liftarn. As an admin, I'm concerned that instead of placing speedy tags, he will simply delete the articles. Treating long time users with lack of good faith is not the way to retain good users. I've seen too many leave the project. I'm simply not assured that Madman will not hastily delete articles in such situations. --Aude (talk) 21:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

   I apologized to you for the article of yours that I tagged; we got it sorted out quickly enough, and Liftarn got sorted out even more quickly (fifteen minutes). You "expect admins to be cognizant of copyrights", but to the contrary, I believe that anyone can make mistakes. I tagged the article, as I felt was necessary, given that it met CSD g12, and immediately left a note on Liftarn's talk page regarding his edit summary which seemed to indicate that he was the copyright holder. You want experienced users to be able to "opt out"[6] of checks for copyright violations, and it seems you want them to be able to opt out of the "formal procedures"[7] as well. But the procedure for donating copyrighted materials is utterly necessary to ensure we are upholding the third pillar of Wikipedia: that all of its content is free. Thanks, — madman bum and angel 21:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

   (edit conflict) I also find your assumption of bad faith disturbing, in that you assume that I will immediately delete articles, without following the speedy deletion procedure and without giving the author a chance to dispute the speedy deletion criterion. — madman bum and angel 22:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

   Will you speedy delete articles rather than tagging them? Sorting out copyright violations may mean more than tagging articles for speedy deletion, in some cases. A templated response isn't always suitable for regular users when there are problems. It may mean asking the user on their talk page. If the user doesn't respond, then deletion would be appropriate. But, please first give them a chance to explain. Your approach seems to be the opposite of WP:AGF. It concerns me. In my case, the WP:COPYVIO policy is clear that "Some cases will be false alarms. For example, if the contributor was in fact the author of the text that is published elsewhere under different terms, that does not affect their right to post it here under the GFDL." --Aude (talk) 22:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

   (edit conflict) Will I follow the speedy deletion procedure? Absolutely. When I tag articles, I expect that other administrators will follow up on the tag, just as I will follow up on other users' tags. That's how it's always worked at WP:SCV; a great deal of the backlog fighters are administrators. I didn't template Liftarn; I quoted a relevant section of policy and immediately gave him a quick, easy way to confirm his authorship. Some cases will be false alarms, yes, like these. But when it's impossible to tell that the Wikipedia contributor is in fact the author of the text that is published elsewhere, I think it's important that that be confirmed. Does that address your concerns? — madman bum and angel 22:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

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

---

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

Barneca

Final (32/15/0); Originally scheduled to end 14:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC). No consensus to promote. --Deskana (talky) 16:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Barneca (talk · contribs) - This is a self-nom. I’ve been here since 31 December 2006, with a little over 4300 edits. I think my answers to the questions below briefly explain who I am and why I want the extra tools, but I’d be happy to go into more detail below, on my talk page, or via email, if you want more.

The basics: I started editing for real in March, and heavily in May, but that was interfering with real life, so I backed off a little. I now expect I’ll maintain roughly the level of editing I’ve had for the last 3 months (500-750 edits/month). Recently there have been several occasions where having admin tools would have been quite useful, so I thought I’d give it a go now. I don't know everything about everything, but I'm familiar with enough admin-related activities that I can be immediately useful in areas I'm comfortable, and will be able to help out more places in a few months. If this succeeds, I will make myself open to recall.

Thanks in advance for your consideration, comments, and advice. --barneca (talk) 14:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: What I've wished I could do recently but can't. I’ve run into several occasions lately where I’ve wished I had more buttons (mostly related to this):

• Blocking vandals and blatant socks myself, especially when socking and vandalism is happening rapidly, rather than report to WP:AIV.
• Quick deletion of attack pages, and deletion of edits giving out phone numbers and personal information, without waiting for CAT:CSD or WP:ANI.
• Rollback of edits from vandalism-only accounts, rather than tediously doing them one at a time. (Yes, I know about the .js tools available to non-admins, but for semi-complicated reasons I can't really use them).
• Review deleted edit histories and deleted material while looking for similarities with other possible sock puppets, especially vandal puppets whos contributions have been almost entirely deleted.

How I plan to use the tools long term. I don't plan to focus on just one area; I like exploring the nooks and crannies of Wikipedia, and will help out wherever I feel comfortable.

• Vandalism fighting. I’ve spent a majority of my time here fighting vandalism old-school style, with over 100 reports to WP:AIV. As far as I can recall, only one of them did not result in a block, which I hope says something about my judgment in this area. It would be faster and cleaner to block vandals myself, as I continue to go to Special:Random pages and watch Special:Recentchanges. I will also help at WP:AIV; now that school is starting, I’m guessing it will resume being backlogged frequently. To be honest, vandalism fighting is starting to lose some of its thrill, but I do think it’s important, it's something I’m happy to continue, and an area where I can jump in right away.
• As some may remember, I kind of stumbled into looking at sockpuppetry. While I don't intend to be some kind of full time internal affairs cop, it is something I expect to do more of. It benefits from slow, deliberate investigation (which fits my style and editing schedule), and I think the practice of using socks to develop a false appearance of consensus is one of our two or three biggest problems. Also, WP:SSP looks chronically backlogged. Admin tools, as described above, would be quite useful. I’m not so much interested in the nightmarish task some people have taken on of tracking the dozens of socks of persistent vandals. I’m more interested in following up on cases I stumble across during vandalism patrol, or just picking a WP:SSP case, looking into it, commenting if the results aren’t clear, and closing and acting if they are.
• I occasionally wander by WP:AN and WP:ANI. As an admin, I’ll do that a little more, in case someone needs an admin’s help. Similarly, I’ll keep an eye on CAT:HELP and CAT:UNBLOCK. In general, anything that needs a little investigation before action, and is generally helpful, is something I’m interested in.
• CAT:PROD and CAT:CSD. I really shouldn’t say this without exhaustively checking, but I think no admin reviewing CAT:CSD has ever disagreed with a {{db}} tag I’ve put up. For vandalism, patent nonsense, and attack pages, I'd like to be able to delete them myself, without adding to the CSD workload. For notability cases, I will seldom speedy an article that I run across myself, and I'll tag it with {{PROD}} or a {{db}} notice instead. I think having two sets of eyes verify something is speedyable for non-notability is good practice. But I’m quite willing to be that second pair of eyes, and delete appropriate cases in CAT:PROD or CAT:CSD. For good-faith new articles, especially by new editors, I'll try to engage them on their talk page as well (with more than a template, I mean), to make the experience less BITEy.
• Maintenance. I think there's a certain obligation to pitch in and help if entrusted with the mop. As I become more familiar with processes at each place, I'll help out with backlogs at CAT:AB, WP:RFPP, WP:3RR, WP:UAA, etc.

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

A. So far, I’ve been most productive vandal fighting. But also:

• General helpfulness. Dablink fixing, article discussion when I have something useful to say, looking up info in the references and fixing it if it's incorrect, spelling/phrasing fixes, page moves... Just generally wandering around the 'pedia, fixing what I come across that seems to need fixing.
• Mediation/DR. It interests me, and I’ve tried it informally a few times, unfortunately never completely successfully. I’ll continue to try (at least trying to disenflame a dispute is a contribution). What started as a brief discussion of some of the times I tried to resolve a dispute has turned pretty verbose, so for those interested, I've moved it to the talk page.
• Contributing without having a strong POV about, really, much of anything. I'm here because I love the concept of Wikipedia, and find it interesting, enjoy learning new stuff, and enjoy being useful, not because I want articles my way. Long term, I think that POV wars, and the socks and cross-namespace disputes they breed, are more dangerous to Wikipedia than vandalism. While I certainly don’t think you have to come here without any POV at all in order to be an editor or an admin, frankly I think the fact that I don’t have an ax to grind is a benefit, especially if I try to get involved in helping to settle other people’s disputes.

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

A. I’ve had three or four conflicts, but nothing I would call major. They're easy to find on my talk page and talk page archive (I've highlighted the section titles in red) if you're curious, so I won't dredge them up again, but I'd be happy to discuss them in more detail if you have a particular concern.

The only true stress I’ve felt was during the whole OWB thing. I wasn't stressed because of what I was doing, but because it got out in public after I was sure, but before I was ready for it, so I felt an obligation to deal with it as quickly as humanly possible, while real life was preventing me from doing so. Basically, Proabivouac saved me. Going forward, I’ll be much more careful to be completely ready before going public with anything like that, and hopefully won’t need bailing out again.

My main tactics if I run into a dispute are:

• Discuss, if the other editor appears reasonable. Frequently one of us will convince the other, or we’ll compromise. Sometimes one of us will give up; that’s OK too. When someone is being polite, I enjoy the give and take.
• Disengage, if the other editor is uncivil or attacking me, or clearly uninterested in consensus. Arguing for the sake of arguing is a time sink.
• Ask for help. You won't see me block someone for being uncivil to me or attacking me. I’m not a huge fan of going to WP:AN or WP:ANI about civility complaints; I usually couldn’t care less if someone insults me on Wikipedia, and favor ignoring them instead. But if they just won’t leave me alone, and it interferes with my ability to be here, I’ll either go to ANI, or to a talk page of an admin that I know is active, to ask for another pair of eyes and some help.

4. (Optional question I’m asking myself) What are your weaknesses, and why do you think they are not serious enough to prevent you from being a good admin?

A. The following:

• AfD. Hardly any experience, and doesn’t really appeal to me. I’m most comfortable looking at PROD and CSD cases, as described above. I’ve been involved in, I think, a grand total of 3 AfD/DRV discussions, and initiated only one. I do understand how it works, and won’t screw the system up as an admin because I won’t get very involved without much more participation first.
• Almost anything to do with images. The only things I know about free-use and IfD is what I absorb through osmosis by reading WP:AN and WP:ANI. If/when I get involved at all, it will be slowly.
• Actual contributions to, you know, articles. This is a weak point. My writing skills are OK, but for me, serious article writing would require setting aside a large block of time and attacking the subject, and my contributions are usually a little more sporadic than that, and it often doesn't fit my real life schedule. Please note I’m not completely inexperienced in this area, it’s just I don’t do it very often, or in very much detail. My biggest writing contribution is to the very short Video Professor, and that's mostly because someone specifically asked me to give it a go. If I run across an article that needs help, I try to improve it in my own limited way. See, e.g., my contributions to Kip (unit), Atomidine, and Ecuador. I personally don’t think that it should prevent me from requesting adminship, as article writing is probably the area where the tools are least useful, and I have had enough conversations on talk pages to, IMHO, understand how WP:RS, WP:NPOV, etc. affect the actual article writers, and how they affect disputes I might get involved in. But I understand and respect your opinion if it’s important to you.

5. (Optional question I’m asking myself) What about your lack of knowledge about the important admin-related function WP:Fill in your favorite subject here?

A. I'll learn on the job. I won’t do any admin-related actions in any area where I don’t feel comfortable. If the community can review my contributions enough to believe I won’t intentionally misuse the tools, I hope they’ll trust my judgment not to accidentally misuse them in areas I’m not experienced. Plus, if I do something stupid, just revert me.

6. Question by JetLover Can you explain this?

A. Yes. It's related to the conversation I'm currently having with Agüeybaná in the oppose section below. At his request, I'm going to describe the episode in detail, and that will have to wait until tomorrow morning, once I've had a chance to review the emails once more. However, if you're referring to the actual act of asking someone to stay off my talk page, I was trying to disengage from someone who had sent me two very rude emails in response to two polite ones from me (my third email wasn't civil either). It was clear to me at the time that talking to him was not going to be of any use. The "disable my 'email this user' link" part was dumb on my part, because of course he already had my email address. If my reply tomorrow AM doesn't sufficiently answer this, let me know. --barneca (talk) 22:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

A (cont'd). I have now discussed this specific question below, in my reply to WJBscribe, with more details on the background on the talk page. --barneca (talk) 01:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

7. Question by Daniel Morales In addition can you explain how you handled this case on your http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Barneca page? You mention here that if you were admin you would have taken certain action, what would have you done? Here is a copy and paste of the comment on your page for voters ......

WOverstreet

I am going to do what ever it takes to defend my alma mater. If I get baned, then at least I know I went down fighting. So many people tear into the University of Florida page it is unreal. I know it isn't an Ivy League School, but I have been posting exactly what my sources indicate. These sources are alittle over the top, however it is positive PR for UF. Who are these people to judge if the rhetoric is not right? If these are sources from a legitimate newspapers & journals, then what is the problem? I think UF deserves ARBITRATION.

Thanks,

Jimmis —Preceding unsigned comment added by WOverstreet (talk • contribs) 19:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Please note my message on your talk page said nothing about the University of Florida article. I have not looked at it, am not going to look at it, and know nothing about the University, and don't know who's right. My message was concerning how you've been chosing to deal with it. If you are blocked, you will not be able to "defend" your POV. There are many, many options available to you if you are having a content dispute in an article, such as WP:3O, WP:MEDCOM, WP:MEDCAB, and WP:RFC. Try one of those. But personal attacks, impersonating another editor, and using a sockpuppet are going to get you blocked, with nothing to show for it. With some of the stuff you've pulled today, I'm not sure you wouldn't already be blocked if I were an admin. Luckily, I'm not, so if you just cool off and follow the rules, you can get back to editing. --barneca (talk) 19:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

A Sure, but tomorrow. It's late here. Brief background: I was wandering by WP:SSP, and saw Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/WOverstreet, which hadn't been acted on yet, so I took a look. The user's recent contributions showed numerous red flags, including obvious IP sockpuppetry, adding the signature of other users to their own posts, and keeping a list of "People who suck" on their user page. I deleted the list and left a final warning on their talk page, and we exchanged messages on my talk page (what you've pasted above), which was courteous but implied they weren't going to stop disruption. The IP sock had already been blocked for 24 hours by Raymond arritt, independent of the sock report. WOverstreet was blocked a few hours later for 24 hours by MastCell for sockpuppetry and general disruption. When the block was over, WOverstreet started right back up again with the same behavior, and was indef blocked by Spartaz.

What would I have done differently if I were an admin? From their behavior, I doubt there would have been a significant difference in the ultimate outcome. I would have re-blocked the IP sock for a month or so; looking at the contributions, it has always been WOverstreet since it first began editing in June, so no collateral damage was likely. I would probably have waited before blocking the WOverstreet account the first time to see whether WOverstreet changed his behavior after my final warning, but it seems obvious from what actually happened that they would have continued, and then I would have blocked the account for 48 hours. After they started disrupting again immediately after the block expired, I would have done the same as Spartaz, and blocked indef. --barneca (talk) 13:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Look, I'm going to step in here. User:Daniel Morales is pretty close to a vandalism-only account who appears to be trolling this RfA, with precious few other contributions. Since I've expressed an opinion here, I'm not going to act, but I'd ask an outside admin to review his contribs, his block log, and his input here. MastCell ^Talk 05:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, MastCell, but in spite of the user's background, the actual question itself seems reasonable, so I'll just go ahead and answer it. --barneca (talk) 13:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, very nice answer, leaning towards changing to support now. Thanks for the in-depth response. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Morales (talk • contribs) 21:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

8. (Optional question by Kudret abi) In your opinion what is the biggest mistake that you ever made in here? What would you do differently if you were ever in the same situation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kudret abi (talk • contribs) 10:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

A Kudret abi, If you had asked me this one week ago, I would have said what I said in my answer to Question 3 above; the way I initially handled the accusation of OWB’s sockpuppetry. However, based on all the feedback from this RfA about my argument with Agüeybaná, and trying to look at my edits that day from the outside, as I would look at someone else doing it, I’ll agree that that was my worst moment here. I think I’ve answered your second question in my reply to Walton and Pedro in the "discussion" section immediately above the "support" section, but if you wanted something more detailed than that, let me know. --barneca (talk) 13:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you barneca, it is the nature of mankind to make mistakes so I think it is very important to be able to see one's own mistakes and your answer shows that not only you can do that, but you will continuously keep doing that as you have an updated answer from last week. I gladly support your nomination, good luck. --Kudret abi 20:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

General comments

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

• Links for Barneca: Barneca (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. Remain civil at all times. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Barneca before commenting.

Discussion

• "I really shouldn’t say this without exhaustively checking, but I think no admin reviewing CAT:CSD has ever disagreed with a {{db}} tag I’ve put up." -- I actually checked this, and there was only one, Gator Engineering, which was overturned due to an assertion of permission via OTRS, and therefore you would hardly be expected to be aware of that at the time. That's pretty good work on the CSDs! (Not offering an opinion here, because I don't know the candidate well enough, just offering a data point.) --ais523 16:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

OPPOSE: I have had many problems with this guy. If this guy becomes admin, he will be repressive to all those who do no agree with him. I do not remember when exactly it occurred, but on various talk pages this person has argued with people, and instead of attacking the argument being discussed, he attacks the person. In reality, having an admin of this caliber would be a poor choice, there are many other wiki editors who would be more suitable as admin. Do not waste a slot on this guy, considering what I have mentioned in addition to his seniority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.40.136.227 (talk) 00:16, 13 September 2007

Formatted and indented as IP !vote. — [ aldebaer⁠] 00:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

This is almost certainly the same user as User:Daniel Morales, who commented below (based on shared edits here and to Winter Park High School. Both !votes should be stricken as socks. MastCell ^Talk 05:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• This is a very difficult decision. Despite all the discussion, it's still not at all clear what exactly happened between the candidate and Agueybana (Boricuaeddie, as was). Without this issue, I would strongly support Barneca, as he's well-qualified for adminship; however, Eddie is an editor I like and respect, and I need a bit more clarification before I can vote on this RfA. Walton^One 07:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
• I agree with Walton here, although I have offered my support. I interacted with the candidate during the OWB thing as seen here and he came across as very civil and regrtfull about the whole episode. My other reasons for support are as my statement below. But equally I have interacted with Eddie regularly and very much trust his judgement. On balance I can't see how this can be resolved without more damage, and accordingly my support remains. After all I must comment based on what I can see on Wikipedia. Pedro |  Chat  09:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
• Walton, Pedro, I'm about 1 mm away from beating a dead horse, so I'll make one last quick evidently this is impossible summarizing comment on this, and then assume I've said enough, unless it's to answer a question directed specifically to me.
  • Civility: That episode is not something I'm proud of. We both behaved poorly; I was shocked and hurt by the response I got to what was intended (but not received) as a polite comment; if I had expected an attack (like I get occasionally from vandals), it would have been easy to ignore, but here, I just reacted. Looking back, I do see that in this, and two other cases that haven't been mentioned, my attempt to disengage has been worded as "stay off my talk page", when a more appropriate response would have been "I don't have anything more to say about this", or better yet, just ignore it and not try to get the last word. You can take my word I've learned from this and support (which I think you'll find believable if you look at all of my interactions with other users), or you can ask me to wait a few months so you can see it was, indeed, an abheration by opposing. You can probably guess which one I'd prefer, but I'm fine with either one.
  • Privacy: I never threatened, ever, to publish the emails he had already sent me, and I think Agüeybaná accepts this now (see the talk page of this RfA). I did say that future emails would be, and of course that was stupid, but it was an attempt to get what I considered abusive emails to stop. Again, if I hadn't replied at all, he probably wouldn't have sent another anyway, so ignoring would have been better. --barneca (talk) 12:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Only you can make the decision to wait a few months or proceede with this nomination. I believe you when you say you've learned from this. I understand that Agüeybaná feels strongly about this, and as above I trust his judgement and respect his opinion a lot. Equally, I respect the statements by you above, and again refer to the positive interaction we have had in the past. This is, as Walton observes, difficult. On balance I still support your request for the buttons, but I also very much understand the position of the opposers. I'm not sure I can add anything further to this that is of value to your RfA or the communities understanding of the issues here. Best. Pedro |  Chat  13:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Poor wording on my part; I've refactored above in tiny print to clarify. --barneca (talk) 13:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• For all the people who are opposing "per WJBscribe": please look carefully at those diffs. The first one looks like someone who's really angered and trying to keep his cool, and who decides to end the conservation (in a slightly blunt manner) rather than to let the situation escalate. The second diff is not a constructive edit, but we all have our occasional slipup, and besides this particular incident, Barneca is a civil and honest editor who would use the tools to the benefit of the encyclopedia. Melsaran (talk) 18:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Support

1. Strong support; in fact, I'd happily have nominated Barneca myself. He's evidenced the right temperment for the mop, and has the interest and talent to help out at a chronically understaffed but important area (WP:SSP). He's experienced in some admin-related areas, and he's circumspect and judicious enough to learn on the job (as we all do) in areas he hasn't worked in before. He's demonstrated trustworthiness and I have no concerns about mop abuse, but volunteering to be open to recall is a nice gesture as well. MastCell ^Talk 15:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
2. Strong support. Excellent answers to questions, especially the self-imposed question #4. Lots of edits to AIV and ANI, will make a good admin. Melsaran (talk) 15:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

   Confirming strong support vote. Melsaran (talk) 18:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

3. Support Editor seems to be trustworthy, open and honest. Happy to support, friend. Scarian^Talk 15:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
4. Support After looking (briefly) at some of this editor's recent contributions, I believe Barneca a good candidate for sysopping. Good luck! -- Casmith_789 (talk) 15:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
5. Strong Support What an incredible set of answers. You acknowledge your weak points, you have being totally candid in areas where you could work on. I have no problems that you are weak in WP:XFD, your reporting at WP:AIV is excellent but above all I believe the clarity and honesty shown by your answers will translate into thoughtfullness and calmness with the admin buttons. This is a model of someone respecting the RFA process and hence Wikipedia. Very Best Wishes. Pedro |  Chat  15:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
6. Support per honest answers to questions and ability to stay cool when involved in stressful situations. Barneca may not be the most prolific article editor, but I think he would make a fine admin. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
7. Support I have seen this editor display exemplary thoughtfulness, and the excellent answers to the questions bolster my impression of him. Certainly trustworthy. Xoloz 15:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

   Support I like the honest responses, especially to User:J-stan neutral vote. I cant see any edits that grab my attention as being of concern. Gnangarra 15:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC) further investigating I have found some edits and actions of concern, changing to oppose. Gnangarra 04:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

8. Support as he has the "minimum number of edits"; has done good work fixing vandalism, esp. Wyoming, so could use the mop, and I am certain, will use it well. No concerns. Good answers to the optional quesionts. :-) Bearian 15:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
9. Support Although I've read through many RFA's in the past, I've yet to feel motivated to comment in any of them. However, I've never seen such a brilliant, open and honest application before either. Rather then attempting to gloss over any weaknesses, you are highlighting them and openly promising to improve upon them, and watch your step until you do. One can't ask for much more. An example for many, if not all to follow. Kudos. Glancing over your edits confirms ones gut instinct. Good luck. GreenGopher 15:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
10. Support. 'Nuff said. Best, --Shirahadasha 16:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

    -- Y not? 16:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

    Support Talk page reveals a patient, wise, calmly disposed and knowledgeable user who is not likely to abuse the tools. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 16:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

    Switch to oppose per Sara Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

11. Support, changed from Neutral. Candidate shows a good listening ability, along with the work they've done fighting vandalism. J-ſtan!^Talk_Contribs 16:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
12. — [ aldebaer⁠] 17:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
13. Support -- I see no evidence that this user would execute the tools in anything but a professional and intelligent way. --Haemo 18:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
14. Support I do not see anything that would lead me to believe he would be a bad admin. Good luck:)--SJP 21:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
15. Support -- I'm going to support. The oppositions aren't convincing and my experience with the user is good. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
16. Support – I wish my answers were as good.  ;) Seriously, though, you exhibit a great deal of maturity and honesty. Just please make sure you do so all the time, per civility concerns below. — madman bum and angel 23:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
17. Support. Lacking in Wikispace edits, but other than that: pretty good! •Malinaccier• ^T/C 00:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
18. Strong Support per Madman. Archon of Atlantis 04:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
19. Support A great editor. Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
20. Support This is one of those RFAs that make my head spin. The uncivil comments that are being pointed out at this time by WJBScribe and the comments by Agüeybaná do not seem uncivil to me at all, and I know that I've seen worse, as have most of you here. The amount of opposes right now are strange to me. I urge anyone voting per anyone else to check the evidence they provide and see if it meets their definition of incivility--do not count on the reputation of a username to make your mind up for you. Now with that out of the way, on to barneca: I first found out about barneca during the Old Windy Bear sock hunt, in which he showed his thoroughness, cool head, and ability to handle a controversial aspect. He did well and more admins like him is a good thing. daveh4h 15:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
21. Looks like an excellent candidate for the mop. I see nothing to concern me. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
22. Support Supurb answers, as above, you receive my full support. Phgao 16:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
23. Very Weak Support. I'm still uneasy about the situation between him and Eddie/Agueybaná, but I can see he's done his best to explain himself, and is apologetic for the way he acted. Given his long history of good contributions, I'm going to have to give him the benefit of the doubt. Walton^One 10:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
24. Support - An impressive edit record. I've been investing my time recently in vandalism and etc., and since it's relatively new to me, he helped me and explained to me some important parts of it. A very friendly and admin-worthy editor! Dh993 22:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
25. Support None of the concerns are unforgivable. Generally a very good contributor. GDonato (talk) 23:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
26. Support Very good editor, good contributions and the answers to questions including mine are very good. Everyone makes mistakes, the important thing is not not to make them, but to make sure that they won't repeat and I am convinced that he will be able to do that. Kudret abi 20:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
27. Support I have seen Barneca making sensible arguments and I believe he's a mature person and is trustworthy. Will make a good admin the next time, if not this time. - TwoOars (Rev) 21:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
28. Support Good luck with the tongue biting. LaraLove 04:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
29. Support Believe will make a good admin. Davewild 07:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
30. Support While I appreciate the concerns regarding the Agüeybaná incident, I feel the applicant has learned from it and will go on to make a good admin. CitiCat ^♫ 14:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
31. Bugger it, supporting now. I'm rejecting the Agüeybaná incident as something that will happen again and, I believe the candidate won't damage the project with adminship. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 09:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

    Um, do you mean "will not"? CitiCat ^♫ 13:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

32. Support I honestly believed that I gave my support here a few days ago, but upon checking back, noticed I had not! Whoops! Barneca will make a fine sysop. I think the opposes concerning the e-mail situation are rediculous. I remember Boricuaeddie's RfA, and recall watching the e-mail fiasco unfold and thinking that it was completely in line with the temper-related reasons Boricuaeddie's RfA failed in the first place. Barneca then found himself in the unenviable position of being defamed about a string of e-mails by an editor who was claiming that fully disclosing the e-mails would itself be defamation. That was a no-win situation. Disengagement should have been the course of action pursued by Barneca, and he has aknowledged this point ad nauseum. In fact, he was making this point during the dispute. Holding this against him now simply makes no sense. Hiberniantears 13:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - I see some are supporting per the user's "ability to stay cool when involved in stressful situations". I strongly disagree. My only experience with this editor was horrible. During my RfA, he opposed me because of my personal views, but that's not what bothers me. What bothers me is what the editor did afterwards: He threatened to publish here on Wikipedia the contents of an e-mail conversation, which is prohibited by ArbCom ruling, replied nastily to my e-mails (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive279#Off-wiki harassment), and was very uncivil. This, combined with his completely unsatisfactory mainspace contributions, which I believe plays an important role in the administration of this site, and his almost inexistent participation in some parts of the Wikipedia namespace, make me take this position. However, I truly wish you the best, and, if this RfA is successful, I trust you will be a fairly good admin. --Agüeybaná 20:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

   I strongly disagree with your version of events, Agüeybaná, but I’m quite constrained in how I can reply, because much of our interaction that day happened via email. I can certainly live with your opposition to my RfA, especially as you seem to have other concerns about me in addition. But as I'm sure you can imagine, I’m also concerned about how others will interpret this, yet I’ve been at a bit of a loss as to how I was going to respond to your opposition. What I came up with is this: I’ll ask people to look at the thread on my talk page and the ANI thread to see how I handled this on-wiki, and if anyone has concerns about how I handled it off-wiki, I’ll address it by describing, in general, detail-less terms, how I view what happened by email. If no one seems to have concerns about the email, I won’t.

   In the mean time, I would ask you to re-read my first email to you one more time, if you still have it, and make sure you really think that what you describe above is what you think I was trying to do. --barneca (talk) 20:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

   I challenge you to find one mistake in what I said regarding the events that day. If you find something in there that isn't entirely true, I'll withdraw my opposition. --Agüeybaná 21:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

   Would you prefer to discuss this here, on my/your talk page, or (in spite of how poorly this worked last time) via email? --barneca (talk) 21:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

   I would prefer this be discussed here, in public, as your behavior here is also being evaluated by editors. --Agüeybaná 21:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

   OK. I won't have access to the emails sent to/from my Wikipedia email account until late tonight. My response will be semi-long; I'll post it on the talk page of this RfA tomorrow morning. --barneca (talk) 22:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

   Note: I've now presented my point of view on the talk page. --barneca (talk) 01:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

   On the link you provided, found here, You (User:Agüeybaná) stated that and I quote "I am afraid that if the information on that e-mail is revealed, it would be defamation and I would probably be forever harassed by other people." What did you mean by that exactly? Since we're discussing this out in the open. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

   Um, I don't know another way to explain it. The information on the e-mail was confidential and could be used against me. That's what I said, no? --Agüeybaná 22:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

   Yes, precisley. It was supposed to be a private matter. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 22:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

   I think the relevant diff is here. Far from "threatening to publish" the email, Barneca stated that he had no intention of publicizing the contents of the email, both because it was against policy and because it would be the wrong thing to do. But realistically, if a user sent me an email that concerned me as to their fitness as an admin, and was simultaneously up at RfA, wouldn't you expect me to oppose on that basis? I don't see anything untoward here. MastCell ^Talk 22:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

   That's what he told you. --Agüeybaná 22:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

   Actually, the diff I cited was addressed to you, not me, and Barneca did as he said he would and kept the contents of the email confidential. MastCell ^Talk 22:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

   Who do you think told him it was against policy? He said that before he threatened to publish it via e-mail. --Agüeybaná 22:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

   I'm asking why you think the E-mail could be used against you. What aspect of the Email would be "used against you"? I'm a bit perplexed with that. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

   The e-mail contains information regarding my support of a "terrorist" organization, which I think is more revolutionary than terrorist. I think that would have been used against me. --Agüeybaná 22:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

   (←) I have stricken out some of my comments per this. --Agüeybaná 21:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

2. Oppose. Your contribs look good in terms of policy knowledge - but I'm concerned by some rather aggressive responses to other users, such as this edit, which seems an unnecessarily personal comment. Also this isn't the sort of response to a talkpage discussion I would expect to see of an admin. Often a great deal of patience and detachment are needed - in both cases you don't seem to demonstrate much of either. WjBscribe 22:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

   I agree with your sentiments about the need for patience, but at the same time, if you've never had to ask (or firmly request) that an editor disengage/stop emailing you/stop posting to your talk page as part of a dispute, then you're much more fortunate or patient than I. After all, the first second step in WP:DR is disengagement, so I don't see the second diff as particularly out of line; if anything, it follows the prescribed steps to resolve a dispute. MastCell ^Talk 22:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

   WJBscribe, I'll try to briefly address your comments about on-wiki civility. The first second was a direct request that could have been worded more civilly, but certainly crossed no line, and I really don't see it as nasty. The second first was an accurate statement about their qualification to be an admin, which I think was perfectly appropriate, just as I have no problem with Agüeybaná opposing my RfA based on that same email. --barneca (talk) 01:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

   And, something I've managed to neglect mentioning until now: I will, of course, try to watch my tongue better in the future, admin or editor. --barneca (talk) 02:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

3. Oppose Per WJBscibe and Agüeybaná. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 22:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose also per WJBscribe. Jmlk17 22:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose per WJBscribe. Absolute serenity would certainly be an unachievable goal for admin candidates, but the diffs provided demonstrate an absolutely nasty, uncivil attitude when the proverbial shit hits the fan that I cannot support in a candidate. The way to deal with those who are uncivil is to be more civil, not less. VanTucky ^Talk 23:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
6. Oppose per WJBscribe. -Lemonflash_{(do something)} 00:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
7. STRONGLY OPPOSE: I have read the case with Agueybana, and this is ridiculous. The ethics employed by Barneca are outlandish, and quite frankly, offending. The fact that a E-threat was made to silence a wiki editor in my opinion is a bannable offense, and the notion of Barneca becoming admin is insane. I STRONGLY recommend voters to read through this case, you will see how skewed, unethical, and offending Mr. Barneca is. Also I agree with statements of Wikidudeman, Wjscribe, and the IP user above. While I might sound offending, I am not attacking Barneca's character. I am attacking his decisions made during his span on Wikipedia. Please understand this, and understand it is not meant to be personal no matter how it might sound. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Morales (talk • contribs)

   Comment: This editor's comment should probably be viewed in the context of his contribution history ([8], [9], [10], [11], [12], etc) and block log. I should also note that the IP !vote above is almost certainly a sockpuppet of this user, based on the shared contribs here and to Winter Park High School. This !vote should really be stricken. MastCell ^Talk 04:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

   Yo, MastCell. Check this. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 21:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

   Uh, correct me if I'm wrong, but this comment should probably be indented and struck out then, yes? GreenGopher 03:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

8. Opposeinvolvement with this shows poor judgement, while an veiled appology was offereddiff where you said I think it best if we have no further contact, including on my talk page. It distresses me, and will do neither of us any good. you continued to edit [13] claims about OWB being a sockpuppet. To me that makes your fine statements here unbelievable. Gnangarra 05:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
9. Oppose - I feel more experience is needed in Wikipedia space - less than 300 is a little low - and the rather harsh comments made about others make me feel you need a little more time on Wikipedia yet. How about an admin coach? That should polish you up somewhat. Lradrama 08:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
10. Oppose as per WJBscribe and Gnangarra. Sarah 14:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
11. Switch to oppose per Sara Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

    Threatening to post emails on wiki is a really bad idea. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 22:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

12. Oppose. Admins are nothing if they can't remain civil. Cool Hand Luke 04:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

    Do you really think the candidate can't remain civil? I have not seen any incivility besides that particular incident (which is being taken a little out of proportion here). Melsaran (talk) 18:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

13. Per WjBScribe -- Y not? 05:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
14. Oppose Sorry, but resolving to make only 500-750 edits per month is not a good thing for admins. Admins must be able to devote a lot of time to Wikipedia. Marlith ^T/C 18:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

    Hi Marlith, I'm sorry to hear that, because I really can't resolve to spend more time on Wikipedia than I do now. (In fact, I'm not even really "resolving" to edit that much in the future; it's what I expect to do, but certainly not what I promise to do.) 500-750 edits per month is 6000-9000 edits per year; that seems pretty reasonable to me. Could you explain why someone can't be an admin without devoting more of their time to Wikipedia than I am doing now? If this RfA continues the way it is going, some more months of participating can at least convince some doubters that the episode with Agüeybaná won't be repeated, but I won't be able to convince you that I'll spend a lot more time here, because I'm sure I won't. --barneca (talk) 20:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

    500 edits per month! Wow...just wow. That's addicted. Remember folks, Wikipedia isn't a paid job. And, we Wikipedians have real life obligations...not to mention the f-word (family). Miranda 02:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

    Indeed, admins don't have to be active or have a need for the tools. Tools that are not used frequently do not harm the encyclopaedia in any way. Everyone we can trust with the mop should ideally be an administrator. As a sidenote, 500-750 edits per month is quite a lot. Melsaran (talk) 18:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

    Oppose. Per Agüeybaná and Marlith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WestPointCadet (talk • contribs) 01:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

    User's only edit. Miranda 02:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

    If an uninvolved person (or, better yet, someone who opposed) could review the edit histories and comments by WestPointCadet, and Daniel Morales, and indent if you feel it’s appropriate, I’d appreciate it. I can pretty much read the writing on the wall, but still have a dream that this RfA isn’t 100% sunk yet, and the further the support/oppose ratio gets from 3:1, the less likely it is that editors who haven't commented yet (or who haven't visited again since commenting the first time) will feel the need to do so. --barneca (talk) 13:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

15. Email situation was too recent and worring, sorry. A good candidate who I hope will reapply in the future if this is unsuccessful, but at the moment I cannot support. Daniel 06:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral, leaning toward support. Change to support. Phenomenal AIV work, excellent vandal fighting (from what I see, even without tools like twinkle), but I would like to see more AfD work. I too have limited knowledge of what to do with images - that's ok. We're trying to make an encyclopedia, not a photo album (that's Wikimedia Common's job). But because of the lack of AfD experience, I won't support for now. Try going to AfD an hour or so after the UTC day starts (which in Boston is 8 pm. I assume you live in Boston, due to your edits to Boston and Massachusetts related articles). At that time, there are only about 6 or 7 AfDs, so it's much less intimidating than later on in the UTC day, when there is quite the number of AfDs. J-ſtan!^Talk_Contribs 15:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi J-stan, and thanks for the comment. It isn't so much intimidation, as disinclination. I didn't go to AfD in the last week or two to get some quick hits in that area, mostly because to do so right before an RfA would look pretty cheesy. But I'll tell you what, over the next few days I'll go to AfD and chime in on a few open cases, and that will still give you a few days to look them over before this RfA wraps up. I hesitate to take requests from everybody, but if someone thinks there's a particularly interesting/complicated/important AfD and you're curious how I'd respond to that particular one, feel free to point me in that particular direction. However, no promises I'll spend much time there in the future, whether this succeeds or not. --barneca (talk) 15:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. You seem to have taken my comments seriously, and I find the ability to really listen a desirable quality in an admin. I have changed to support above. I wasn't saying you could have been intimidated by AfD, just that seeing a hundred different discussions going on is a bit much at first, so early in the "day", there are less discussions, so it's more comfortable (for me, at least) to voice your opinion there. It's ok if you don't spend a lot of time there (you have enough experience elsewhere), I just wanted you to have some experience there, just for balance. J-ſtan!^Talk_Contribs 16:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

J-stan, following up, I've commented at the first three AfD's in Category:AfD debates (Science and technology) (omitting computer-related questions, which would only demonstrate my ignorance of the subject). I'll look through a few more later. FYI, for what I consider cases of borderline notability, I'd probably be considered a deletionist as far as people, companies, and thinly disguided ads for products are concerned, and an inclusionist on most everything else, based on WP:NOT#PAPER. Also FYI, if someone forced me at gunpoint to participate in AfD closures, I would likely (a) Not do it for subjects I'm even remotely interested in, to avoid even an appearance of COI (I'd comment instead), (b) If I see a discussion has a consensus that doesn't violate policy, I'd close per consensus whether I agreed or not (or, similarly, as no consensus if that was applicable, even if I favored the change), and (c) If I see a discussion where i think consensus violates policy, I wouldn't close either way, but would instead leave my own comment stating as much. #::I won't close a debate against policy or against consensus; where they are at odds, I'd leave it for someone more fire-retardant than me. --barneca (talk) 14:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not support this person becoming an admin for this person constantly erases MY TALK PAGE, even thought there is nothing wrong with it and now I can't put anything up there without it being deleted and everytime i use wikipedia, i get the stupid "you have new messages" box. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.3.205 (talk) 19:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

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

---

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

Moonriddengirl

Final: (62/13/7); ended 00:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl (talk · contribs) - It is my privilege to nominate Moonriddengirl for adminship. Moonriddengirl has been with Wikipedia since April 2007 and has accumulated approx. 5800 edits. She is well familiar with Wikipedia policies through her XfD participations, reports of vandalism at WP:AIV, and citing policy and guidelines in policy and other discussions with editors. Her understanding of what should and should not be in the encyclopedia is evidence by her success at correctly tagging many pages under WP:CSD. She has been very active at the Help Desk, where her friendly demeanor works to give new editors a positive view of Wikipedia. Moonriddengirl has contributed extensively to a variety of articles and you can often find her providing footnotes to material posted and long forgotten by others. She further contributes to the encyclopedia content by addressing articles long tagged by others with various needs for improvement, such as through wikifying Steel River (band) or cleaning up Clean Clothes Campaign. As a trustworthy editor who understands policy, she will be an asset to the admin team. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 00:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept the nomination. --Moonriddengirl 00:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: I am an active recent changes patroller, and the tools would be useful to me in helping Wikipedia combat vandalism, both through protecting articles and blocking users as circumstances dictate and helping others on vandalism watch by assisting at administrator intervention against vandalism and requests for page protection. They would also be beneficial in my efforts to help to maintain the quality of articles through speedy deletions and proposed deletions. I have noticed that speedy deletions in particular can sometimes build up a back-log. I have recently begun helping out at Account Creation and would be able to provide more assistance there with admin tools than I can without them, particularly since 6 a day is my limit. I would also be able to help out at Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests when clear need presents (for example if vandalism has been accidentally locked in or a BLP problem is present.)

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

A: I can think of a couple of articles that I've worked on that I've been proud of—most recently, List of Sabini. I've been Wikifying tagged articles, and it went from this to this. I think that's a major improvement, and I am proud of the hard work I put into it, especially since decoding the references was sometimes a challenge. I'm proud of my contribution to the quality of the project overall. I like seeing the length of the list of Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles go down or the items needing work at [[Category:Wikify from x]] disappear. I like seeing an article posted in another language make it through translation and into relative good shape (like Elizabeth Azcona Bocock). I like pitching in to help clarify policy & cleaning up vandalism. Overall, though, I think my best contribution to Wikipedia is my patience. If it takes a few hours to clean up an article, I'm willing to give it that. And if I have to explain the same policy at the help desk three times in a single hour, I'm willing to do that, too.

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

A: Naturally, I've felt some stress. Print can be impersonal, and sometimes others can feel brusque and hostile even when they don't mean to be. I take deep breaths, remind myself to assume good faith, and do my best to thoroughly proof my own comments before I save them so that I don't accidentally escalate any tension. Although they're not universally appreciated, I frequently use emoticons in comments when I feel they may reinforce my intended tone and defuse hostility. Generally I have found that if you demonstrate respect for the other user and exercise basic diplomacy, conversations don't become too heated. As far as edit conflicts are concerned, I have not entered into any of those in the traditional sense, though I have had a few tousles with vandals. I try to be careful to discuss controversial changes (as distinct from reversing vandalism) before I make them.

Even if none of them is very stressful, could you give one or two examples of what you consider the most difficult, so we can see how you deal with them?DGG (talk) 00:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I almost missed seeing that question. :) I think the most intense conversation I've had has been at an overcategorization discussion, where I felt that my own good faith was being questioned. I pretty much followed my usual procedure with that one. The other most stressful encounter I had was with an editor who didn't respond to me at all. That would be Kingsjohn, who was overwriting one article with another. I tried assuming good faith with him and approaching him directly at Talk:Aswamedham and his own talk page User talk:Kingsjohn because his edits did not feel like traditional vandalism. I sought assistance at the help desk for dealing with him before finally determining that the escalating warnings might be the best way to proceed. --Moonriddengirl 03:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from Iridescent

4. Your first edit is (to say the least) not a typical first edit. Did you formerly contribute under another name? — iridescent (talk to me!) 01:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

A: I had forgotten that one. :) Moonriddengirl is my first registered account. Prior to that, I contributed occasionally as an IP editor--I'm not sure, but maybe a dozen times over a couple of years (give or take a half dozen). When I finally decided to register and get involved, I wasn't quite sure how I could best contribute, so I clicked "random article" until I came up with something that I thought I could help out. :) On my second day I found Wikipedia:Cleanup and that helped me get going a bit more systematically, although I kept that "random article" thing up for a while, too. --Moonriddengirl 01:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

5 Your chief quasi-administrative experience is with BLP; so please discuss your view of it. For example, does it forbid only "unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material ... about living persons", or is there a penumbra, and if so, what? Please sketch how you would justify your position in an actual discussion; I don't ask you to fill the page, but I would like to see how you think about the matter. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

A: Outright forbidden in the policy aside from unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material is the categorizing of individuals by sexuality or religion unless the subject has self-identified and the sexual orientation or religion is relevant to the subject's activities or public life. The policy also strongly cautions against other things, like giving too much weight to criticism or maligning a person through "guilt by association"--reporting on scandalous activities of an associate and implying the subject is involved. We're urged to remember the rule to "do no harm". Take for example the "Privacy of names." A week or so ago I removed the name of a minor child at the heart of a child support case whose conception was alleged to be the result of a sexual crime. (The child's name was included in an article about the case, but BLP extends to biographical information in other articles.) If I were explaining this in a BLP discussion, I would note that privacy concerns take into account whether the individual is him or herself private or public. Aside from the connection with this event, the child is a private individual, and while her name is included in court documents, it is not widely publicized by the press. The inclusion of the child's name is unnecessary to explain the nature and the precedent-setting impact of the case. It does not add anything of significance to the article, and its inclusion has the chance to cause the child real harm. In such cases, we're to "cover the event, not the person". --Moonriddengirl 01:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

5A And is this a good policy? How would you change this, if you could? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

A: Yes, I think it's a good policy, although I do believe there's room for improvement. I'm currently working on a proposal to tweak it at Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Sexual_preference with the aim to clarify when it is appropriate to label a person's sexuality--as distinct from his or her sexual behavior. I believe that in order to place a label on a person's sexuality, that label must be self-professed. The example in the proposal as it currently stands is "It may be noted that a pop star has been convicted of sexual activity with a minor, but that pop star may not be labeled a "pedophile"." Behavior is distinct from orientation. Take Larry Craig for example. The arrest and its consequences are noteworthy, but conclusions drawn from that would be inappropriate. --Moonriddengirl 12:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Truly optional question of a general nature (and of somewhat peripheral relevance)

6 What prompted you to contribute to wikipedia as an anon in the beginning? What prompted you later to "finally decide[d] to register and get involved", considering that you weren't "quite sure how [you] could best contribute"? And now, what prompts you to seek adminship? - TwoOars (Rev) 06:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

A: Anon editing? Ignorance. :) When I first start contributing to wikipedia, I had no idea what I was doing. I saw a mistake in an article, noticed the "edit" tab and very tentatively checked to see if I could fix it. Fact-checking is part of my job, and Wikipedia is one of my desk-top tabs. It's a wonderful compendium of information & resources. Since I used it often, I occasionally noticed things that needed repair. I eventually decided to register for privacy concerns. I'm not very technological, so I'm not entirely sure why my IP address is better protected, but people kept telling me it was. :) I may not have known where best to contribute, but I felt strongly that I could. And once I started actively trying to contribute, I found out how much I enjoyed it. I didn't precisely seek adminship, but when it was proposed felt that I was ready. I have noticed the backlog on CSDs and more than once wished I could help out there--especially with attack pages. --Moonriddengirl 12:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Because the IP of an anon editor is visible to anyone who looks at the edit history; Moonriddengirl's IP would take checkuser. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from User:Krator

7 Most of your edits I have read were uncontroversial, and all follow policy. I wonder, if you would rephrase WP:IAR, or edit that page in general, what would you change? User:Krator (t c) 10:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

A: I don't see the need to change anything. If the page were interpreted solely on its top part, it would contradict BLP & policies on copyright violations. We can't ignore rules that put us at actual odds with federal laws of the US, where Wikipedia exists as a physical entity, or the law of the State of Florida. But it incorporates by reference Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means, which puts forth the necessary disclaimer: "Ignore all rules" is not an exemption from accountability. You're still responsible for reasonably foreseeable effects of your actions on the encyclopedia and on other editors." Freedom is what allows Wikipedia to evolve and grow. Flexibility with rules is essential to avoid bureaucracy, which is what leads to paying $17 for a paperclip. :) --Moonriddengirl 12:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Q Do you interpret IAR as just for dealing with exceptional circumstances, or more broadly as a general reason for necessary flexibility? How often would you use it in arguments? DGG (talk) 18:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

A IAR is definitely not simply for exceptional circumstances. It's one of the core philosophies of the project. In brief, it's a reminder that the policies are there to support the project, not the other way around. In allowing anyone to edit, Wikipedia not only assumes good faith, but also basic competence in its editors. This means trusting them to understand the purpose for policy and to realize that sometimes the best interests of the project require altering policy or permitting exceptions. I might invoke it if I felt somebody was insisting on the letter of a rule that violated the spirit of the rule. But invoking IAR is the beginning of the debate, not the end of it. Invoking it requires explaining why the project is best served by ignoring the rule, so I might just skip the invoking and get on with the explanation. :) (This is a fairly complex question & I'm trying to keep my answer succinct; if I've not been clear, please let me know.) --Moonriddengirl 19:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

From the sentence "Invoking it requires explaining ...", I think you meant "But invoking IAR is the beginning of the debate ..." instead of "But IAR is the beginning of the debate." -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 22:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

So tweaked. Thanks for letting me know it wasn't clear. Succinctness is not my strong point. :) --Moonriddengirl 23:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Nonsuccinctness is, I feel, one of your strong points; never change clarity for brevity. LessHeard vanU 00:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

General comments

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

• Links for Moonriddengirl: Moonriddengirl (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. Remain civil at all times. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Moonriddengirl before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. Support - as nominator. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 00:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
2. Support She has solid edit count - and highly trust this user, and the nom! Pat^{Politics rule!} 00:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

   "He"? Surely the clue's in the name — iridescent (talk to me!) 00:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

3. EC Support, great contributor, would make an excellent admin. And by the way Pat, I think "he's" a she. :) — Malcolm (talk) 00:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
4. Strong support I overlap a fair bit with MRG so run into her quite often, and have always been impressed. I've never seen a "per nom" from her, and she takes the trouble to do the dirty work of digging out and adding sources on articles that look like they're going to the wall, which IMO is A Good Thing. Although her username may prompt a repeat of the single silliest comment I've ever seen on an RFA — iridescent (talk to me!) 00:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
5. Support Smart editor, writes for consensus, and willing to take the time to 'do the heavy lifting' to make an article consensus-worthy. Good candidate and kudos to Jreferee for nominating her. Ossified 00:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
6. the_undertow ^talk 00:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
7. Support I thought you were an admin already. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 00:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
8. Support no concerns after seeing track.Pharaoh of the Wizards 01:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
9. Support - this is one of those occasions where the edit count doesn't do justice to the editor. Contributions have been consistently thoughtful and detailed, and interaction with other editors is uniformly civil. Involvement on WP pages demonstrates a good understanding of policy and nothing that I can see to suggest tools will be misused. Euryalus 01:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
10. Support - seems to have a good record, very deserving user --Mr.crabby (Talk) 01:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
11. Support per Ossified. κaτaʟaveno^T_C 01:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
12. Strong support I seen Moonriddengirl around a lot. She will make an excellent administrator. Acalamari 01:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
13. STRONG Support That was a very impresive first edit. Civil, helpful, nuanced, good critical thinking talk edits. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 01:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

    Switched to strong, question 5. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 01:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

14. Support. I've run into you in several places and thought well of you. A longer look at your contributions satisfies me that you have the right mix of caution, dedication and good sense. Thus, I believe giving you the extra buttons would benefit WP.--Kubigula (talk) 04:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
15. Support - I don't see why this user would kill wikipedia with the mop. --Hirohisat ^Kiwi 04:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
16. Support, no concerns about level of experience. After reviewing her contributions, I would trust with the mop. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 04:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
17. Support I do not have any concerns about this users time registered. I trust the record built in that time. Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 04:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
18. Dihydrogen Monoxide 06:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
19. Support I am confident that this user would make a fine admin. Glad to give my support. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 07:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
20. Support Sure the user has only been around a few months, but she actually went to the effort of reading all the wikipedia policies, and hence edits like a pro. That's dedication, and I see no reason why she wouldn't make a great admin. Recurring dreams 07:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
21. Support. I looked into Moonriddengirl's talk page archives (1 and 2) and found that she's a very helpful and patient editor when dealing with others. In her Wikipedia namespace contributions, I saw lots of edits to the help desk, village pumps, and XfD's, and a few reports to AIV. Randomly choosing diffs for closer inspection, I saw that her answers to questions were spot on, and points made in deletion discussions were good points. I admit I didn't look through all of her reports to AIV, but I found no errors in those reports that I did look through. She demonstrates to me that she has a good understanding of policy, and I have absolutely no concerns that Moonriddengirl would misuse or abuse the tools. WODUP 09:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
22. I am willing to support even at three month's active editing with diffs like these -- Y not? 11:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
23. A pleasure to work with... some people just get how to interact with others in a productive way on Wikipedia, and this candidate seems like one of the. I understand the experience objections, but we've promoted similar candidates with the same short-at-a-glance experience time, but equal promise... and it's not really been one of the situations that's proven to produce bad admins. One that really pops to mind is Quarl (talk · contribs)... hardly a notorious rouge admin, huh? --W.marsh 12:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
24. Support because although my only interaction with her was an argument (surprise, surprise) she was intelligent, calm and polite throughout, exactly the attributes an admin needs. She has enough experience on wikipedia to have demonstrated the qualities and knowledge which are required of admins. Unlike the girl in the poem she isn't turbulent and she is kind and that's just the kind of person wikipedia needs. Nick mallory 13:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
25. No major experience concerns here, plenty of edits to WP:AIV, WP:BLPN and the help desk. This sort of helpful behaviour is what I look for in an admin. Melsaran (talk) 15:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
26. Strong Support. Great editor with contributions in a variety of areas. Walton^One 17:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
27. Support concerns about inexperience are overblown. Wikipedia is not rocket science. Pascal.Tesson 18:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
28. Support, looks like a good editor, experience seems perfectly adequate to me. Everyking 19:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
29. Support -- I see no issues which imply that this user will exercise the tools in anything but an intelligent and even-handed manner. Concerns in the opposition section have nothing to do with the use of admin tools, which is the only important metric. As has been said, Wikipedia is not rocket science, and everyone should have tools if they won't abuse them. --Haemo 19:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
30. Support Good, solid user. The issue of inexperience does not concern me much in this case. GDonato (talk) 20:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
31. Strong Support because granting her access to admin tools will undoubtedly improve the encyclopedia. She is hard-working and intelligent. She is also friendly and approachable and excels at explaining policy and conventions to others. She is doing all the right things so let's help her to help the project. (note: I am a newish user) Best regards --TreeKittens 21:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
32. Support This editor has a knowledge of policy, has plenty of edits, and is friendly. These are good qualities to have if you are going to be an admin. You should at least have an idea of policy and be friendly most of the time. I feel as if this user not only has an idea of what our policies are, but actual knows policy very well, and is very friendly. The only problem I have is that she has not been active here that long. That is not enough of a reason to oppose her though. good luck!--SJP 23:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
33. Support I though you were an admin! Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 23:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
34. Strong support. She is an excellent editor, almost always uses summaries, works on a variety of projects, knows and respects the rules, and remains calm in discussions, especially on controversial matters (see Talk:Ted Nugent). All of those point to a great admin. Bearian 23:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
35. Support. Only problem is very few projectspace edits. Other than that, go for it! •Malinaccier• ^T/C 00:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
36. Support. An experienced Wikipedian. The experience at WP:HELPDESK is a plus. --Sharkface217 00:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
37. I've stumbled upon you're contributions many a atime, I've heard about you, and you're edit history looks good. Yamakiri 10:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
38. Support - there is enough experience for me in each namespace. -- Casmith_789 (talk) 15:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
39. Support - I don't see anything wrong. User is, from what I have read in and around Wikipedia, a generally nice and trustworthy person. Scarian^Talk 17:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
40. Support Appears to know policy and the workings around Wikipedia; well thought out explanations at the help desk and an abundance of caution (AfD even when others might try speedy) convinced me she's an excellent choice for the tools. Shell ^babelfish 17:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
41. Support She is nice to other users. Sweet Winged One 18:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
42. Support I've been looking through the contributions of Moonriddengirl (see Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Moonriddengirl, where I've placed some random diffs generated by my edit counter); in contrast to the concerns about experience I see in the 'oppose' section, this user seems to have a better grasp of the areas in which she often contributes (such as AfD) than many higher edit-count or longer-since-first-edit users. Likewise, there seems to be a lot more article-editing going on than with many admins (compare her last 1000 edits to mine when I ran for adminship, for instance); I don't take article-editing into account when deciding on RfA opinions, unless it shows misunderstandings of policy, but it appears to be better than many other users' and I don't understand why the candidate is being opposed for it. One major risk with inexperience in an admin candidate is misusing the tools and screwing everything up, but I don't think there's much of a risk of that based on the track record. (Oh, and my usual caution to WP:ACC regulars who run for adminship: you need to make a non-admin alternate account to go on checking username similarity, as if an admin tries to create a username it succeeds even if a similar username exists. You probably know this already, but I'm just mentioning this to be sure.) --ais523 18:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
43. Support John254 01:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
44. Support. Knowledgeable and civil participant in the wikification drive. Administrative tools would assist her in higher-level article maintenance tasks – e.g., AfD, vandal blocking. – Liveste 08:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
45. Support - when we consider the relatively little experience this user has in terms of months active, I have to admit a real, real lot has been achieved. Well done! Lradrama 08:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
46. Support: Exhibits sufficient familiarity, consistency and professionalism to withstand concerns of "lack of experience" ... which seems adequate if not extraordinary. Moreover, no obvious evidence to question trustworthiness. dr.ef.tymac 14:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
47. Support. Strong contributor. Has done lots of vandal patrol and work on AfD. Skills, knowledge and dedication are evident. Sunray 18:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
48. Support Yeah, she's fine. WilyD 19:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
49. Support - Consistent professionalism and continuous civility. Edits at WP:HELPDESK are also a noted plus. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 03:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
50. Support More edits to mainspace talk would be nice, but certainly an experienced and responsible editor. Mbisanz 06:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
51. Slade (TheJoker) 20:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
52. Support. I agree: more edits to mainspace (by way of substantive article development) would be good, for the reason that many of the issues you as an admin will be called upon to make decisions about will come out of in-depth, practical knowledge of how policy applies to what people are actually writing in articles; & the best way to get a sense of that is by experience. Same goes for in-depth conversation on article talk pages. I would have voted neutral on these grounds; what teetered me over to "support" however, was your participation in this discussion at Tim LaHaye. Please do spend more time in mainspace; but if this is an indication of how you'll do there, then you're well on your way. I think you'll make a fine admin. --Yksin 00:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
53. Support Has contributed extensively, I believe this user can be a great admin. Phgao 10:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
54. Support. This editor is adequatly prepared to begin work as an administrator. I am particularly impressed by her calmness and her effort to seek consensus even in the face of difficult discussions. --JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 12:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
55. Support Good (although brief) interaction - pops up often on my watched pages, but rarely have needed to discuss contributions. Also, impressive responses to optional questions. LessHeard vanU 00:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
56. Support I also thought this user was an admin already. I patrol recent changes too and this user beats me all the time. Also checked the contributions and everything seems to be in place. Kudret abi 08:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
57. Support Most opposes are on "lack of experience". A few thousand edits is not enough when there seems no other reason to oppose? This is as silly as "no need for the tools".Sumoeagle179 15:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
58. Support per nom. Marlith ^T/C 18:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
59. Support See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools. Davewild 06:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
60. Support Great edit record, wide range of editing, and good mainspace edits. She has also helped me along quite a bit. I would be glad if she got adminship. Laleena 12:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
61. Strong Support Your response to how you would handle disputes is what got my vote! :) Icestorm815 18:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
62. Support per nom. I have yet to see a contribution of hers that doesn't show that thought went into it. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 20:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Weak oppose. While the candidate is doing good work here, I don't see solid encyclopedia-building credentials. Can you show us some better examples of you contributions to improve encyclopedia articles? Whether your RfA passes or not, I advise that you pick two or three articles and take them to the next level. Majoreditor 02:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I did some further checking and just found an article the candidate improved somewhat. I don't see strong enough evidence to support this RfA, but I won't oppose it. Best,Majoreditor 02:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Improving encyclopedia articles. Hmm. There's Machalilla, which looked like this when I found it. There's Clean Clothes Campaign, which looked like this. A few days ago, I took on wikifying List of 2006 human rights incidents in Egypt, which looked like this (the big change there is in going inline & checking references, but I kind of do see that as improving the article). Recently my contributions to article space have been in wikifying & creating new articles for the WikiProject albums, but in the latter I have created a few. An example or two: Stepping Out of Line: The Anthology and Rattlesnakes (album). Many of the articles I'm creating from the requested list are quite old and don't have as much material for expansion as those two did. I recently created the Pets Evacuation and Transportation Standards Act while discussing an AfD, but it's been changed a good bit today. Oh, and I would like to add List of Sabini, even though I mentioned it above. That one took quite a few hours out of my life. :)--Moonriddengirl 02:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

1. Oppose Good editor, but the experience is not quite there yet. Jmlk17 02:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose Inexperienced. (Wikimachine 03:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC))
3. Great editor, but I prefer to see some more time. I was considering asking you about a nomination maybe next month or so, actually. I can't say with full confidence that you're entirely ready now. Nothing personal - I just feel that candidates who wait understand the inner workings better than the ones who don't. ~ Riana ⁂ 06:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

   This RfA ends September 18th and it is typical that an unsuccessful RfA candidate wait three months before trying again. Do you think she needs to wait until December to be ready to be an admin? In reality, that is what you are asking her to do. Moonriddengirl now has a solid, consistent effort of contribution to the project in a variety of areas. In dealing with recent changes, vandals, speedy deletes, etc., she has dealt with a variety of issues in which the tools would be of value to help her continue her work. There is no question of her trustworthiness. It is true that the more time anyone puts into Wikipedia, the more experience they gain. But I do not think it fair to ask her to wait until December when she now is ready for adminship. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 14:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

   Fair to who, J? She will be administrating for the community and for the encyclopedia, not for herself. The bit's not something anyone 'deserves'. I do not believe she is entirely ready currently. She's definitely on the right track though. ~ Riana ⁂ 14:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

   It seemed to me that you were asking her to mark time when she now is ready to administer for the community and the encyclopedia. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 15:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

4. In the face of the frantic support, I feel I have to play the party-pooper and contribute to evening this out a bit. I do agree that the candidate is very much on the right way, but two and a half months of serious editing is simply too short, even in a clear-cut case of near-future admin material. —ˈaldǝˌbæʁ 11:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose I've seen some comments in XfDs that suggest inexperience -- nothing glaring, but the sum of my personal experience with this editor tells me that a little more time will do wonders. Xoloz 13:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
6. Oppose Experience concerns. They have edited less than 200 edits in the first 3 months. It is very hard for anyone to be familiar w/ all the administrative environment in less than 3 months (July to now). It is just not the right time. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
7. Oppose Whoa - lack of experience! I doubt this user will abuse the tools, but again they just cant be familiar with what being a sysop entails. --Ben^chat 05:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
8. Oppose Lack of article writing. And, I am not quite sure that this candidate knows the core policies. Patience is a good thing, and I do admit, every administrator need patience. But, that's not the only quality that he or she needs to have. However, I do agree that the user needs more time. For example, this question about reliable sources concerning a major Canadian Network. Miranda 05:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

   • I do feel the need to point out that that question was actually defending the source to the editor to whom I was responding, who asserted in the comment above that "I've looked through the history and this page has never had a reliable source." I asked "Is this not a reliable source?" The entire conversation here, for context. (That editor had tagged the article, Clifford Olson, for delete as unsourced.) --Moonriddengirl 11:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

   Thanks for clearing that up, however, I still have to oppose for now due to inexperience. Miranda 17:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

9. Oppose. Not enough experience, particularly in mainspace. --Ghirla^-трёп- 07:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

   Oppose Bad user. She doesn't deserve to be the administrator. The Bully Boy 13:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

   Don't suppose you could tell us why, given this is your 12th edit and not one of them has had anything to do with the user? Neil ム 14:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

   A BAD comment from a troll who likes bullying people while being busy in real life. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

   P.S. Blocked indef as a Vandalism-only account. You can disregard his trolling up there. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

   I've indented the oppose, now that he's been indefinitely blocked, and because it's not a good-faith oppose. Acalamari 16:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

10. Oppose for inexperience, by which I do not mean edit count. This editor has only been editing since April, and seems to have been caught up in the "BLP will cure everything; let's have some policy creep" enthusiasm. She should wait until she has seen this wave come and go, and (more importantly) have more experience in other areas of Wikipedia space, so she sees how much BLP is exceptional, and understands the case for limiting it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
11. Sorry, general experience concerns, especially in mainspace (which I feel is required because we are an encyclopedia and every administrator action in some way links back to our content). Daniel 00:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
12. Oppose for now. Regardless of the opinion on actual specific matters, i think the approach of using IAR as a basic first approach to discussions and proceeding from there is asking for chaos. I think it shows inexperience, and hope that the desirability of following some agreed-upon standards will be recognized in the future. I think the actual work to the present is promising, but i do not yet trust with the delete button, or to close debates DGG (talk) 03:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I respect your right to your opinion, but believe that you may have misjudged my response. I'm sorry if I didn't express myself clearly; as I said, it was a complex question, and I was attempting to be succinct. While IAR is connected to the 5th pillar and thus is an essential part of Wikipedia philosophy, I certainly didn't mean to imply that it is my basic first approach to discussions. You asked how often I might invoke it. I indicated that "I might invoke it if I felt somebody was insisting on the letter of a rule that violated the spirit of the rule" and went on to indicate that I'd more likely just explain the problem rather than invoking it all. The closest I have ever come to invoking it is in advising a new editor to be bold, and I followed that with qualifications. :) I would imagine my willingness to follow agreed-upon standards would be evident in my proposal to BLP (and its related proposal at Village pump), in my proposal at Overcategorization, in my extensive contributions to User:Sidatio/Conversations/On list guidelines and in my conversations at CVU. In offering a third opinion at Talk:List of Ben & Jerry's flavors, I advised waiting to ensure consensus an additional several days five days after one of the editors involved had made his last comment. If anything, I am probably too circumspect--see "Clarification_re_the_revision_on__A5". --Moonriddengirl 12:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

13. Oppose: I have had mostly positive dealings with this user, but they seemed inexperienced in all of those interactions. If you continue to improve, you should get my support next time. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 22:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. My brief interaction with the user has confirmed me that the user portrays great dedication towards the project and knowledge, but I'm wondering your overall time in Wikipedia. Yes, you've been with the project for 6 months, but only relatively active since July 2007 (5,500 in 2 1/2 months?). You also show a lot of knowledge on policies and guidelines, which makes we wonder if you previously edited under a different username, where/are involved in another wikimedia project, or if you simply acquired all that experience in such a short amount of time. Iridescent has already asked a similar question. I'll withhold my support/oppose until these concerns are addressed. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 01:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

   I'll be happy to answer your questions if the above does not satisfy. Short form: no other wikimedia projects. I spent a good bit of time when I first arrived reading policies, because I didn't want to mess up. (And, yet, somehow it still happens...I just accidentally undid all my work trying to pull up the diff on the Egyptian Civil Rights article.) As I became more confident, I began doing more, reading less. And, yes, a lot of edits. Not to endanger my secret identity, but I work from home, and I spend a lot of time waiting for documents to come in the mail. Also, I type 90 wpm. And I use Twinkle. :) --Moonriddengirl 03:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

2. Ditto. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

   Hi Jossi. Q4 asked about her first edit. There are telling signs from Moonriddengirl's first edit that she acquired her experience since she has been here. She did not use <ref></ref> to post her footnotes. She did not use * when placing her reference list and instead used double returns, which is typical of new users. Her initial posts appears to be from someone who used a computer to write and source documents, but not particularly using Wiki markup. Another telling sign is her even temperament. If she previously edited under a different username with a bad experience, that would have shown up in her present efforts. She is as genuine and knowledgeable as she now comes across and will not abuse the tools. Thanks. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 14:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

3. Neutral. Solid contributions so far; however, only around 2 or 3 months of consistent editing suggest that the editor has insufficient experience for the admin role at this time. Espresso Addict 16:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
4. Neutral. Something doesn't seem right. Opposing would be too much though. Could just be the lack of experience, no real concerns. Keeps my theory about female RFA candidates doing better on average true, though. Neil ム 22:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

   You do know this is the internet — anyone calling themselves "girl" is likely to be a large hairy man... — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

   There goes the "large hairy man masquerading as a girl" constituency! Ossified 23:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

5. Neutral What she's done, she's generally done well: good RC patrolling and getting to consensus or proposing reasonable things at Afd. But only 3 months of regular editing without a huge number of article edits makes it hard to believe that she has sufficient experiential-based judgment (which may really deviate from all our written policies and guidelines). I don't lack trust in her abusing the tools, so I won't oppose, but I think that a few more months of editing - articles as well as wikispace - would really make her a great candidate. Carlossuarez46 23:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
6. Neutral I agree with the previous neutrals. Continue on the same track you're on now and I'll support the next time around. LaraLove♥ 02:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
7. I concur - not ready yet, but will almost certainly be in a few months' time. Neutral. DS 23:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

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

---

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

markles

Final (30/4/0); ended 01:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

markles (talk · contribs) - I've been on board the wikipedia ride for well on to about three years now. Well, two-and-a-half years rounded up.

My first two edits were to remove silly vandalism involving genitals from Tax Reform Act of 1986‎. It was ironic, but vandalism nonetheless. I focus on articles/templates/categories involving the U.S. Congress, and try (often in vain) to keep them NPOV'd.

I've created some pretty nice templates that are very widely used, including {{CongBio}}, {{Project Congress}}, {{ushr}}, {{USRepSuccessionBox}}, and the biggie: {{NavigationBox}}. <02:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC): ALSO {{Discussion moved to}}/{{Discussion moved from}} but nobody's using them, boo-hoo.> I'm here today because one of my babies, {{CongBio}}, got Protected. While I agree completely with the reasons for protecting it, I am sadly unable to play with my dear child. I miss it so. I want to cuddle, but its arms are cold and un-editable. Am I being selfish? Sure. Am I asking questions like Donald Rumsfeld? Sure. (Look it up.) But it's not, of course, about what I want to do. I could just put {{editprotected}} on it… but come on. Who are we kidding. Protection = stagnancy. What I really am saying here is that I create these beautiful articles & templates which my wikicolleagues beautifully edit and then they are taken away from me.

Take a look at my user talk page. You will see repeatedly good behavior and good socialization. In short, I play well with other children.

I'd like to continue to oversee articles involved with Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Congress. That's where my heart and my editing lie. Or lay. Can someone look that up? —Markles 01:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: I routinely revert vandalism (but don't we all?) and I want to do more to create simplicity and standardization in templates. Featured article review is also a great place for an editor to whet his/her beak. I'm not looking to be a great Admin, just a good one.

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

A: 109th United States Congress, 110th United States Congress, List of United States federal legislation, List of United States Representatives from Massachusetts, {{ushr}}, {{USRepSuccessionBox}}, and {{NavigationBox}}

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

A: User:Stilltim and I are constantly battling over standard formats. We've been more than civil (I think). I've been happy to back down even when I'm right. It's better to be effective than bossy.

Question from User:rspeer

4. As you may see from WT:RFA#A model of editcount inflation, I am concerned about the growing problem of edit count inflation. Be honest: what techniques do you use to accumulate such a large number of edits? Would you do anything differently if you were not running for adminship? What kinds of edits do you make that require stopping to think about things? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

A: Well, I don't care one way or the other about edit counts. I try to keep my watchlist down below 1,000, and that helps concentrate the quality of my editing. Sometimes my edits are small and other times I need to put {{wait}} up because I'm doing a biggie. I think my edit rate has decreased recently, but I frankly don't know. I don't understand, however, why anyone would care about their edit counts. It's just WikiMasturbation which doesn't affect other users. I care about the quality, not the quantity.

So what would I do as an Admin? Bubkes. Unless, of course there arose a formally-accepted Wikipedia policy against edit count inflation. Then, as an Admin, I'd work to enforce the policy. —Markles 00:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

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 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.

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 17: Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Designated RfA monitors

Can someone Trademark that for me?

Question from User:Appraiser

5. You and I have had a few major philosophical differences in how we think some articles should ultimately be formated. (I edit several hours per day and I have not had so many disagreements with any one other person here.) I can think of examples where you disagreed with the consensus and proceeded to make the changes you wanted, because you believed that your plan was superior to the consensus of the other users. If you are given adminship, do you vow to refrain from using the tools to strongarm the community in order to get your way in disagreements? Or, will you vow to refrain from using admin tools to do anything controversial on articles in which you have a prior interest? My concern is that the admin tools be used for tasks that couldn't be done by the non-admin user, rather than be used to get your way in a power struggle.--Appraiser 12:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

A. (The articles to which Appraiser refers are the ordinal United States Congresses.) You're right. I could use my newfound powers for evil. However, I am a big fan of consensus, and in these cases it's been 2 favoring your formatting, and 1 opposed. As the lone opponent I'd still like to see more opinions on those matters. What's also happened is that many months later, I've come back to one of the articles and forgotten there'd been any debate at all. So I acted boldly until you or another user remind me, and then I back down. If that's not how you've seen it, let me know. Honestly, I can't promise I won't use my powers for evil intentionally. If I mess-up, then we'll correct it. That's the Wikipedia way. I'll use my regular-registered-user's power to be as bold as possible. The role of the Admin is to be a helper, not a thug. So maybe that's what I can say: I vow not to be a thug.—Markles 13:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Question from User:Mtmelendez

6. There's evidence that you don't use the edit summary often ([14] [15]). 1. Why is this so? 2. Although it's an optional tool, do you understand its importance to the project? 3. As an admin, would you use it more or the same? - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 21:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

A. I use it often, but probably not often enough. When acting as an admin I certainly would use edit summaries almost all the time. When acting as a regular user, however, I can't promise I'll be any less lazy than I am now.—Markles 02:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Re:Sysoping brings certain powers, but also many responsibilities, including accountability. Though not required, always using the edit summary shows commitment to such accountability towards other users and the project as a whole. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 03:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Question from Arky

7 In your own words, how would you describe the position of administrator? Arky ^¡Hablar! 23:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

A. An admin is a trustworthy person who works to improve wikipedia to a greater magnitude than would a regular registered user. Admins are maintenance people. Like brick-and-morter janitors, their jobs are usually straight-forward and monotonous; however, they carry a big ring of keys (greater technical sysops tools) that could get them into rooms which are otherwise locked off. Hence the trustworthiness. —Markles 02:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC) ("Markles* is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life.")

General comments

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

• Links for markles: Markles (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. Remain civil at all times. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/markles before commenting.

Discussion

• It should probably be "lie" because it is intransitive. List of frequently misused English words#K to L ;-) --Ali'i 16:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Support

1. Strong support, I have seen his edits for a year and a half now and he is a very productive and civil editor. He does a lot of the grunt work in creating new pages and formatting existing pages. Numerous times when I have been looking for projects or pages to work on I have gone to his user contributions and talk page to find out places where work needs to be done. He has also shown good leadership skills in WikiProject Massachusetts and articles pertaining to the United States Congress. Overall, he is a fantastic editor who should have been nominated to be an admin long ago. --CapitalR 17:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
2. Support Per CapitalR. Pat^{Politics rule!} 19:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
3. Support. Long-time contributor with a strong record of contributions. Newyorkbrad 19:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
4. Support -- I have no concerns that this user will mis-use the tools, which is the most important criterion. --Haemo 20:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
5. Strong support, Does great work. He has provided excellent guidance, editing and suggestions for the Congressional Delegation from Pennsylvania, among (many) others. Npeters22 20:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
6. Support Yeah, no worries here :-) Scarian^Talk 21:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
7. RfA is about trust. —AldeBaer 22:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
8. Support meets my standards is probably fallen by the wayside like, "no use for the tools". However, adminship is not supposed to be a big deal. So seeing a substantial edit count and not seeing any incivility indications on user's talk page, I trust the user with the tools unless someone can show me a reason not to. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 00:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
9. Support per Newyorkbrad. · jersyko talk 01:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
10. Support per Newyorkbrad.Pharaoh of the Wizards 01:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
11. Support -- this is truly an unqualified no-brainer. older ≠ wiser 02:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
12. Support Jmlk17 02:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
13. Support As a relatively new user myself (less than one year), Markles has been very helpful in my efforts to improve articles under Wikipedia:Project Congress. His counsel has been welcome and his edits have served to enhance my own. Dcmacnut 03:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
14. Support A good editor. Unlikely to abuse admin tools as well. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 07:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
15. Support, a highly civil user, think he could help out a lot with the protected edit requests and other template matters. Melsaran (talk) 15:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
16. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 16:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
17. Support Markles has contributed much to the US Congressional Wikiproject, and has been particularly helpful to me whenever I have questions.Pmeleski 02:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
18. Support An experienced editor, including ample experience with templates, who could be very useful in editing and formatting protected templates. No concerns raised during review of recent contribs. I only hope he'll use more of the edit summary in the future. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 03:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
19. Support good user. Acalamari 16:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
20. Support, only positive productive interactions with this user, should have become an admin a long time ago. NoSeptember 20:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
21. Support no reason not to. Carlossuarez46 22:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
22. Changed to support. See neutral discussion. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 23:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
23. Support - Looks to have a great set of contributions. Good candidate, although I would like to stress the importance of using the edit summary more. :-) Lradrama 08:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
24. Looks good. Daniel 00:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
25. Support This user has a solid base, and I believe they will use the admin powers with due diligence. Phgao 17:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
26. Support. WjBscribe 23:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
27. Support - Indeed, Daniel said it perfectly. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 00:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
28. Support I think Markles will be a fine admin.--Chaser - T 03:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
29. Support See nothing that makes me think user will abuse the tools. Davewild 07:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
30. One large support to go please I've seen this users action in many edit sums, and is always top-notch. Good experience as well! Digital^Ninja 17:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I do respect the work you have done with Congressional articles and the related stuff, and I think that you are doing great work there. That said, I'm sorry, but for someone who wants to be an admin vandal-fighter, I don't see 1 edit to WP:AIV in the last 3 months. The rest of the "admin chores" that you mentioned in Q1 were really chores that any user can do already. Also {{CongBio}} was protected 6 months after your last edit to it, and it really hasn't been touched much since. If you want to go and edit it, go to the "Requests for editing a protected page" section in WP:RPP. Panoptical 20:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

   Oppose I think you are a good editor, but I really don't see any need for the tools. Panoptical has a good point on the WP:AIV edits as well. Vandal-fighting is great and all, and you are doing quite well in other areas, but I just don't see what the tools could help you with. Jmlk17 22:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC) Changed to support. Jmlk17 02:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

   Please consult the archives of WT:RFA for details, but the argument "No need for the tools" has been thoroughly debunked. The question is not "will he use the tools?" but "will he do so responsibly if he ever chooses to use them?" Pascal.Tesson 23:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

   Fair enough. Changed to support. Jmlk17 02:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

2. Weak Oppose Per above. Also gross lack of using the edit summary is concerning. It doesn't seem this editor has much of a use for the tools - adminship is not a reward. --Ben^chat 05:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

   Regarding use of the tools, please see Pascal.Tesson's response to Jmlk17 above. With adminship not being a reward, who said that giving the tools to Markles would be a reward for his work? Acalamari 16:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

3. Weak Oppose Although the candidate is an avid contributer and a fine editor, I suspect that when made an admin, Markles would fairly soon edit Template:USRepSuccessionBox to the version he has wanted for nearly a year now. He has thus far been unable to convince the other users that his version is superior, but just a few weeks ago he wrote, "It's just a matter of time", meaning that he will eventually get his way. Once the change is made, the Template will be protected, with the justification that it is used in some-12,000 articles. With his admin moniker, he will be able to keep it the way he wants it, without needing to reach consensus. I hope that I am wrong, but I am expressing my reasoning for not wanting him to have the admin tools. My apprehension is due to my not being sure whether he would consider that activity as "thug-like", since he believes his reasoning to be superior to the opposing viewpoints. I believe that the community has many fine editors who's judgment as admins I would trust more fully.--Appraiser 22:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

   That is kind of cryptic. What's with the "matter of time" comment?--Chaser - T 05:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

   I understand what Appraiser is saying. We're in a tussle over whether {{ushr}} and {[tl|USRepSuccessionBox}} should point to (for example) United States Congressional Delegations from Minnesota or List of United States Representatives from Minnesota. At times I've just imposed my opinion by making it link to the one I've chosen. Appraiser has disagreed and we're at a stand-still. I think that Appraiser is concerned that I, as an Admin, will make the decision the way I like it, and then protect the templates.—Markles 10:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

   Yes, I understand what Appraiser is saying. I don't understand what you meant.--Chaser - T 00:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

   Oh, I see. Well here's the details: {{USRepSuccessionBox}} currently links to [[United States Congressional Delegations from {{{state}}}]], but I think it out to link to [[List of United States Representatives from {{{state}}}]]. The Delegations articles are complete and the List articles are not. However, once complete, the List articles will have far more detailed information that would be more pertinent. I have argued that we ought to link to the as-yet incomplete List articles, but User:Appraiser wants to stay with the complete Delegations articles. To satisfy User:Appraiser, I have been slowly completing the List articles which would make our disagreement moot. I've gotten some of them done and I thought that other editors would have helped out by now (alas, I was overly optimistic). Recently, I decided (unilaterally, I'll admit) that enough of the List articles were complete, and I changed {{USRepSuccessionBox}} to link to the Lists. Yes, I think linking to the Lists is superior (as User:Appraiser claims above). I think I'm Being bold, but I understand the importance of consensus on Wikipedia. There hasn't been a consensus on this issue one way or the other and the last time it was debated was back in January 2007. So after my most recent change to the List articles, Appraiser argued that they were still too incomplete, so I reverted myself. I wrote on the talk page (and the Edit summary) that it was just a matter of time; meaning someday soon they would be complete. I think that we should link to the incomplete pages which will encourage their further development. Do you follow? —Markles 02:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

   Yes. Thanks for that very thorough explanation.--Chaser - T 03:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

   One of my frustrations with Markles has been our failure to communicate effectively with each other. My concept is to link to the Congressional Delegation articles, all of which have links to the subarticles—the Senate and Representative articles—when they exist. My reasoning is that the delegation articles have mostly just names shown graphically to show periods of influence, where ideally the Senate and Representative articles will have much more detail about each legislative member, which the reader can access if he wants more detail. His writing here indicates that he doesn't understand the concept of general articles which link to subarticles with greater detail. We have a different vision about how these should be organized with very few others interested enough to chime in about it. If Markles uses his admin powers to impose his concept, the result may be discouraging to others.--Appraiser 04:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

   User:Appraiser is right: we have different visions. I do understand the differences discussed by User:Appraiser, but this is really not the place for this discussion. What is relevant is User:Appraiser's concern that I would use Admin power to impose my vision. To which I reply (hopefully dispositively): that won't happen.—Markles 04:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

   I agree with Markle's take about what's relevant on this page.--Chaser - T 04:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

4. Oppose I think that Markles need more experience in admin related activites before he becomes a sysop. I also believe that he can accomplish his tasks without the use of admin abilities. Finally, I'm slightly worried about not using edit summaries. His "laziness" as he stated, may carry over for his "editor mode" to "admin mode". Icestorm815 17:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

It seems like the user would relish the idea of being a crazy vandal fighter, with the powers to block whoever gets in their way. While I don't mind this, they didn't sound like (in the answers to the questions) they would be doing this for Wikipedia, but would be doing it for power. It's just a gut feeling, but I couldn't go either way. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 00:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC) [If replying to this comment, please do so on my talk page along with this page. Thanks!]

On the contrary:
A) I won't relish it at all - it's just something I'll do from time-to-time.
B) I wouldn't be crazy - it doesn't mean that much to me.
C) Nobody could get in my way - there are no individual ways, just the Wikipedia policies.
—Markles 02:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Alright, your reasoned approach without anger has persuaded me to change to support. I just couldn't ignore the feeling I had, but this simple response has qualmed my fears. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 23:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

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

---

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

Number 57

Final (69/24/0); Ended Tue, 18 Sep 2007 05:50:43 (UTC)

Number 57 (talk · contribs) - Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you Number 57. Number 57 is in his 11th month of active editing and has amassed almost twelve thousand edits. He's written a lot of Israeli stuff and populated many electoral templates, which is an extra-thankless task. He's got a graduate degree and is an intelligent, well-mannered, and non-conflict-seeking person. I see one stinky edit war at {{Irish elections}} back in May. He has no blocks.

Having seen quality work from this user, and in the hopes that he will continue to do quality work with administrative tools, I invite you to support Number 57's candidacy for sysoppery. -- Y not? 17:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept. Number 57 18:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: Having got burned on a CSD a few months ago (albeit following some misadvice from an admin!), I decided to brush up on deletion policy. I therefore expect to contribute to clearing the CSD backlog, as well as dealing with expired prods and closing AfDs and RMs. As I keep an eye on a lot of Middle East-related articles, I will also be able to lock articles which are developing into edit wars (although obviously not ones I am involved in).

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

A: In terms of articles, I guess my most satisfying contributions were completing the Israeli elections series, and making sure there is an article on every party to sit in the Knesset. As Y mentions above, the majority of the elections template series is my work.

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

A: Shamefully I have once received a 3RR warning, though I believe I remained civil, and that it was a genuine attempt to try and enforce the discussion's outcome (or lack of it) against someone who could be described as a disruptive editor. Otherwise I tend to stick to talk pages and try and solve disputes in a more civilised manner (see an annoyingly circular discussion at Talk:FIFA 08#Ulster Banner beside FAI league as a recent example) and am not too stubborn to change my mind on issues if people present good evidence to the contrary.

Question from User:rspeer

4. As you may see from WT:RFA, I am concerned about the growing problem of edit count inflation. Be honest: what techniques do you use to accumulate such a large number of edits? Would you do anything differently if you were not running for adminship? What kinds of edits do you make that require stopping to think about things? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

A: I don't think I have done anything to inflate my edit count - it is not something I boast about. I believe most of my edits are constructive and not minor; at the moment I am going through Category:Former Members of the Knesset and adding Template:MKs and expanding them (see my edits to Naomi Blumenthal earlier today). I wouldn't do anything different if I were not running for adminship, particularly as I was only offered a nomination just over week ago (and had not requested one)! Number 57 20:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

General comments

• See Number 57's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Number 57: Number 57 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• The vote canvassing needs to be reported and handled accordingly. I myself was a victim of it, and now the pain. Very irresponsible. --PaxEquilibrium 12:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Reported where exactly? -- Y not? 23:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I believe that it was reported at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

---

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. Remain civil at all times. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Number 57 before commenting.

Discussion

• Comment " Number 57 I will second your "withdrawing my nomination," based on this post [paranoid], if you like. --Domer48 09:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I agree with above, link now at User talk:EliminatorJR/Archive05#RfA. Cool Hand Luke 04:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, canvassing is never appropriate in an RfA, votes produced through this should be ignored. Tim Vickers 17:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Final decision do rest in bureaucrats' hands. Let it run for its full duration (which ends 12 hours from this post) - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 06:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Support

1. Nom -- Y not? 19:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
2. Weak Support The 3RR warning is the only concern I have. Good editor count. But there is something tell me to go netural. For now, Support. Pat^{Politics rule!} 19:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
3. Strong Support The 3RR was back in May. A review of the current talk page shows only positives. He meets my standards by a long shot. Could not find a reason to oppose. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

   Switched to strong support. Like the way user comports self under pressure. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

4. Support - Good contributions, and having Y as a Sherpa says a good deal considering his (too) high of standards. --David Shankbone 21:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
5. Support because of the Oppose !vote. We need more admins willing to stand up to our nationalist factions. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

   What exactly do you mean by that? It seems to me like a poor rationale for supporting an RfA.--DLand^TALK 23:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

6. Wow, I wouldn't want this editor to go through RfA #58... —AldeBaer 22:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
7. Support as an excellent editor, with many new articles and templates, lots of mainspace edits especially. Being bold is OK. Can be trusted. Bearian 23:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
8. Support per above. (Wikimachine 04:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC))
9. Support per nom. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 04:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
10. Dihydrogen Monoxide 06:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
11. Support No reason to oppose. A great editor as well. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 07:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
12. Support per nom statement. · jersyko talk 14:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
13. Support. the user has the perfect balance of boldness, pragmatism, and civility needed for the mop. youngamerican (wtf?) 14:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
14. Support, no big deal. Nothing wrong with this editor. Melsaran (talk) 15:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
15. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 16:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
16. Support i trust N° 57 and i approve Mailer Diablo's approval! -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
17. Support, good editor. Everyking 19:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
18. Support. A good editor, the extra tools will be a good addition. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 00:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
19. Support Good editor, and I was very impressed with his calmness explaining points to other editors during the Irish nationalist edit-war that he found himself unwittingly caught up in on the FIFA08 article, as he mentions above. ELIMINATORJR 00:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
20. Support because none of those opposes raise objections that actually have anything to do with being an administrator. -- tariqabjotu 03:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
21. Support - per my brief review of this editor's contributions. I have to say I agree with all the supposedly objectionable edits with the possible exception of the holiday renaming, for which I would have to count ghits to form an opinion. Why would Category:Religious Israeli settlements even exist if it wasn't for settlements? And the canvassing here is really putrid. ←Ben^B4 11:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

    Opposition was obviously to creation of the category :-) And however one would like to characterise the two messages, my being mentioned above by Number 57 in and of itself means that my being notified of said mention is in order. Tewfik^Talk 16:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

22. Support good editor who has so far been valuable to wikipedia. I don't think we shoudl let our personal POVs get in the way of this adminship.Bless sins 02:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
23. Support, I've only had positive encounters with this editor up to now. —Nightstallion 03:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
24. Support what Siva1979 said. Acalamari 21:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
25. Support, I've seen only good things from this editor. The counterparts of his edit history seems a bit overestimated and just not enough. --PaxEquilibrium 22:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
26. Support. Dedicated editor who deserves the position. Am I wrong, or is there an appearance below in the oppose section of an orchestrated campaign by a certain Wikiproject to torpedo this RfA? If so, I think there may be grounds for an RfAR if this RfA closes as unsuccessful. Cla68 00:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

    When I see opposition canvassing like this, it gives me grave concern about the validity of the opposition. When there is such clear evidence, I think it would be fair to allow those interested to look into the matter after the RfA is closed and pursue the matter.-- Jreferee ^(Talk) 02:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

    Agreed. Cla68 13:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

27. Support Truthfully, I don't know the criteria required for adminship, but has been nice and helpful to me.--LAZY 1L 05:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
28. Support Canvassing for support is one thing, but for opposes is another, and is harmful. I see no reason why 57 shouldn't be an admin. No one is perfect, and if this request fails because of canvassing I strongly suggest running again. Good luck Majorly (talk) 11:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
29. Strong Support. To be perfectly honest, I had never met this user until today when I happened across his RfA. From reviewing the edits brought forth, I see a very competent editor who is bold in making changes--this is A Good Thing. I see also something very disconcerting, the canvassing issues among those who oppose this candidate. As Majorly said, canvassing for opposition is disruptive and harmful. The WikiProject needs to stop trying to set the agenda simply because they disagree with Number 57's edits to "their" articles. Finally, I pray the closing bureaucrat takes into consideration the obvious COI's going on in the vast majority of the opposes below. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 11:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
30. Support I don't find much legitimate opposition. I've reviewed his talk page and archive, and several discussions in Wikipedia talk, Template talk, and Talk. He does good work in the political election series, and tries hard and reasonably to improve NPOV in one of the topical areas most subject to POV battling. He is doing good work, and giving him the admin tools would be of benefit to the encyclopedia. GRBerry 16:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
31. Support Seems a very level-headed and intelligent editor. Resistance to organized editorial POV-pushing inevitably risks encountering organized ideological bloc-voting, as we see taking shape in the "oppose" section below, but an independent streak in a non-ideological editor is a good thing.--G-Dett 16:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
32. Support. Never came across Number 57 before but based on the comments here, the opposing comments, and a look through his history, I see no reason why he should not be an administrator. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
33. Support can't see any reason why not. Candidate has plenty of experience, including admin-related tasks, and doesn't seem to have screwed anything up since May. The oppose reasons are unimpressive, especially those which were canvassed. Hut 8.5 19:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
34. Support A very good editor, valuable work on Israel and politics related articles. Had several positive encounters with #57, would make a good admin. Derwig 20:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
35. Slade (TheJoker) 20:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
36. Support. I just spent some time going through the candidate's talk page & edit history, on top of reading through all the comments in this RfA & following up on the links provided. My only possible concern about the candidate himself is in possible overboldness in making changes, as those DLand's oppose discuss, before a more complete discussion. But on the other hand, I support the actual changes made -- for example, I agree that Israeli settlements in the West Bank should not be categorized as being "in Israel", & I'm glad to see that there is movement to change the category's name to reflect a less inaccurate representation of the settlements' relationship to Israel. I'm favorably impressed by Number 57's ability to be calm & civil even when defending himself against accusations -- see for example this discussion at Talk:Battle of Jenin, & by all the work he's done on election templates -- a lot of repetitive thankless type of work too, which is a good indicator of how well he might wield a mop. I'm not impressed by the apparent canvassing against this candidacy by opponents, & I hope that if this RfA fails, Number 57 will consider trying again. --Yksin 20:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
37. Support - Garion96 (talk) 21:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
38. Support - I think that he would make a good admin. The concerns raised by opposers do not worry me greatly. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 22:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
39. Rarely have I felt a need to support a candidate to offset silly opposition reasons. Normally, I'd just stay neutral here, but people attempting to get "better representation" from a specific Wikiproject is bad. -Amarkov moo! 02:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
40. Support - I agree with Amarkov. Also, the blatant opposition canvassing in this RfA was bad. As for qualifications, we need more admins willing to tackle the difficult areas. Obviously, anyone editing in contentious areas are likely to make edits with which others disagree. It is not clear from the opposition how Number 57 would abuse the tools and I do not think he will. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 02:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
41. Support. I trust this user to not screw up with the tools. —CComMack (t–c) 03:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
42. Support - well suited for the tools. And I say, the canvassing campaign that occured below to undercut this Rfa is nothing short of appalling. For shame, for shame. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 03:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
43. Support There is nothing raised below that makes me think this user will not make a good admin. Davewild 10:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
44. Support I see nothing wrong with giving this user administrative tools. Captain panda 12:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
45. Support after deep consideration see nothing wrong now every user or editor has POV see no disruption and see no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards 12:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
46. Support I am unconvinced by the concerns of those opposed. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 22:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
47. Support agree with nom. Looks good to me -- Samir 08:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
48. Support KTC 09:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
49. Support. Hemmingsen 10:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
50. Support Candidate is sufficiently experienced and has a good record. CIreland 11:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
51. Support This candidate is WP:BOLD and has opinions. When edits where the cause of dispute, he made amends and discussed his edits, seeking a consensus and compromise. These lead me to believe that User:Number 57 will not abuse administrative privileges, but rather use them to the advantage of wikipedia as a whole. Rami R 14:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
52. Support I see that he has a huge amout of expeirence, he is bold, which is strongly supported in WP. Good job. Marlith ^T/C 18:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
53. Support - plenty of experience, and I think positive changes, despite what the WP:ISRAEL cadre seems to say. David Fuchs ^(talk) 21:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
54. Support Certainly, there is no reason to oppose here. WP:BOLD is very good. GDonato (talk) 22:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
55. Support should do fine as an admin. Pascal.Tesson 23:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
56. Support to cancel out one of the wikiproject carvassing oppose votes. While I never dealt with this user and I would have avoided that RFA, it's a shame that wikiprojects play a role in them. Also no indication he will abuse the tools. Jaranda ^{wat's sup Sports!} 02:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
57. Support I support the candidate's willingness to take the risks in problem areas rather than avoid getting involved (as seems to be so often the case with admins, I am sorry to say). I see nothing arbitrary in his edits but rather a willingness to engage and explain. --Mattisse 02:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
58. (e.c) Support Willing to fix mistakes, which is good in an admin CO₂ 02:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
59. Support Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
60. Support, seems good.-gadfium 04:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
61. Why the hell not? We need more admins willing to edit controversial articles (because I certainly don't). Ral315 » 05:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
62. Support I share in the concerns expressed by DGG (sensible as ever) in his oppose and frankly don't think DLand's opposition to be quite as frivolous or ill-conceived as some seem to suggest it to be, but I'm convinced from a broader review of Number's contributions that he is possessed of a measured temperament, a civil demeanor, and a sense of good judgment (all of which he demonstrates with overwhelming frequency), and, with the provision that, in view of the frequency with which BB has been referenced here, Number, inasmuch as adminship is purely ministerial and as an admin acts solely to discern for what action a consensus of the community exists and then to effect such action, might want to take special care not to boldly with the tools, as surely it seems he will, because I find that I am able to conclude with a reasonable degree of confidence that the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive, I support (this is not an RfA about which I was particularly passionate and it is one that I, on an NFL- and NCAAF-induced wiki-slowdown, might have refrained from commenting on, my inclination to support notwithstanding, but I am with Jaranda on the issue of this discussion's having perhaps served less-than-perfectly to bear out the views of the community at large [from which to apprehend whether there exists a consensus for promotion]; I continue to believe, though, that supports such as Jaranda's and mine are, as against an invocation of a bureaucrat's "discretion", the proper solution for RfAs in which other editors think canvassing to have been a problem, and I would submit there are enough uninvolved users who follow RfA that if the community thinks a discussion to have been unduly influenced by canvassing or inaccurately to reflect the sense of other editors errors may be rectified straightaway). Joe 08:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
63. Support User's contributions and answer to questions are quite good. Seems like a bold editor, but not uncivil at all, which is quite good. Kudret abi 10:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
64. Support - despite being involved in some conflicts, user appears to have dealt with these sufficiently well and in a civil manner. I believe that this user can be trusted with adminship. Warofdreams talk 11:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
65. Support - per DGG, user did the right think and we must promote and cherish his boldness to do the right think, and as dgg pointed out, he should stop being so defensive about it.--יודל 14:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
66. Support per Jaranda. You obviously have some enemies already, be prepared to make more as an admin (especially if you deal with controversial topics). Mr.Z-man 18:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
67. Support, after reading both sides I feel the supporters views are far more sound. Wizardman 19:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
68. Support. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 19:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
69. Support. User has the ability to approach complex and difficult issues in a balanced manner. Opposing arguments are not compelling. CJCurrie 22:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I have seen very positive contributions from this user, but it would be unwise to give admin powers to someone who has, on multiple very recent occasions, made controversial and disruptive mass edits without seeking consensus. One example: Moving several Israeli holiday articles to their respective English translations - without asking for feedback at all. This action generated immediate outrage from editors of those pages, and they were promptly moved back.(Yom Yerushalayim, Yom Ha'atzmaut, Yom Hazikaron)

   Another example: Removing about 40 articles from Category:Religious cities, towns and villages in Israel and placing them in Category:Religious Israeli settlements - without any discussion - just the edit summary "rm cat - not in Israel". (one of the many diffs:Alon Shevut)

   And one more thing - it's ok for an admin or editor to have a POV - we all do. However, it's not ok for one's POV to fuel inappropriate disruptive edits like this one to Gordon Brown.--DLand^TALK 19:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

   I don't see any harm in any of these. WP:BE BOLD. The Gordon Brown edit was not inappropriate either. Maybe it's not what I would have done, but it's certainly within the realm of the legitimate. -- Y not? 19:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

   This isn't mentioned, but this wasn't a one time edit -- I count three reversions of the category on the article linked; I'm not sure that just calling this boldness makes sense. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

   being bold when it affect multiple articles with politically controversial implications is perhaps a little on the reckless side. Perhaps the candidate will comment on whether he would still do such changes today.DGG (talk) 01:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

   My removal of Israeli settlements from "in Israel" categories was done to in order to comply with WP:NPOV - saying settlements are in Israel is very pro-Israel POV, otherwise why would it be called a settlement if it is in Israel? I believe my move was justified by a later discussion on the WikiProject Israel which did see a majority of editors support the move, and by the fact that one of the editors who originally opposed the move has now suggested another solution which removes "in Israel" from the wording. Also a minor quibble to DLand's assertions above - I did bring up the move of Jerusalem Day on its talk page almost a week before moving it back in April.[16] Number 57 07:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

   My reply to this below. Tewfik^Talk 00:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

2. Oppose per DLand. Number 57 is a fantastic editor, but I'm concerned that he might not practice blind justice. If Number 57 re-applies in a year or so and becomes less argumentative, then maybe I'd vote for him then. --GHcool 16:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

   Canvassed vote. diff. DLand, you ought to be ashamed of yourself. -- Y not? 18:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

   I did not know the different wikiprojects sent representatives to RfA. RfA is not a vote or a convention. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

   Oh, Blind justice? Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

   I left a neutrally worded friendly notice. It is very relevant for members of WP:ISRAEL to be apprised of this RfA, as Number 57 is an active contributor to Israel-related articles. I don't believe that I have violated policy or have anything to be ashamed of.--DLand^TALK 20:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

   Friendly notices to carefully chosen sympathizers? Don't embarrass yourself any further. -- Y not? 21:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

   The patronizing tone is uncalled for, irrespective of our disagreement on this matter.--DLand^TALK 21:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

   Oh come off it DLand. Calling that comment to GHcool anything but canvassing is asinine. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 11:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

3. Oppose A candidate who says they wish to significantly work in AFD and related project space areas, but who has more edits to his own RFA than any AFD needs a great deal more experience before I trust them with the tools. VanTucky ^Talk 22:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose as I believe Number 57 to be a generally good editor, but my experience on the categorisation issue mention above leaves me unsettled. That is, there was no majority, and certainly not a consensus in favour of either of the two moves he carried out beforehand, and yet he edit-warred to maintain them despite the subsequent objections of several editors (myself included). The changes themselves violated Wikipedia:Overcategorization, and so what was most worrisome to me was that after accepting that the first proposal was rejected, he carried out a second proposal that violated the same policy in a different manner. I have to disagree as well with the assertion that I dropped my opposition to the second proposal, as the CfD in question is merely a hope that a venue outside of what had become an unproductive conversation might more clearly show that the problem with his proposal lay, not in politics, but in Wikipedia policy on categorisation. While he has supported me there, it is unclear to me whether it stems from any new appreciation of the policy, and whether it will impact his future actions, which is ultimately the crux of the issue for me. Tewfik^Talk 00:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

   Canvassed vote. diff. -- Y not? 00:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

   Again, this was not a canvassed vote - please read WP:CANVASS#Campaigning.--DLand^TALK 01:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

   But would the user have !voted without being !canvassed? Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 04:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

   Considering that Number 57 referenced me in his comments above,("one of the editors who originally opposed the move") I should certainly have been informed so as to share my thoughts here. Tewfik^Talk 05:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

   Should we then inform one of the editors who originally supported the move? Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 13:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

   Tempting, but no - two wrongs (and it is wrong - DLand's actions are votestacking, not campaigning) don't make a right. ELIMINATORJR 14:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

   That is not correct. Votestacking is when the users contacted "are on the record with a specific opinion" - such as with a userbox or other categorization. Campaigning is when the users "are thought to have a predetermined point of view". I did the latter (not en masse either) which is not against policy. It's a subtle, but critical distinction. I still believe that I was justified - it's important that users who are familiar with Number 57's editing, and have interacted with him as well, are able to express themselves. I think that a lot of editors who don't follow AFD regularly would be very upset that they missed this one, should they find out that Number 57 was made an admin without their having a say.--DLand^TALK 14:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

   Personally I believe that contacting editors who you believe are going to vote in a particular manner is votestacking, not campaigning. But the point is that it matters little anyway, because WP:CANVASS clearly says that even campaigning is wrong, even though there are not "hard and fast rules" on sanctions. At the very least, it is discouraged. And to do it on an RfA is particularly disruptive. ELIMINATORJR 16:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

   So it would be O.K. to inform, oh 1 or 2 editors who originally supported the move? Not convassing or campaigning or stacking, just informing. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 15:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

   Seems like WP:POINT to me, but I wouldn't object to it. I think some other editors who disagree with my reading of policy would take issue, though.--DLand^TALK 15:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

   You'd consider that as WP:POINT when that's exactly what you've already done? Words fail me, frankly. BTW, to avoid clogging up this RFA, this discussion is better continued at the relevant thread on WT:RFA. ELIMINATORJR 16:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

   I apologise for the perception of disruption. I was merely trying to clarify my understanding of what seemed an unusual occurence on an RfA. Again, I am sorry. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 15:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

5. Oppose per Tewfik. The POV issues in Israel-related articles are a serious concern for an aspiring admin. In addition, the aggressive behavior of his supporters on this RFA is unlikely to help. Beit Or 20:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
6. Oppose edit warring is evidence of pushing a POV, and some of the edits noticed above and supporters' justifications for them - not disavowed by the nominee - cause me to question whether the editor has the maturity and good sense not to use the tools to advance that POV. Carlossuarez46 23:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

   Sorry, I'm not sure what POV you are getting at - the conflict I had on {{Irish elections}} was over the inclusion of a flag, and against an editor who is known (and has been blocked) for edit warring over flags. Number 57 08:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

   Comment the dispute on {{tl:Irish Election}} wasn't about the inclusion of a flag, it was about the overuse of flagicons in these templates, where you argued against and reverted any editor that reduced the number of the same flag from three to one, using the reason that all the templates used numberous incidence of the same flag, the talk page clearly shows this.--padraig 10:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

7. Oppose per above. Very legit concerns.--Sefringle^Talk 03:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
8. Oppose per Beit Or and several other comments above. -- Karl Meier 08:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
9. Oppose - a weak Wikipedia-space count and some rather rash decisions which have left others flustered have unfortunately left dark stains on this user's reputation. Once they're permanently ironed out, and you've learned from advice given here, you should make a great admin. Not yet though I feel. Lradrama 08:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
10. Oppose The issues raised above are concerns enough for me. Jmlk17 08:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
11. Oppose having watched the discussion of FIFA08, evidence of pushing a POV in my opinion.--Domer48 12:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

    Sorry, but how is pointing out that the Ulster Banner is used to represent Northern Ireland in sporting terms (which it unquestionably used to do) and requesting that people that wanted it removed to show consistency and delete the other flags pushing a POV? Number 57 12:25, 13 September 2007(UTC)

    Comment the Ulster Banner is not used to represent sport in Northern Ireland, it is used the represent the Northern Ireland National Team when they play international football, or when Northern Ireland competes in the Commonwealth games. In the case of the FIFA 08 article it was being used for political reasons to represent Northern Ireland as a country which is incorrect as it is not now or ever was the flag of that country.--padraig 12:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

12. Oppose PoV pushing on FIFA 08 article did not give a constructive solution just stayed with his PoV. BigDunc 12:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

    So "Please be consistent and remove all the other secondary flags too, not just the NI one" is not a constructive solution? Number 57 12:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

    comment A little on the paranoid side dont you think every one gathering up against you. BigDunc 08:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

13. Oppose Based on the somewhat over-defensive attitude here in replying to questions, I do not have confidence about the ability to deal with the inevitable criticism an admin will receive. This is not a comment about the particular views expressed in any CfD or other discussion. DGG (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

    Apologies if I seem somewhat defensive, but I am naturally disappointed that my RfA has been hijacked by two separate groups of editors who have objected to my attepts to prevent POV pushing. I maintain that the claims of POV against me are unfounded - in the case of Israeli settlements, I was preventing them being classified as "in Israel". The so-called POV pushing on the FIFA 08 talk page is a total fabrication - as I show above, I pointed out that the Ulster Banner is used in a sporting context, but if editors demanded its removal, they should show consistency and remove the others. Number 57 21:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

    I quite agree. This entire RfA has been a disgrace to Wikipedia practically from the start. and I suggest to Number_57 that he withdraws it and comes back in the future when hopefully a number of people can conduct themselves as befitting an encyclopedia struck per conversation with candidate. ELIMINATORJR 00:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

    Just commenting that I actually agree with the Number57's edits in most of the instances discussed; that is not at least for me the issue. DGG (talk) 04:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

14. Oppose per points raised above, very concerning for a sysop. --Ben^chat 19:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

    Oppose ['crat notice: Oppose disregarded =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)] I find it suspicious that the nomination was made just before Rosh Hashana (the jewish new-year), a three day holiday, when orthodox jews do not use computers. As the candidate has made a lot of Israel related edits, there are plenty of orthodox jews that would like to have an input.--Macallan 12 05:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

    I would hope the closing b-crat would discount a comment such as this. Accusing the candidate of wild conspiracy theories with no actual proof gives this person's argument in this debate very little weight. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 11:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

    Wow!! Incredible. -- У not? 02:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

    Because of my opposition, I feel that I must come out that much more strongly against this kind of conspiracy-mongering, which is absolutely out of order here or anywhere on WP. Tewfik^Talk 06:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

15. Weak Oppose Even though this editor is quite outstanding, there are niggling issues mentioned above which make me weakly oppose for the time being. Phgao 17:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
16. Oppose - per Lradrama. Zaxem 01:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
17. Oppose per DLand's issues with WP:POV pushing. --Yeshivish 03:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

    Oppose per what SOMEONE ELSE DID? Omg plz... Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 22:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

    huh?--Yeshivish 05:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

18. Oppose. Revert wars on election templates in support of a consensus he has agreed with himself. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 10:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
19. Oppose. Premature nomination. Candidate has made some fantastic contributions, but this does not mean that one should get automatic admin rights, especially so soon. N57 has simply ruffled too many feathers over the past year, being 'bold' based on OR (the holiday names) and POV (settlement issues). Candidate also does not show a pervasive knowledge of WP guidelines to warrant getting admin. Needs more time. --Shuki 11:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

    Whilst I do not deny being bold, I don't see how my moves were "OR". The Ghits evidence [17][18][19] was quite clearly in favour of the English names. Number 57 11:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

20. Oppose The user's way with dealing with people with whom he disagrees is less than would be expected from an administrator. With election templates he reverted a user's contributions twice without explaining what was wrong, in his eyes, with the edits. It wasn't until I became involved that he explained to me specifically what, in his eyes, was wrong. I also saw a lack of eagerness to become an admin when someone asked permission to nominate [20]. If he tries hard to rectify the way in which he deals with disputes in the future, I would happily vote in favour. Biofoundationsoflanguage 13:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
21. Oppose per concerns above.Sumoeagle179 15:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

    Oppose, canvassing on behalf of this user makes me doubt the neutrality of this process. Tim Vickers 17:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC) Changing to neutral, canvassing obvious attempt to hinder RfA from editors who should know better. Tim Vickers 17:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

22. Oppose Per edit warring --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 19:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
23. Oppose At its heart, an RfA is a process by which the community decides whether or not to extend a significant measure of trust in the judgement of a user. The issues raised here lead me to feel that at this point, that trust should not be extended. -- Avi 12:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
24. Oppose Per DLand. Wikipediarules2221 23:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

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

---

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

Dreadstar

Final (55/15/1); Originally scheduled to end 18:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC). Nomination successful. --Deskana (talky) 20:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Dreadstar (talk · contribs) - It is my pleasure to nominate Dreadstar for adminship. He's been my admin coachee for about two months. We've communicated quite a bit over email and on-wiki, and I am confident that Dreadstar is ready for adminship. He has been active since September 2005. (He had 2 periods of inactivity due to being hospitalized.) He has over 16,000 edits (for those who count), has started a number of articles (1, 2, 3, 4, more) and contributed heavily to others (1, 2, 3, among others).

Dreadstar is a friendly and enthusiastic editor. He's not afraid to get involved in contentious articles and policy discussions, and is dedicated to resolving conflicts. He recently contributed to a successful consensus decision at What the Bleep Do We Know!? (see [21]), and worked on resolving conflicts at Holocaust ([22]) and Battle of Washita River ([23]). He has experience vandal fighting (with VandalProof), is active in policy discussion (WP:OR especially), and has participated in AfD discussions (1, 2). I've never seen Dreadstar be less than civil or friendly. He's been active for about two years, and still has energy to engage contentious articles like Psychic, Holocaust, and various parapsychology-related articles. He can only be more productive with the tools. In sum, Dreadstar has the experience and the temperament to be a great admin. --Fang Aili ^talk 02:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Co-nom by Phaedriel: It's difficult to ask more in a candidate that what can Dreadstar offer. Some time ago, I was lucky to meet him during the dispute surrounding Battle of Washita River, where his thoughtful, kind approach impressed me deeply. The consistent coaching by Fang Aili's (which I have witnessed) has added to a keen knowledge and understanding of policy. Hardly anything to add to the excellent resume that has been accurately outlined above, other than denoting that the Dreadstar is unfailingly kind, helpful, courteous and hard working, and I can personally attest for each of these qualities. It is with pleasure that I present him to you, knowing that, in him, the mop will be in extremely worthy hands. Phaedriel - 05:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Co-nom by Anonymous Dissident: - Dreadstar is a very diligent editor and vandal fighter, who has made over 16100 edits overall, 8000 odd of which are to the mainspace. He is a friendly and civil editor, two qualities which are essential in admins. All in all, Dreadstar comprises prime administrator material, and I hope that the Wikipedia community shares this view. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Dreadstar † 18:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: Blocking persistent vandals, protecting pages being vandalized, and deleting inappropriate pages that vandals have created would be a welcome enhancement to my current set of anti-vandalism tools (VP). As my nominator points out, I have stepped in on several occasions to stop edit warring disputes and bring the warring parties to the negotiation table, and I would like the ability to protect pages and to block 3RR or WP:NPA violators in disputes where I am not involved either as a disputant or a mediator. I would not use my admin privileges in disputes that I am involved with, I would instead seek a neutral admin’s assistance. I would also like to help clear any backlogs of pages or images to delete, such as orphaned, duplicate or copyright-issue images.

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

A: My best contributions to Wikipedia have been my anti-vandalism efforts, the several mediations I’ve handled, and general wikignome activities of fixing things, such as adding appropriate sections, repairing bad links, doing dabs. There are also several articles that I’m proud to have created, such as Charles Banks Wilson.

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

A: I haven’t been stressed by my participation in Wikipedia, although I have been a party to some intense discussions and disagreements. My very first experience discussing a subject on Wikipedia was in a highly contentious article, and I have always remained civil and explained my view. I’m not proud of one or two short instances of edit-warring I've been involved in, but I learned a lot from those incidents and instantly regretted my participation in them. When conflicts arise, I step back and try to never answer with anger or frustration. I keep all personal comments out, relying on application of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I follow the dispute resolution process and have had great success in focusing on the core issues of a dispute, getting a third-opinion, taking straw polls and gaining consensus. This is by far the most satisfying and successful method of dealing with disputes. Edit-warring is unproductive and scares off contributors, damages the article in dispute, and gets nowhere. Better to have the article protected, and discuss.

My real-life job is in management; managing people, problems, clients and upper management, so I'm very used to keeping a level head at all times. I think my RL experience has translated well into my Wikipedia editing, and I'm always looking to better myself. Helping others is a huge part of my job, and I find it to be a very satisfying thing to do...and it's the same here! I enjoy helping other editors.

Question from User:rspeer

4. As you may see from WT:RFA, I am concerned about the growing problem of edit count inflation. Be honest: what techniques do you use to accumulate such a large number of edits? Would you do anything differently if you were not running for adminship? What kinds of edits do you make that require stopping to think about things? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

A: Quite honestly, I haven't used a technique to accumulate edits. Part of the reason for the uptick in the number of my edits over the past three months is due to my being approved for the use of VandalProof on July 24th. The sheer number of vandalism edits is staggering, and the team of dedicated editors who fight the vandals is a very hard working and noble crew. I'm proud to be a part of the antivandalism effort.

The edits I've made that require the most thinking are the ones during my mediation efforts, the policy discussions, and the AfD discussions I've been a part of. AfDs requre research in order to form an opinion and be able to give an intelligent reason for that opinion. I always research the subject, and in one of the AfDs I've partipated in, I not only performed internet research which revealed that the article subject's school name was wrong, but I even put in a phone call to the Director of the organization to confirm my findings and gather more information.

There is nothing I would have done differently, I would have been doing the same things whether I was running for admin or not. I enjoy doing what I do, or else I wouldn't take the time to do it...;) I haven't done anything to inflate my edit count. I'm running on quality not quantity. Merely accumulating a mass of empty edits doesn't lead to gathering respect from other editors and shouldn't lead to the honor of becoming an admin. I think you can tell from the comments of my nomininators and some of the supporting votes below that I've done more than accumulate an edit count. I find your research intriguing. The graph is well done and I look forward to further analysis on the subject.

Question from AldeBaer

5. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past? This is not a joke question. I feel you haven't provided a satisfactory answer to this so far.

A: I think your question is very serious and deserves a detailed answer. I’m glad you asked it. Yes, I've definitely been involved in conflicts over editing. I made some mistakes in the past and I regret the way I handled some of those conflicts. I learned a great deal from those experiences and recognize the mistakes I made. I've been involved in several conflicts; the incidents mentioned below happened in February 2007, a fairly long time ago and I've learned a lot since then. Here is more detail on the incidents mentioned. Let me know if this answers your question.

• 3RR block. My only block was in February 2007, it was for three hours. It was the result of one of the edit wars I was referring to. In her comment below, Yksin hit it right on the mark; after I had been blocked, I was trying to understand how I had actually violated 3RR, it didn’t make sense to me that my first edit cited in the 3RR violation (removing the NPOV tag after mediation and consensus had shown that the section was not POV.) was a reversion. So I discussed it with the blocking admin.
• Edit war. As for the edit war that resulted in the block, after I removed the tag, it was put back, I thought it was a mistake and reverted – we had just been through a lengthy mediation and it was surprising to see the tag put back. I quickly found out differently on all counts, and I learned a good lesson that day. I certainly wouldn’t do that again.
• Edit removals. Argh. Yes, that was my misunderstanding of one of the statements in NPA about removing edits. I've learned not to be as sensitive to those types of comments, and removal is not an option - unless it's a truly outrageous attack.
• 'Edit summary comment The edit identified below that I removed from my talk page where I put in the edit summary “remove comments from abusive editor” didn’t mean that the removed edit itself was abusive, but that I felt that the editor whose post I was removing had been abusing me in his other comments, I even checked with an admin who agreed with me about the incivility -but not the removal, and gave me some good advice. My putting such a comment in an edit summary was a mistake that I freely admit, especially since it’s so easily misunderstood and it wasn’t the right place to make such a statement - if at all.

Question from Wikidudeman

6. This question comes in a few parts. Firstly, Do you believe that Wikipedia should give credence to non-scientific or pseudo-scientific disciplines or occurrences such as purported psychic phenomena, Bigfoot, UFO's, etc? To clarify, Should the Psychic article clarify that "Psychic" abilities almost certainly don't exist as the vast majority of scientists conclude or should the article tiptoe around the fact that science can explain such things easily without invoking supernatural powers and give equal balance to all sides of the debate including the conclusion that psychic powers do indeed exist and are prevalent? Secondly, Should the James Randi article and the James Randi Educational Foundation have good sized(a couple of paragraphs) sections about how some people believe that his challenge is a "Gimmick" or that his challenge is not a legitimate way to test claims of supernatural abilities? Please read these questions carefully and answer them directly in detail. Thank you. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I just want to make a brief comment on this. You may very well disagree with Dreadstar's views on alternative science and theories and the weight those get given in articles, but we're here to determine whether Dreadstar can be trusted as an admin. Do you think he would abuse the tools in a content dispute? Or do you simply disagree with his opinion about certain articles? Melsaran (talk) 15:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I worded the questions very carefully so as not to ask what his personal views on James Randi were or on psychics were, but on his views of how such articles should be shaped. I'm not asking him if he believes in psychics since that is irrelevant. Nor am I asking him if he believes James Randi is a "gimmick" as that is also irrelevant. I'm asking specifically how he believes the wikipedia articles on these topics should be shaped. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but how are his views on how the Wikipedia articles on this topic should be shaped relevant to his trustworthiness as an administrator? Melsaran (talk) 16:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

A: I have never advocated that Wikipedia state that psychic abilities or phenomena actually exist – if I’ve appeared to do so, then that’s a severe miscommunication on my part. I believe all significant views should be presented without bias. We should not be making a statement as to whether or not they exist. We shouldn’t tiptoe around or be adding bias to the views of the skeptics, the scientists or the believers. If science has concluded that something paranormal has no substance, that view should be clearly stated and sourced in the article. I think this comment I made describes my views well.

Let me clearly address each question:

“Should the Psychic article clarify that "Psychic" abilities almost certainly don't exist as the vast majority of scientists conclude?"

Yes it should. My only concern was that such a view should be clearly stated in the article and not be merely ‘implied’. For instance, making implications by using biased and loaded wording which violates words to avoid; instead we should add detailed content to explain why and how the majority of scientists have made their conclusions.

"should the article tiptoe around the fact that science can explain such things easily without invoking supernatural powers and give equal balance to all sides of the debate including the conclusion that psychic powers do indeed exist and are prevalent."

Not at all, the scientific view and alternative explanations should be clearly stated without any bias.

"Secondly, Should the James Randi article and the James Randi Educational Foundation have good sized(a couple of paragraphs) sections about how some people believe that his challenge is a "Gimmick" or that his challenge is not a legitimate way to test claims of supernatural abilities? Please read these questions carefully and answer them directly in detail."

No, that’s not what I was saying at all. In our dispute, which you mentioned below, we were talking about the prominence of the Randi challenge in the Edward article, which didn’t need several good sized paragraphs on Randi’s challenge - just a short statement. In the Randi article itself, the notable critical comments should be included, but not in a biased or distorted fashion either. While I think the controversy about the challenge should be mentioned in the Randi article, I do not think those critical comments are deserving of a “good sized couple of paragraphs”. I am a firm believer in WP:UNDUE.

It’s interesting to me that I became a “supporter of the paranormal”. I believe that had I come to Wikipedia and found the articles written entirely from the perspective of the ‘believers’, I would have argued the opposite side, for inclusion of more scientific content. NPOV is the concern, not my personal beliefs. I’m not sure about the paranormal, but I have an open mind about it. Dreadstar † 17:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Follow up question from Wikidudeman

If what you say is true, then why did you argue so passionately with myself and User:BillC that James Randi's million dollar challenge was a "Gimmick"? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

A: First let me clarify that if you read the actual comment and discussion, I think it's clear that I wasn’t advocating using the word "gimmick" in any article, and I still don’t advocate its use. As for the discussion that followed, I was merely explaining why I used the word gimmick on the talk page. I really have no interest in continuing that particular debate. Dreadstar † 23:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Followup from Wikidudeman - From what I could see, From the link you provided, the argument after you said that James Randi's challenge was a "Gimmick" was you arguing that you were justified in saying so. The question I am asking is, Why bring it up to begin with? If it shouldn't be used in the article that is. What was the purpose of arguing that his challenge was a "Gimmick" if it had no relevance to the article itself? If it did indeed have relevance, What was that relevance? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, Should the James Randi Educational Foundation have any info at all giving credence to the contention that the million dollar challenge is a "Gimmick"? If so, How much? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I've thought about this for a couple of hours, & decided I should say something. It concerns me that this line of questioning appears to be a continuation of a content dispute, & asking Dreadstar to, in a manner of speaking, "edit in a fishbowl." You also refer to a discussion involving you, BillC, & Dreadstar with no link provided to clue in the rest of us following this RfA on which specific discussion you're alluding to -- it's not readily apparent from your Oppose statement. Skinwalker's question below (Q7) is certainly relevant to the RfA, as it directly bears on Dreadstar's interpretations of Wikipedia policy; but I'm not quite sure what the relevance of your questions are, except as a continuation of content dispute. --Yksin 20:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for not providing the link. It's here: link. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

A: If it’s mentioned at all, as I described in my earlier statement, it should be properly sourced and attributed to whatever notable, reliable, verifiable source the statement comes from. As for credence, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth, and it should not violate WP:NPOV or WP:BLP if it's included in Randi's own article. Dreadstar † 23:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Question from Skinwalker

7. Two parts, one specific and one open-ended. First, could you clarify your assertion, found here[24], that electronic voice phenomenon does not fall under WP:FRINGE? Second, can you discuss your views on the WP:FRINGE guideline, particularly as they apply to NPOV and undue weight? Skinwalker 17:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

A: Again, this is a matter of context. I was responding to the previous comments which were focusing on the notability, cultural-fictional and scientific-peer-review sources. Please keep in mind that this was a long time ago and I was just learning about that policy and EVP all at once...;) My comment about it not being WP:FRINGE was directed at the proposal for the article to be focused on the cultural aspect of EVP, not the science. According to science, it is indeed a WP:FRINGE science, I was referring to it not being fringe in the popular culture view, as I thought it had been somewhat discussed as being plausible within major publications. I believe the other editors were saying that for the EVP article to give details about any of the experiments that had been done, the subject needed to have notability per scientific topics - because it was WP:FRINGE, I disagreed with that view and felt the limited science should be included.

My views on Fringe and NPOV are that we shouldn't be making something appear to be more "real", "notable", or "scientific" than it actually is - if the subject is worth mentioning at all. We shouldn't be promoting fringe ideas or publishing original thought. Non-mainstream theories need solid sourcing per WP:V, WP:RS, and must abide by WP:NPOV and WP:NOR as well as WP:FRINGE. The discussion about EVP was primarily regarding its cultural aspects, which in my opinion at the time, didn't fall under WP:FRINGE.

The Paranormal ArbCom decision identified EPV under the loci of dispute, which is partly addressed by the finding of fact Three layer cake with frosting, which is why I mentioned it in my reply to Rspeer below, that finding is indeed concerned with EVP and the paranormal, as well as what I was commenting on regarding my views. Mainstream science has ignored and/or dismissed EVP, but it exists as a popular cultural concept. That was the basis for my comments about EVP, including my statement about WP:FRINGE.. Again, ArbCom has ruled on this, and I abide by their decisions. Clearly EVP is fringe all the way around; I've a learned a great deal since I made that statement.

Looking back on it, I must admit that my statement about EVP not being WP:FRINGE was a boneheaded comment. Definitely not the best example of my work...;) I hope that any editor on Wikipedia can be granted the opportunity to learn over time, as I have since February, when I made several of those boneheaded statements. Dreadstar † 22:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Second question from Wikidudeman

Can you please explain why you referred to other editors as "Lazy" and "Pseudo Skeptics" here? Also, What exactly does "Pseudo Skeptic" mean? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC) Also, Another example. Here you seem to be comparing "Skeptics" to "Cynics". Please explain. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Didn't see your added question. I wasn't comparing skeptics to cynics. I consider myself to be a skeptic, and I'm far from being cynical...! Dreadstar † 01:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

A: I'll have to retract my earlier statement that I've always been civil, and just say that I've always strived to be civil, even in the face of egregious comments by some of the opposing editors. With the comment you point out, I was joking around on the talk page of a fellow editor - there had just been a comment that "ESP shouldn't be confused with ESPN". My comment was clearly an inappropriate joke, but it wasn't directed at anyone in specific. Let's post the whole comment, I think it's clear what I meant:

"Yah, that's the ticket, the Psychic article..that's the one! Glad you were psychic enough to realize that! (Jeez, I must still have the flu... :) Dreadlocke ☥ 01:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Say, I really like your new intro to Psychic! I think it addresses both sides (although the pseudo-skepitcs won't be happy until it says "All psychics are frauds and there's no such thing..." Anyway, I hope your version sticks! I'll work to make it so. I'm tired of arguing over a single word, you actually did what I've been suggesting and added detailed content! That's the way to go, but some of these editors just want to be lazy and throw in a biased, loaded WP:WTA. Good job! Dreadlocke ☥ 02:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)"

Hey, I'm guilty as charged, joking or not - it was uncivil, and I regret making such a comment. After being so close to death and suffering through serious illness and multiple surgeries since that time, my world view is quite different now than it was those many months ago. I can only say that I've grown and learned a lot. I wouldn't make insulting remarks to anyone any more. I'm willing to be subject to recall, if anyone's concerned about my pov or civility, or anything else.

In its more serious implication, that comment is meant to say that instead of taking the time to research and add detailed comments, some editors substituted the easy way out of adding in a WP:WTA instead. Not the best way to add critical commentary to an article, in addition to violating WTA.

As for the second part of your question, you've actually asked this same question before in response to a question in your Admin nominiation in July. I'll answer by pointing you to the article on the subject, with a short quote from it: Pseudoskepticism, "[Truzzi] defined pseudoskeptics as those who take "the negative rather than an agnostic position but still call themselves 'skeptics'". I consider myself a skeptic. The term pseudoskeptic has been found to be a pejorative and an insult, so I would never again say it in reference to any person or group - even jokingly. Dreadstar † 01:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Third question from Wikidudeman

If nominated to adminiship, Would you be willing to add your name to Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall with the requirement that at least 5 established users with over 500 mainspace edits agree that you should be recalled and re-confirmed? Reconfirmation means that if you abuse your admin powers and 5 established users with over 500 mainspace edits each agree that you have abused them, you request a steward remove your administrator powers and you run for admin again. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: Dreadstar had a family emergency and may not be available to comment for a few days. --Fang Aili ^talk 18:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

That is quite frustrating. If Dreadstar would be willing to put himself up for recall if he were to become an admin with the stipulations I listed above then I would probably change my vote to Neutral or maybe even Support. However if I can't get my question answered then there is nothing much that I can do. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I can confirm that Dreadstar has had a rather serious family emergency, and thus, some patience, and leeway would be helpful, as he may not be able to respond immediately. ^Ariel♥Gold 18:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for the delay, thanks to both Fang and Ariel for explaining my inability to respond quickly. Yes, Wikidudeman, I agree to your terms and I will gladly add my name to the recall list under the terms you've indicated. Just to be clear that this applies to my actions going forward and not any past disagreements. Thank you for making such an offer, Wikidudeman - I accept! Dreadstar † 23:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

A big respectful tip of the hat to you, Wikidudeman, for your willingness to give Dreadstar a chance despite your closely held doubts. --Yksin 01:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Question from Yksin

10. Many of the questions here have focused on your activities in the first half of this year, prior to your extended break due to hospitalization. You have alluded to changes since the hospitalization that have had effect on how you conduct yourself at Wikipedia. Could you describe these changes? Please include specific examples of your edits/activities after you returned in July. What is the difference between how you did things before & how you do them now? --Yksin 17:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

A: Excellent question, thanks! This will need a detailed response. While recovering from my surgery, I couldn't even sit at the computer, so I had a lot of time to think about things, including my involvement in Wikipedia. My entire existence had brightened - having survived such an ordeal has really helped me focus on the important things in life, like family and friends, and I wanted that to carry through to my work on the project. I really wanted a fresh start when I came back in July. I want to be a positive contributor to Wikipedia, fighting vandalism and having good relationships with other editors. I've always had a good sense of humor and positive optimism, but I think I had allowed myself to get too deeply involved in some of the paranormal disputes.

My earlier experiences on Wikipedia were with editors with strong POVs, so I thought that was the way to participate. So I think my editing had been tainted by my initial experiences in articles where there was a lot of contentiousness, and I thought the way things were being done there were the way things worked. I have since come to find out that I was wrong, and changed my methods accordingly. I no longer wanted to engage in endless disputes over the paranormal, and I realized that I derived great satisfaction from the mediations I had been a part of. When I came back I resolved to step further back from these disputes and try to act more as a mediator to organize and keep the discussions civil.

I removed most of the paranormal-related articles off my watchlist, and focused on other areas of Wikipedia. I created the article on Charles Banks Wilson, an artist I long admired, and have also worked on other articles in areas I’m interested in like Dreadstar (graphic novel) and The Price (graphic novel). I started participating in more AfD discussion like the ones on KleinISD Vistas High School, The American Muslim, James Bond gun barrel sequence, Media in The Simpsons‎.

I worked on cleaning up OR from What the Bleep Do We Know!? and then helped mediate the dispute (Talk:What the Bleep Do We Know!?/archive2 especially the Request for Comment and Straw poll), which led to consensus and the article being unprotected by the blocking admin.

Without taking any position in the content dispute at Battle of Washita River, I organized and oversaw a straw poll which helped editors come to a consensus leading to article protection being changed to semiprotection. I attempted to mediate a content dispute at The Holocaust (Talk:The Holocaust/Archive 16 and Talk:The Holocaust/Sandbox, which as was pointed out, mainly failed for lack of participation by some of the disputing editors.

I will still occasionally get involved in paranormal related discussions, but I will not engage in back and forth bickering and any type of comments about other editors, except in relation violations of policy. Mainly I try to participate in bringing both sides together in consensus. For example, with Psychic surgery I took an important part in the discussion (Talk:Psychic surgery/archive3,Talk:Psychic surgery) to rewrite the lead in a way that both sides in an edit war could accept, so that protection could be lifted. (It was, and no edit warring since.)

I also like to recognize editors who just try to make it easier for others. I came across this exchange Orange signature 1, Orange signature 2 -- and I thought that was so cool, so I left a barnstar and an award for both the users. I don't have a desire to get involved in emotionally charged disputes except to come in as a mediator and apply policy. My own views and personal feeling are irrelevant. I've come to know policy much better, and I continue to learn and grow. Dreadstar † 07:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Question from Cardamon

11. Could you explain your views on when it is permissible for an editor to delete another editor's talk page comment, and how they apply to this recent edit? Cardamon 05:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

A: Comments should be only very rarely removed and only in egregious circumstances per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing comments, such as those containing personal information or libel, and in cases where permission is obtained from the editor who made the post. The post in question was removed per the WP:BLP policy. It has been firmly presented to me that unsourced personal attacks even on talk pages should be removed immediately; specifically:

"Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles,[2] talk pages, user pages, and project space."

To quote directly from the removed post, this is clearly an attack on a WP:BLP:

"this article is too gentle with this man, and his dumb show." "The belief that Edward has powers is ridiculous, and cannot be compared in any way to the belief that he is simply a liar who wants only to make money. It is not only the anti-Edward that "believe" he is a liar. He IS one. Period" "My english may not be perfect, but one thing is sure : Edward is NOT a psychic"

Added to the unsourced personal attack are uncivil comments, which I would not have removed had they been the lone issue:

"Do some of you REALLY believe that crap? John Edward, a psychic ! ah ah ah ah ah ah ah ah ah ! This is soooo dumb !!

Dreadstar † 06:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Could you also discuss this edit, which was described as refactoring, and which removed talk page comments by quite a few editors? (Some of the removed comments, by an editor who was indefinitely blocked shortly afterwards, are vile.) Cardamon 09:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

A: Yes, that editor was blocked by Jimbo himself for making vile hate speech comments, including those on the Holocaust talk page. I attempted to refactor the page per Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages, specifically,

"Refactoring talk pages can be used to clean up the accumulation of unclear or irrelevant previous posts. Such an accumulation can make understanding an ongoing discussion difficult and may discourage potential contributors from involvement. Both refactoring and archiving promote productive discussion by improving clarity and accessibility."

Due to the volume of the hate speech on the Holocaust talk page, the focus was completely off the editorial content of the article and I thought a refactoring of the page would be a good means of focusing on the essential core issues. The comments by the other editors in that refactored section were mainly replies to the hate speech, e.g:

“Ignore the troll, please check contribution history. - Jeeny ^Talk 02:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)”

I refactored those as well, leaving the specific points about the article that had been raised, so those could be focused on and discussed. I had just archived the old discussions in archive 16 that I had created a couple of days before the edit you mention: [25]. I was in process of getting ready to add the comments that were removed during that refactor to the archive when another editor beat me to the punch and archived them (edit conflict) as I was saving the same content to the same archive. Then another editor objected to the archival/refactoring and restored the entire thread, which is also covered under Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages:

“If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted.”

After the user had been blocked, I archived the remainder. Dreadstar † 17:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Your replies to this question seem reasonable to me. Cardamon 00:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

General comments

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

• Links for Dreadstar: Dreadstar (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. Remain civil at all times. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Dreadstar before commenting.

Discussion

• Absence, My two long absences were both due to surgery. My appendix burst and I almost died from the resulting infection. I was lucky to have great doctors in a local hospital that literally saved my life. I then had to go back for follow-up surgery to have my abdominal muscles reattached. These were traumatic, life-changing experiences, and my attitude was affected in very positive way, I’m so happy to be alive and whole again. The disputes I had earlier in the year over the paranormal articles are things I regret and would never do again, for several different reasons – the hospitalizations were a part of that, and a greater understanding of how Wikipedia works is the other. Dreadstar † 03:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Paranormal quotation, The quote mentioned below by Rspeer was taken quite out of context, so I need to explain it in detail. Out of context, it looks like I'm advocating for “belief over science”...which isn't the case at all. The quotation was pulled from a lengthy discussion on the Electronic voice phenomena talk page. In that quote, I was making an extreme statement to try and make a point, but if you read my entire comment, in context with the surrounding comments, [26], you’ll see that I was arguing against a proposal to turn the focus of article into one that stated EVP was entirely fictional, while primarily using reference sources such as reality television shows for the article contents. The proposing editors wanted to minimize the science and focus primarily on fictional sources. This fictional view was being discussed in a "majority rules, majority equals believers" way of sourcing the article.

My follow-up statements to that post were:

“I mean, you cannot write the article that (for instance) talks about "Witches", but only uses Bewitched as a "fictional" source for content." [27]”

"The current article just needs a cultural section added to the existing content; it does not need to become a total "cultural article" or any type of fictional article - semi or full." [28]”

That’s where I was going with it, not that believers outweigh science. That’s actually the opposite of what I was attempting to say. And I wasn't making any comment about the validity or quality of the science, as a matter of fact, the science was highly questionable...but it shouldn't have been left out or even extremely minimized.

I was attempting to turn the proposal around and show how that view (majority rules – fictional subject) would work if it were applied to other paranormal articles where there actually was a body of scientific investigation. Majority rules would put science in the outbox everywhere, and make science seem less valid. But, if you cherry-pick that one statement out of context; it looks like I'm advocating for belief over science...which just isn’t the case.

Just to be clear, I would certainly never use admin abilities to push a pov; as a matter of fact, I probably would avoid using them on paranormal articles altogether, to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.

Dreadstar † 16:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't realized you'd written this until I'd written & posted my own lengthy comment below in response to rspeer's analysis of that quote. But I'm glad to find that I seem to have been correct in my own analysis. I think it points out the importance of looking at statements made by RfA candidates within the full context of the discussion in which those statements were made. Thanks. --Yksin 18:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• It seems to me, having observed Wikidudeman's RfA and now Dreadstar's, that no one who edits in the paranormal can become an admin. Perhaps it is also the case that no one who edits contentious articles can become an admin. This is kind of sad for Wikipedia, because it bars the editors who have had the most experience with disputes. Wikidudeman is opposing Dreadstar for the same reasons I and others opposed Wikidudeman. I'm not saying what should be done, only that this is so. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's looking a lot that way. To some extent, both this RfA & Wikidudeman's (which I took a long look at) have seemed to me a continuations of content disputes on those articles. Also it's seemed to me that the focus in this RfA has been on stuff that happened several months ago, with little attention given to the ways this candidate has learned & improved since then, to the point of having been instrumental in helping resolve major content disputes on articles like What the Bleep Do We Know and Battle of Washita River, & making a pretty darn strong try at it at The Holocaust (which I think failed only for lack of participation by editors on one side of the content dispute). But, as I said in my Support vote, Dreadstar's participation as a neutral party (taking no position on the content we were disputing) was instrumental in helping us to work our way towards a resolution of a very long-term dispute. --Yksin 23:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

In my experience one of the main problems with RFA is that the people who have been around the longest are most likely to have done things that upset some people. Even if they walk on eggshells it's bound to happen. The most experienced and successful editors are frequently the most controversial ones. Generally people who have been here a few months and haven't had any disputes but have absolutely no real experience get RFA's passed easily but people who have been here over a year and have had a few dispute sin the past are much more unlikely to become an administrator. That's one of the main flaws in this RFA system, Experienced editors fail where inexperienced editors succeed. While DreadStar is an OK editor, There are definitely serious concerns but since he has agreed to my stipulations I erased my opposition. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 12:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Except that in this case, Wikidudeman, we have a candidate seems intent on portraying a different persona than who he really is. That is VERY different from someone who does the right thing and ruffles feathers from time to time. Xiner (talk) 16:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nominator. --Fang Aili ^talk 02:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
2. Support as co-nom. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
3. SupportSeems like a great editor.Rlevse 18:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
4. Support See no reason to oppose. LaraLove♥ 19:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
5. Support with enthusiasm. Dreadstar gave us a big assist at Talk:Battle of Washita River by setting up straw polling in our article RfC, which helped enormously towards us developing a consensus & putting an end to a lengthy period of full protection on the article due to edit warring. I was too overwhelmed at the time by all the problems we'd had with that article to figure out how to do a good straw poll, or even to realize that was what we needed, so it was really a huge help. I've also been witness to Dreadstar's communications with one of the other editors involved in the Washita dispute, whose habitual incivility had already resulted in a user-conduct RfC. Dreadstar has had dealings with this editor at the Washita talk page, at Talk:The Holocaust, & on the user's talk page, maintaining a firm but patient & civil demeanor throughout, despite plenty of provocation from the other user. Dreadstar is very well-suited to taking on the additional responsibilities that come with admin-ship. --Yksin 19:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
6. Support Good editor, see no major concerns. Pat^{Politics rule!} 19:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
7. Support No doubt he will make a good admin. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

   Comment Answers to Q5 allayed concerns raised in opposes. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 13:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

8. Support, per all the reasons stated above, as a proud co-nominator. Phaedriel - 20:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
9. Support -- This user will apply the tools intelligently, and appropriately. That's all I ask. --Haemo 20:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
10. Support - having become involved in the attempts to unprotect and improve the Battle of Washita River article myself, I can echo Yksin's praises of Dreadstar's conduct, approach, and civility there. Everything I've seen from him makes me confident he has a thorough grasp of WP policies and will apply them fairly and use any new responsibilities wisely. --Miskwito 20:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
11. Support You sound familiar. I think we've worked together, and I have no reason to oppose. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 20:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
12. Support. I was recently just looking around at pages, and I saw his name, was curious, and asked why he was not an admin. Stupid question. Dreamy ^\*/_!$! 20:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
13. Support Dreadstar has often helped me in difficult editing situations by giving advice and pointing me to specific policies. I've been impressed with his dedication to Wikipedia and learned a LOT from the way he handled the major rewrite of What the Bleep -- an article that had long been contentious and had serious violations of WP:NOR. TimidGuy 21:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
14. Support Yeah, of course! Good solid editor with a lovely sense of humour. Scarian^Talk 22:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
15. Support Good editor, good qualifications, and I trust the noms quite a bit. Jmlk17 22:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

    Please assess the nominee, not the nominators. Your trust in the nominators is largely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. - TwoOars (Rev) 13:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

    (changed to oppose) We need experienced editors as admins. —AldeBaer 22:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

16. Support all the best ^Khukri 22:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
17. Support as excellent editor, no problems, will make a good sysop. Bearian 23:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
18. Support a serious editor. - Modernist 00:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
19. Support a very helpful editor. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
20. Support Involved in a small way in the What the Bleep... discussions and found Dreadstar to be intelligent, thoughtful, calm, and very helpful in dealing with disputes. olive 02:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
21. Support, despite issues raised by oppose comments, I see no reason why not to grant him the bit. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
22. First time I've seen something which equates to opposing per edit count >_> Dihydrogen Monoxide 06:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

    Nobody is opposing for anything that even vaguely resembles edit count. --JayHenry 16:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

    That was part of rspeer's oppose. --Fang Aili ^talk 16:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

23. Strong Support, I have seen Dreadstar's work in all of the areas he does work in, and I am thoroughly impressed. Sebi _[talk] 06:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
24. Support It is time to give this user the mop. A great editor as well. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 07:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
25. Support Nice guy and never had a problem working with him. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 13:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
26. Disagreeing with someone's views on article content is not a valid reason to oppose, in my opinion. I am confident that this user will not abuse the tools in content disputes. Melsaran (talk) 15:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
27. Support. It appears below that Wikidudeman is trying to sink this RfA due to personal conflicts with the candidate, which is completely inappropriate and unimpressive. I don't see any reason the candidate could not be trusted with the mop. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 15:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

    Asserting that my objections are based purely on "personal conflicts" is simply false. While my personal experiences with this candidate are outlined because they are what I'm most familiar with, it isn't the only thing that I bring up in my opposition. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

    You clearly have an axe to grind. Therefore, you have no credibility in this case in my opinion. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 15:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

    Ignoring the "no credibility" and "axe to grind" comments, I only oppose RFAs when I believe the user in question will either abuse the tools or won't know how to properly use them. I have given sufficient reason to believe this user isn't ready for the admin tools. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

    Spike, even if the basic motivation for Wikidudeman's oppose is a personal conflict with the candidate, automatically disqualifying everything he says seems a bit awkward. — [ ˈaldǝˌbɛːɐ ] 16:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

    While some of my opposition stems from my "expereinces" with the candidate, my opposition is anything but personal. I frequently support RFAs for editors whom I have had previous conflicts with. Though again, Some of my opposition stems from my experiences with the candidate, but other parts of the opposition stems from things the candidate has done which I was not involved in, such as disputes involving edit waring, a block for edit waring, etc. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

28. Support. Good editor. Rfas shouldn't be judged on their editing styles or what they believe in. That's wrong and biased. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 00:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

    Editing styles are one of the main things to judge RFA's on. If someones editing style is to edit war, assume bad faith and insult other editors then that is definitely something to judge an RFA on. I agree that "beliefs" are irrelevant. As far as I can tell, No one has opposed him based on his pro-paranormal beliefs. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

    It would be hard to oppose him in any case based on his "pro-paranormal beliefs", as no proof has been given that he holds pro-paranormal beliefs; see for example his answer to your question #6, where he states "I’m not sure about the paranormal, but I have an open mind about it." "Not being sure" about something is not the same as being "in favor" of something. --Yksin 00:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

    You seem to be attacking him for believing in something you don't. This doesn't mean that he can't be trusted with the tools, or would be a bad admin. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 23:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

    I seem to be attacking him for believing in something which I do not? Please explain how you got that impression. Nowhere in any of my opposition arguments have I opposed him because he believes in something I don't. I'm opposing him because of his previously disruptive editing habits and assumption of bad faith. It has absolutely nothing to do with what he believes about the paranormal. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 01:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

29. Support. Editor has been involved in many highly complex and contentious issues on Wikipedia, and these have lent themselves to mis-interpretation here. But being so involved or even making mistakes is not a good reason to oppose his candidacy. He seems to be a conscientious and thoughtful editor who is already doing many of the things which admins do. I think he will do well. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

    When Dreadstar was defending you on your RfC, I find that he was the first to support many positions that were divisive and not at all conscientious. Here's an example: "The paranormal section is essentially a platform for skeptics to espouse their view of the world, and only a few editors have had the courage to take them on. It is impossible to seek an informed consensus in those articles without being a little aggressive, and the skeptical editors are very good at baiting people into edit wars." I don't think there's much there that can be misinterpreted. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

    It hinges upon whether the statement is true or false. I don't know you, which means you don't edit paranormal much. To tell you the truth, I wouldn't have believed the statement anything but ranting either, if I hadn't been through it myself. But it looks like your mind is closed on this, if you are willing to say he is not conscientious. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

30. Support. Dreadstar is a great vandalfighter, and does much vandal fighting at a time when fewer administrators are available. Whatever may have happened in the past on paranormal topics, I am convinced that enough time has past that he has learned from whatever mistakes he might have made, and would not use his admin powers in these areas. Academic Challenger 07:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
31. Support. Looks like he would be a good admin. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 09:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
32. Support Slrubenstein | Talk 09:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
33. Support per above. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
34. SupportIt sounds like he would be a good admin. Folks below are raising the paranormal stuff, but he has said he would not use admin powers in this area. I think we should take his word for that. Bigglove^talk 16:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
35. Support I think the opposers are taking some of the paranormal arguements a bit too far. I think this user can be trusted enough to have adminship. Captain panda 21:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
36. Support. I don't particularly care if I agree with Dreadstar's content views or not. He's shown a willingness to learn from his errors and I have no reason to believe he will abuse the bit. This editor fits the bill for me. Vassyana 04:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
37. Support Per noms, and above, I see no reason to suspect Dreadstar will abuse sysop. Dureo 04:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
38. Support. I have personal experience of Dreadstar encouraging collegial and generous behavior in other users. -- LisaSmall ^T/C 16:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
39. Support good user. Acalamari 17:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
40. Support. When I first started writing here, Dreadstar (among others) was a very helpful mentor on how to edit articles. I sincerely support Dreadstar. Cosmokazi 01:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
41. Support looks like someone who would fit the role. AD 02:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
42. Support We need more users like this user. Fully support. Phgao 17:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
43. Support The editing environment in Wikipedia is a very confrontational, I think, for the very reason we are seeing some of these questions requesting that Dreadstar account for positions he has taken in articles. I do not deny the right for any editor to champion a cause. I do seek to deny the right for an editor to push a point of view at the expense of rational and reasonable debate, as has so often occurred in the paranormal articles. I have seen nothing but the demonstration of respect for Wiki policy from Dreadlock. In my view, he will help bring respect and credibility to Wikipedia articles. Tom Butler 21:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
44. Support I fully support Dreadstar on the basis of his excellent contributions, as well as for the fact that we badly need an admin with strong knowledge of parapsychology and related areas. - Solar 23:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
45. Support - If Phaedriel is co-noming, I can't see that bad attitude would be a problem with Dreadstar. Experience is no issue, either. Anyway, if this paranormal stuff does turn out to be real, Dreadstar, and you are one of the chosen ones, please remember that I supported your RfA and put in a good word for me. Thanks. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 01:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
46. Support - I support Dreadstar's nomination for a number of reasons but also with a few concerns - the same concerns I would have about any admin with an interest in the paranormal. The paranormal is one of the areas where wiki has a real problem. There are three competing viewpoints in my opinion, rather than the two normally stated. There are strong believers in the paranormal, there is a middle ground, and there are pseudosceptics. All three are heavily represented on Wiki. In my view Dreadstar occupies the middle ground. Definitley the paranormal leaning side of the middle ground, but the middle ground nonetheless. For this reason I think he is in a good position to be an admin with regard to those subjects in particular (and they are the hardest ones). That is, there has been a recent paranormal arbcom case (although many writing here appear not to have taken on board any of its findings) and it would be good to have someone able to represent those findings accurately in the disputes that will continue on paranormal articles. Thus my support for Dreadstar's nomination. My concern, the same concern I would have about anybody here, is that with regard to paranormal articles on wiki, integrity is paramount. The proof of Dreadstar's integrity would only show in his involvement in disputes after becoming an admin. I have seen nothing to suppose that Dreadstar would not act with integrity but it is clear than admin status has made many here think they are above the law. As regards the other duties associated with adminship I have no doubt that Dreadstar would be able to carry them out fairly. Davkal 09:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
47. Support This user has clearly demonstrated the ability and the will to edit Wikipedia responsibly and to raise the quality of articles both by removing malicious or inappropriate content and by adding new content of their own (these days, far too many users will simply delete and don't create). The user has also demonstrated the willingness to discuss ALL SIDES of an issue, advocating dialog between users and the discussion of issues so that a solution may be found. All of which are admirable qualities in an editor. On a slightly different note, having read the above (and the below) I notice that the most common of the criticizms leveled against this user fall into a single category, this being that other users object to the fact that the nominee thinks that it is appropriate for entries with controversial subjects to include all notable opinions, while the criticizing users believe think that only the opinions of scientist matter. Frankly, I have to say that when a subject is primarily notable for the unscientific views that surround it it is an absolute must that those views be included. For this reason I consider criticizm of the nominee in this area to be invalid and I still support their nomination. - perfectblue 10:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

    I am more than a little concerned by the fact that the user is being singled out for critisizm over their paranormal edits. This appear to be the mainstay of all criticizm against them yet it is irrelevant to most of the work of an editor. For example, how would it render them unsuitable to arbitrate a dispute over the use/deletion of curse words, or to decide that one user was stalking the edits of another? This user has done too much good work in too any other areas for me to consider their single subject critisizms to be relevant to or representative of their suitability for being an administrator. - perfectblue 10:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

48. Support User track appears to be okay and to come back after surgery and contribute to wikipedia is great.Pharaoh of the Wizards 12:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
49. Support. After reading both sides of the fence, I don't know comepletely what to make of the candidate since I haven't had personal contact. However, co-noms by two of the most trusted wikipedia users to me means that he must be a good candidate. Wizardman 16:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
50. Support I trust User:Phaedriel's judgement in this case, and support this candidate based on his experience and qualification. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 18:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
51. Support - I support any editor who attempts to bring a calm voice and neutral viewpoint to controversial topics, especially those labeled paranormal. Dean 20:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
52. Support Dreadstar's contributions are a welcomed voice of reason during heated discussions. Roseapple 00:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
53. Support A very good and experienced editor. Good answers to above questions. Also I hope your health is better now. Kudret abi 10:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
54. Support I am not convinced by those editors who have brought up concerns. The majority of these issues are months old; some dating back to 2006, most from the first quarter of 2007. In nearly every unsuccessful RfA, the candidates are advised to "return in 3-4 months" to demonstrate they have learned from the issues in question, and have properly changed the way they deal with them. I am confident that Dreadstar has done just that, and I believe this is best illustrated in his answers to the many questions asked here; his measured and thoughtful responses show he is more than able to retain a cool head. I have bumped into him many times during Recent Changes patrol, and I have never once noticed he acted in anything but a polite manner, his notices and responses even and calm, and his explanations thorough. His assistance to me when I have questions have been invaluable, and while I consider him a "friend", I did some serious looking at this RfA, before deciding to comment. I respect Wikidudeman greatly, and his concerns caused me to pause for quite some time, while I looked into Dreadstar's past history. I respect Wikidudeman for abstaining from comment now, as Dreadstar has agreed to be open to recall. The sockpuppet issue going on here with Deedstar and his multiples is very disturbing, but I would request that the closing administrators take the comments made by those editors with very little weight. There are editors I respect who have voiced opposition, and I gave their comments heavy weight in my final decision, but I again noticed that nearly every major issue brought up was over 6 months old. I believe in giving second chances, and I fully believe that everyone can learn from past mistakes. As far as the "paranormal" stuff goes in general, I honestly have no feelings about the paranormal articles. It does seems to me that there are a good many articles on subjects that are either known to not be true, or just suspected as such. The point is that if they are presented as items which were reported by the media, and strive to not offer any opinion, I see no reason these articles cannot co-exist with other aspects of the encyclopedia. I agree that in the past, Dreadstar may have used edit summaries that were not overly helpful, and that he has made mistakes in the past, but there is not one of us who can say we haven't. I truly believe that Dreadstar has not only learned a significant amount from these long-past incidents, but also since then, and I'm more than sure he's also learned quite a bit during the course of what can only be described as a difficult RfA process here. I truly think that Dreadstar would be responsible, cautious, and if faced with a situation he felt could be difficult for him, he would request assistance or request another administrator handle it. Therefore, it is my opinion that despite the controversies brought up, it will be beneficial to the community to allow Dreadstar to assist Wikipedia in administrative duties. ^Ariel♥Gold 10:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
55. Support Dreadstar handled skilfully a difficult situation involving an entry where I had a particular interest. Brian Josephson 15:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Strong oppose Changed to abstain (I've changed my vote to abstain since this user has agreed to my terms above, Though I will leave this info here for other editors to judge) - This user (formerly known as User:Dreadlocke) has quite a long history of being very difficult to work with and conflating issues. There are several examples of this in the past several months which I'll elaborate on. Here he removed another editors comments because he deemed them to be "unnecessary" [29]. There is also the incident of him attempting to get into a debate about the validity of James Randi's paranormal challenge on the talk page of the John Edward article. I replied that it was not the place to engage in such a debate and called the discussion a trifling, which he interpreted as an insult and subsequently edited my post to remove the word he interpreted as insulting, [30]. While the word "trifling" means "of little importance" and have such a discussion on such a talk page was obviously of little importance, I didn't interpret it as an insult. The word might not have been the best to use, however the problem here would be his removal of words from other editors edits and assuming bad faith. He instantly assumed that the comment was an insult without ever assuming good faith. He also decided to engage in a drawn out debate about whether or not what I said actually warranted a "personal attack" which can be found here [31]. This in my opinion shows a lack of judgment. He seems to have a habit of labeling anything he disagrees with "uncivil" and erasing them, as can be shown on his talk page where he frequently removes very constructive remarks from other editors and labels them "uncivil". Examples:[32], here he removes my comment inquiring about a request for mediation concerning an article labeling me an "abusive editor" [33] and upon reposting the inquiry on his talk page a few days later, he removed it again, once again labeling me an "abusive editor" in the edit summary [34]. Those are just a few examples of such habits. He also has a history of overt edit warring which has been established pretty clearly due to a 3rr block. When his name was User:Dreadlocke he was blocked for 3 hours after violating the three revert rule. Diff [35], Blocklog for User:Dreadlocke [36]. He subsequently got into a debate with the blocking administrator disputing whether or not the block was indeed justified [37], [38], [39]. These are just a few of the many examples of bad decision making and lack of knowledge of policy exhibited by this user the last several months. This user also shows a tendency to go months at a time without making edits or making only a few edits. This brings into question his ability to be around when he is needed for arbitration matters. For instance between September and October 2006 he made only 23 edits and in the months of May and June of this year he made absolutely zero edits and seems to have disappeared until he appeared again last month making over 2,000 edits. He was a very problematic editor during the time prior to May however upon his return last month he seems to have avoided any disputes and has even engaged in "Admin Coaching" which makes one wonder about his sincerity. Assuming good faith, I will say that this user at least needs several more months of edits prior to becoming an administrator and at this time I'm going to have to strongly oppose him. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Your post concerned me enough that I've taken a good long look at the diffs & links you provided. There are some issues I read differently -- for example, his discussion with the admin about his 3RR block doesn't strike me as a "debate" about whether his block was justified so much as an explanation of his own reasoning for the edits at issue, & a good faith attempt to gain an understanding of what his error in interpreting policy was. He remained civil & respectful throughout the discussion -- it read nothing like the "poor victim me" justifications for edit warring I've seen with other people blocked for 3RR. The drawn-out debate about "trifling" was drawn out not only by him, but also by you. I do have concerns about the comment-removals you detailed, & the "abusive editor" statement in made in edit summaries in regards to comments (by you) that did not seem abusive to me... but it's not quite enough to tip me over to opposing his nomination, or even into going neutral on it, given that these instances took place many months ago (in February), & you yourself state that he "seems to have avoided any disputes" since returning to editing. It would be good, however, to have a statement from him about this. I'm not really sure why his participation in admin coaching should lead to questions about his sincerity -- admin coaching seems like a good way to have some guidance toward better understanding policies, including user-conduct policies, so that he can make a good & conscientious admin. I believe he stated himself that his periods of no-edits were during periods of extended illness, which surely admins are permitted to have (not that I'd wish extended illness on anyone). --Yksin 01:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Correction -- the explanation of absences was actually made by his nominator Fang Aili, who stated "He had 2 periods of inactivity due to being hospitalized." Not quite something I feel fair to hold against someone. --Yksin 01:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm mostly in agreement. Many of the things Wikidudeman brought up strike me as extremely minor, and without much cause for concern, but the removal/editing of other editors' comments (and justifying removing good-faith comments by calling the editor "abusive") isn't good. I'm not ready to change from support yet, but I would like to know what Dreadstar has to say about all this. --Miskwito 03:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't call frequent assumption of bad faith, edit warring, disruptive edits, and being blocked for edit warring "minor". I would call it a major cause for concern. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I discussed this with Dreadstar briefly, and as he has already posted above, it was a product of a misunderstandment of the terms of the policies about removal of messages, that he was willingly conceded, even long before this RfA. As a self-admitted mistake that he never repeated afterwards, and considering the long time since it took place, I'm fully satisfied by his explanation. Phaedriel - 11:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

1. Oppose. Looking through his contributions, I find that Dreadstar has spent a lot of his time on Wikipedia promoting one side of the paranormal issue, and I'm afraid he would use his admin powers to benefit that point of view. I'm most worried by a comment of his that makes me doubt his interpretation of reliable sources:

   "With paranormal issues, there are generally millions if not billions of people who 'believe,' and a comparative handful of scientists who write or perform experiments to counter or explain those beliefs - so if we take a "majority rules" perspctive, the scientific view loses out. Is the skeptical Wikipedia community willing to support that standard in all paranormal articles?"

   I'm reluctant to oppose on this basis, since he is apparently a very fair-minded mediator on other topics, but when it comes to paranormal topics, I am unimpressed with his conduct. He seems to end up in escalating battles that are easy to avoid. Here's one where he changed the meaning of one of his talk page contents after someone already responded, the other person changed it back, and then Dreadstar reported the other person to AN/I over WP:TALK. The misunderstanding would have been easy to resolve without escalation.

   Note that I'm not endorsing the basis for Wikidudeman's oppose above, which seems to mostly be a personal grudge, and ends with arguments that don't even make any sense ("he took a Wikibreak, and that's bad because blah blah arbitration"? "Admin coaching is insincere"? "Editcount-while-hospitalized is too low"?).

   Finally, I am unconvinced by his Q4 answer that his edit count is not inflated, especially since he has a userbox on his page boasting about his count. Though he gives VandalProof as a reason, he has only used it recently, yet he edited at the same frenetic rate in 2006, so it doesn't account for all the inflation. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 01:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

   Based on later comments by Aldebaer, I'd like to amend this to a strong oppose. It is dishonest for Dreadstar to claim that he has "always remained civil": I saw a swath of clearly uncivil edit summaries in May. In short, I do not trust Dreadstar. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

   I do agree with you. I have noticed that he has a pro-paranormal slant, though it's pretty obvious if one takes notes of his edits. I wouldn't use that in itself as a reason to oppose him as we all have our biases, as long as we don't try to insert them into articles. Though the problem is that he has on numerous occasions engaged in edit wars and disputes over his personal beliefs, which leads me to believe that he probably would not be a good administrator. He has done some good work the past several weeks but prior to his 2 month long break with 0 edits, he had a long history of disruptive edits and edit waring as well as not assuming good faith, not only not assuming good faith but also assuming bad faith on many occasions. The fact that he's been blocked for edit warring doesn't help the case either. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 01:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

   I really wish you would stop saying "disappearance" and "2-month break" in a disparaging context. Those aren't reasonable arguments against adminship. Though I have found some reasons to oppose, I think you're reaching too far to find them. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 01:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

   I don't know how "disappearance" is disparaging, I apologize if you interpret it that way, but whatever term you want to apply to his sporadic absences of 2 months at a time, Administrators need to be available for various reasons. Though as mentioned below, I wouldn't ever oppose a RFA only due to absences from editing. It should always be mentioned though. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

   I'd just like respond to the "disappearance" comments: as I mentioned in the nomination, these absences were due to hospitalization, and even if they were not the result of such unavoidable circumstances, it is no big deal for users to take breaks for whatever reason. --Fang Aili ^talk 02:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

   Administrators need to be around, especially active ones. If an Admin is a part of some arbitration, the admin needs to be able to respond and answer questions and can't take months off at a time. This user has not one but two large breaks of months at a time where he either posts a few posts or posts nothing. This alone though isn't why I oppose. If this were the only thing he'd get a strong support, but this is just one among many many problems that I see with this users edits/editing habits. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

   "Administrators need to be around" is a discredited argument. Being an admin is a completely volunteer job, and nothing is harmed when particular admins are not around. Your objection about arbitration has nothing to do with being an admin. (People tend not to end up in arbitration when they're away, whether they are admins or not.) Wikibreaks tend to be neutral to good things, so I object to you trying to claim they are bad. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 03:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

   I don't agree. Administrators are much more likely to be involved in arbcom cases than normal users simply due to the extra tools they have which can cause controversy if used incorrectly. An admin who takes months of leave at a time (for whatever reason) would need to take extra care because if an arbcom starts about something he did while he was here and he isn't here to defend his actions then that's a lot of extra trouble for the arbcom to deal with. Now, This is worth mentioning again; I am not opposing him due to his long leaves of absence. I'm only mentioning it because it's relevant. I'm opposing him because of his history of disruptive edits and constant assumption of bad faith. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 12:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

   I really object to the term of "constant assumption of bad faith", the majority of issues raised occurred 5-6 months ago, or even longer, and Dreadstar's activity since then could in no way be described as "constant assumption of bad faith". ^Ariel♥Gold 09:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

   I'm concerned about the validity of oppose arguments based on the editor's personal opinions or biases. Dreadstar specifically says in Q1, "I would like the ability to protect pages and to block 3RR or WP:NPA violators in disputes where I am not involved either as a disputant or a mediator. I would not use my admin privileges in disputes that I am involved with, I would instead seek a neutral admin’s assistance" (emphasis his). Unless there's a good reason otherwise, I don't see why you wouldnt' assume good faith here and presume that he's being truthful? (Obviously I realize that's not the only reason you're opposing) --Miskwito 03:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

   If it were just that I disagree with his point of view regarding Wikipedia content, I wouldn't use it as a reason to oppose. Dreadstar's support for the paranormal crosses the line into policy, though, and it is commonplace to oppose admin candidates when you disagree with them over policy.

   I find it a perversion of WP:RS to say that random people who believe in the paranormal have the same standing as scientists when explaining the natural world. Dreadstar has argued for interpretations of WP:NPOV and WP:RS that run counter to Wikipedia being a reputable encyclopedia. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

   That's not my view at all, I don't place random people who believe in the paranormal on the same standing as scientists. My view is actually in line with that of the ArbCom Three layer cake with frosting and the rest of the ArbCom findings and decision. Dreadstar † 04:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

   The comment from you I quoted above seems to say you do. Meanwhile, the "three layer cake with frosting" is totally irrelevant to my objections. That's only about parapsychology, a topic I never brought up. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

   Comment. I want to address your characterization of Dreadstar as someone who is "perver[ting] WP:RS through an equation in which "random people who believe in the paranormal have the same standing as scientists when explaining the natural world." This especially concerns me because your characterization of this seems to influenced other people to oppose the RfA, on what seems to me to be mistaken grounds. With respect, I think that by reading the quote from Dreadstar you provided about outside the context of the full discussion in which Dreadstar's comment was made has led to a misunderstanding about what he said & what "side" he was arguing.

   So to provide full context -- here's the complete discussion. (This is the version of Talk:Electronic voice phenomena just prior to it being archived by Martinphi on 22 Feb 2007.) The topic under discussion was whether coverage of EVP in the associated article should be primarily cultural (or, Milo H Minderbinder originally called it, "fictional"), primarily scientific, or a balanced incorporation of both POVs; and, if the last, how to strike a balance of POVs given that there was relatively little information by scientists about EVP because EVP was apparently consided too "fringe" for scientists to pay it much attention. To the extent EVP was investigated scientifically, it was alleged by some editors to be non-mainstream, & these editors questioned whether it met WP:SCIENCE standards for notability. In the context of this dicussion, Milo H Mindbinder wrote the following: Where has "the scientific community" had any response to EVP, much less a significant one? The two journals cited are ones that specialize in fringe topics, they're not mainstream scientific publications. With zero mainstream coverage, I don't see how you can argue it is anything but fringe.... To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties." If the majority view is that EVP is something that appears in reality shows and isn't supported by the scientific community, the article is required to reflect that to maintain NPOV (emphasis added).

   This is the comment Dreadstar (writing then as Dreadlocke) was replying to. Here again is the portion you quoted: With paranormal issues, there are generally millions if not billions of people who 'believe,' and a comparative handful of scientists who write or perform experiments to counter or explain those beliefs away - so if we take a "majority rules" perspective, the scientific view loses out. Is the skeptical Wikipedia community willing to support that standard in all paranormal articles? (but read the full quote; better yet, the full discussion). To me, this reads as: "Milo H Minderbinder says we need to go with the 'majority rules' perspective. But this is what the 'majority rules' perspective would mean: leaving out the scientific perspective because it's too much of a 'minority'. If those of you who are skeptics on the paranormal are going to follow that standard here, are you really willing to follow that standard in all paranormal articles on Wikipedia?" I.e., Dreadstar was arguing against following the "majority rules" perspective elucidated by Milo H Minderbinder at that time, because it would deemphasize the scientific POV as being a "minority" view.

   Later comments by Dreadstar (Dreadlocke) during this dicussion bear my analysis out. For example, As a reader, I would want to know about the details of any scientific investigations or opinions of EVP, I wouldn't want just a "fluff" article about tv shows and fictional information. I would want to read about the real deal. And The primary notability is that people believe it, or think it is possible, and not TV shows and fiction. What makes reality tv and fictional representations popular, is that underlying belief - so the scientific "real" side needs to be prominently described. That's what I believe readers would want to know about. No one is arguing that the article should not meet NPOV, it's just a matter of degree on how to include both. (But again, read the full comments & full discussion to get the full context.) Challenged by Milo H Minderbinder to source the claim that "The primary notability is that people believe it", Dreadstar did so (& here's the source he gives.)

   This satisfies me that Dreadstar is not, in fact, counting "random people who believe in the paranormal" as having the same standing as scientists with regard to the paranormal, but in fact the exact opposite -- just as he said. --Yksin 18:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

   (As a gesture of good faith, and since this RfA appears to succeed, I hereby withdraw my opposition. Some more or less valid concerns have been brought up, and I trust you will take them to heart.) I just spent an hour investigating the validity of Wikidudeman's contentions. Even though I'm a more or less regular supporter, I'm left with no choice but opposing this candidacy at this time. The candidate's behaviour at Talk:Psychic alone casts serious doubts as to coolness and WP:AGF. The valid argument that things like this happened as early as January is in equal validity countered by respective concerns over streaks of near-total absence, sudden change in behaviour and possibly some edit inflation. What tipped it over for me is the candidate's bad memory, or faulty perception, or dishonesty (each not a trait I'd favour in an admin) as evidenced in saying that he "always remained civil", which I find a doubtful statement looking through the diffs. —ˈaldǝˌbæʁ 01:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

   Oppose somewhat weakened by answer to Q5. I still don't feel totally comfortable, however. Should this request succeed, I urge you to continue your current civil course. Further, while I personally disagree with JayHenry's comment as an oppose rationale, I do see the point he's trying to make: Admins as well as editors should in my opinion come from all ages, social backgrounds, religions, ethnic backgrounds, sexual orientations, real-world places and from all corners of Wikipedia, but there is a limit to what I can wholeheartedly agree to, and defending the paranormal realm against "scientific POV-pushing" is one such thing. —ˈaldǝˌbæʁ 11:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

2. Per Rspeer. This is an encyclopedia. In an encyclopedia, the likes of John Edward do not get equal standing with science. Do not get me wrong, my support for WP:NPOV is absolute, and I've argued repeatedly not to delete articles on pseudoscience and the paranormal. But the lead of our article on psychic says, among other things, "The existence of paranormal psychic abilities is highly controversial." Wrong. It is as controversial as "the existence of Hogwarts." Carl Sagan once said, "Too much openness and you accept every notion, idea, and hypothesis—which is tantamount to knowing nothing." When I read a Wikipedia article, I still want to emerge from it with knowledge. We have an obligation—to our readers, to ourselves—of nothing less.--JayHenry 02:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

   Comment Even though I wasn't directly involved due to my surgery, my basic involvement and issues with paranormal articles were addressed by the recent Arbcom Paranormal case decision. I felt that the subjects of the articles were not being treated fairly or per Wikipedia policy. I wasn’t trying to promote the paranormal or parapsychology, I was attempting to make the articles more NPOV. The comments I made and my intentions, including the intent behind the statement quoted by Rspeer above, were pretty much well confirmed by ArbCom in their decision.

   Most of the disputes I was involved in were about wording that I felt was biased against the subject of the article, such as the use of “purported psychic” or “self-described psychic”, which was as subject of intense dispute, here are a few: [40], [41], [42]. The discussions were everywhere: [43] [44], even disputes about calling parapsychology a science.

   To me, these terms and disputes were unnecessary – and ArbCom agreed with that assessment. Now that ArbCom has ruled, those are no longer issues that I’m concerned with, even were I still inclined to engage in such discussions. Dreadstar † 04:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

   I'm sorry, but you just cited the ArbCom decision that drove User:ScienceApologist from Wikipedia. That was a dark, dark day for the project. I'm generally in support of the ArbCom, but they butchered this one. The current and embarrassing state of the article psychic is proof alone of folly. --JayHenry 05:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

   That Arbcom case in my opinion was not a very good example of a well though out and processed one. It was jumbled and complex due to dozens of users who had no previous experience with Arbcom cases adding all sorts of unrelated material and the committee had numerous cases on their hands at the time and the number of proposals in it was staggering. I think the Arbitrators were overwhelmed by all of the info. I don't agree that 90% of the decisions of that case were ever helpful to improving Paranormal articles and even at times difficult. As a matter of a fact, That case drove away other good editors as well including User:Minderbinder (who btw had also had long disputes with Dreadstar). It should also be worth nothing, I was trying for a while to get Dreadstar involved in the Arbcom and have them look at his long history of disruptive edits. The Arbcom was initially started and agreed upon due specifically to the actions of some pro-paranormal users. I eventually found a better way to resolve disputes than the Arbcom though as is evident from Parapsychology (Soon to be FA) and Homeopathy (Soon to be GA), and the arbcom did little to aid me in this. However It should definitely be noted however that the Arbcom was initially started because of pro-paranormal users disrupting various pages, and over time turned into something much more complex to the point little was done about the actions of various users. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 12:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

3. Oppose because of fears he might use his admin powers to skew debates in the paranormal realm. Maintaining a neutral point of view doesn't mean that psychics are as likely to be real as they are frauds. As an earlier contributer rightly notes, the existence of paranormal powers isn't a matter of controversy, there is simply no evidence whatsoever to substantiate any of these claims. If well meaning people look up information on wikipedia they shouldn't be left in any doubt about this. While editing to support ones point of view is fair enough, we all do it, using admin powers to do so would be entirely wrong and I don't trust this user not to do that. Sorry. Nick mallory 13:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

   Oppose after seeing the rather bizarre comment cited by rspeer which shows a fundamental misunderstanding of NPOV. I also see a confrontational attitude in many instances that would only escalate conflicts rather than resolving them. - TwoOars (Rev) 13:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

   I strike off my oppose in light of the explanations regarding the EVP talk page. Although like Skinwalker I too think that Dreadstar is misrepresenting WP:FRINGE, I believe that it is a content dispute and in the absence of evidence to suggest that Dreadstar will use sysop rights to push a POV, I can not in all honesty oppose here. However I can not support either as I still have niggling doubts about the user's understanding of NPOV and because of the confrontational attitude I mentioned above. So I abstain. - TwoOars (Rev) 18:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

4. Strong Oppose Pro-paranormal POV warriors have been disrupting many, many articles for a long time, per the diffs presented above and at the paranormal Arbcom case. To be fair, Dreadstar was not very involved in the arbcom case, but the basic misunderstanding of NPOV in the comment rspeer cited is a textbook example of the philosophy of these editors. The last thing we need is to grant one of them adminship. Skinwalker 13:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

   Update: Per Dreadstar's suggestion above, I read the comment that rspeer cited in its full context[45] and I find Dreadstar's position even scarier than before. Not only is he arguing for a very unconventional application of NPOV, he is misrepresenting WP:FRINGE as well, claiming that electronic voice phenomenon is not a fringe subject. My oppose is not based on my disagreement with the content he produces. It is based on what I perceive as a fundamental lack of policy/guideline understanding, and even if he does not use admin tools in areas of parapsychology I am concerned he will misapply policy elsewhere. Skinwalker 16:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

5. Oppose An admin candidate's private beliefs are none of my concern provided they do not bias his or her performance. But in this case I must oppose, as I feel that Dreadstar (formerly Dreadlocke)'s interpretation of NPOV has been shown to be quite slanted towards the paranormal, as in this example. His complaints about "pseudo-skeptics" also concern me. LuckyLouie 17:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
6. Oppose per Aldebaer. The candidate's opinions on specific content issues have zero bearing, and frankly, bringing them up throws doubt on the credibility of any legitimate user conduct concerns. But there are legitimate concerns as pertains to this candidate's understanding of policy (both in the letter and the spirit of the law). Most seriously, per the diffs provided here I would not describe the candidate's behavior as exemplary. We all enter into conflict, but this user seems to have egregiously flouted the fact that Wikipedia is not a battleground. VanTucky ^Talk 22:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
7. Strongly oppose, per Jay Henry and Skinwalker. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
8. Very Weak Oppose This is one of those times where I would like to see the user become an admin, but the issues raised above just make me feel you may end up making some mistakes - sorry --Ben^chat 05:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
9. Oppose, per Jay Henry, and rspeer's concerns about your ability to remain neutral and your understanding of NPOV. But mainly per the fact that if one of the opposers hadn't mentioned your editing under another name previously (User:Dreadlocke), we would never have known, as you don't admit it to it anywhere in your comments, and nor did any of the co-nominating statements. That's either incompetent or disingenuous, neither of which instils me with confidence. Neil ム 13:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

   This may or may not make a difference to you, but just as a point of information: he underwent a user name change on 12 July 2007, so all contributions in his edit history were reattributed to the second username. I.e., his full edit history is available under User:Dreadstar. (Though that doesn't affect his signature on talk pages, which may still be an issue for some people.) --Yksin 16:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

   Though when you click on his previous username (User:Dreadlocke) it says "Retired" and "Former Wikipedians". This gives the impression that the user has left Wikipedia as the name doesn't redirect to his current username. If someone were to see his disruptive edits from that name and clicked on the username they would be directed to a page that says the user is "retired" and is a "Former wikipedia" opposed to being directed to DreadStar's current userpage. Perhaps he just forgot to redirect it, but it's quite confusing and could give people the impression that they are seperate people. I myself first though that before further investigating it and checking the talk page. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

   Yksin is right about the username change. I should have mentioned the previous username, though, because of the 3-hour block on the Dreadlocke username record. Dreadstar and I talked about that block months ago, and I simply forgot about it. At the time, I didn't consider the block a "big deal" because it occured months ago, it was an isolated incident, and seemed to stem from a miscommunication or misunderstanding (not a desire to edit war). Therefore it just didn't stick in my mind. Also, when I double-checked for blocks just before submitting this nom, I found that the usual path for checking was not availabe: I went to User:Dreadlocke intending to click on "User contributions" in the toolbox, then "Block log", but "User contributions" is not there. So I figured that any blocks had been transfered to Dreadstar's record. This was a misunderstanding of the username change function on my part, as well as just forgetting about the conversation I had with Dreadstar. I apologize for this oversight. --Fang Aili ^talk 17:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

   It wasn't just "your" oversight. He could have pointed it out as well. Whether this is intentional or simply the fact that he forgot about it, It gives more questions to think about when contemplating his adminship. Though you bring up a good point. By not mentioning his previous username, People aren't able to see his record of having been blocked for edit warring. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

   That's very weird. I had thought that the block log would have transferred over along to the new username along with edit history -- so I misunderstood how it worked too. I was finally able to find his edit history by going to my own special contributions page & clicking on the block link, then replacing my username in the Title field so it reads "User:Dreadlocke". Then click on "Go" and his block history as Dreadlocke is displayed (one three-hour block on 19:08, 23 February 2007 by User:William M. Connolley for 3RR on John Edward). --Yksin 17:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

10. Oppose the edits flagged by Wikidudeman are troubling. The candidate's response to question 1 indicates that s/he intends to use the tools for vandalism fighting, but the flagged interactions seem to indicate that s/he doesn't know how to tell vandalism from strenuous debate. I also fear that s/he has a rather thin skin which is not a good quality for an admin: we have to endure sometimes quite nasty comments and second-guessing with civility and some good humor. Perhaps the most troubling of the edits is the deletion on discussion page; what struck me was that it wasn't deleted in the heat of the debate but 3 weeks later. I cannot exactly put my finger on why this troubles me so much - is it evidence of harboring a grudge? or having to have the last word? or deleting something unsavory after people are noticing it are no longer paying attention because the debate has moved on? I don't know but it to me is really troublesome and none of the simple explanations is good. I really fear that giving him/her the tools will ultimately spawn an RFARB to take them away. Carlossuarez46 17:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
11. Oppose RfA was once a too intimidating place. I, for one, believe that it has now swung too much in the other direction. I will not reiterate every troubling aspect of this candidacy, but I have no confidence that at this moment, this editor can be trusted to wield the mop credibly. Xiner (talk) 19:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

    I strongly oppose Dreadstar's nomination. His "performance" editing the ESADE entry is a depressing one and hardly inspires confidence. One of the qualifications for an editor must surely be knowledge of the subject matter and Dreadstar glibly admits that he has "zero interest" in it. While enthusiasm may be a necessary condition for this post, it is hardly a sufficient one. Dreadstar has only proven his inability to make sensible use of the powers he has acquired - what point is there in conferring even more on him? Deedstar 22:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

    Is your "zero interest" quote referring to this edit in which Dreadstar discusses with an admin your disruptive editing of the article you named, through such practices as persistently adding unsourced critical content? not to mention self-published sources (which are considered unreliable per WP:RS) as detailed at User talk:Deedstar? Looks to me like he was defending the wiki against your disruptive editing. --Yksin 22:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

    Seems like an obvious WP:SPA, blocked for username block as well. Jaranda ^{wat's sup Sports!} 23:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

    (ec) Dreadstar's correct approach, politely informing you of the many policies you were breaking with your edits at ESADE notwithstanding, I wish to note that the user above has a total of 11 edits, three of them to this RfA; and judging from its contributions history, it seems highly likely that it's a SPA. The similarity between this username and Dreadstar's must also be noted. Phaedriel - 23:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

    Procedural question: since Deedstar has been blocked for username, is this a valid vote? Note also that this user somewhat disrupted this RfC page too, by twice placing his/her vote in the wrong section of the page. (First time a mistake maybe; second time seemed pretty purposeful.) --Yksin 23:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

    And notice that Deestar seems to be a parody of Dreadstar. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

    I think that's why Jaranda blocked him. Based on this, Deedstar created that account after doing SPA editing of the ESADE article from an anon IP, & being cautioned by Dreadstar about innappropriate edits. --Yksin 00:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC) -- Also apparently a sock of Nelorippalenga (talk · contribs), prior IP edits as 83.41.21.10 (talk · contribs). --Yksin 00:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC) -- And what looks like a couple of new socks, As Tidies She (talk · contribs) & ESADE Class of 89 (talk · contribs). Think I'd better make a sock report. --Yksin 00:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

    I've opened a sockpuppetry case against this user; see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Deedstar. I'm still hoping for an answer to my procedural question: is this user's vote valid? --Yksin 01:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

    I indented it. Whether it's valid is up to the closing bureaucrat.--Chaser - T 03:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

12. Oppose as per arguments by Neil. AKAF 08:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

    Oppose - Although I have no sympathy with Deedstar's way of going about things (slighting Dreadstar's user name is hardly good manners, nor is poking fun at his yen for the paranormal), I have to admit he has a point. While I believe there is no single clinching argument for opposing Dreadstar's canditature, the case for turning him down is pretty conclusive when one puts the points together. Without attempting to exhaustively summarize the objections raised earlier, these might be stated as: (1) apparent ignorance of Wiki policies; (2) a strong pro-paranormal stance (anti or pro - it makes no difference, it's still POV); (3) evidence of lack of civility, good humor and knowledge; (4) a gift for escalation; (5) evidence of removing traces of blocks imposed for edit-warring. Put baldly, why take the risk when there is no shortage of excellent candidates for this position? Gareth 1985 15:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)> Comment struck out by me after blocking the account as a single-purpose account and highly likely sockpuppet account of Deedstar. Pascal.Tesson 16:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC) I resent the false inference that I have anything to do with Deedstar - evidently I am unfortunate in sharing the same Internet provider but since the Spanish market is virtually a Telefonica monopoly, there is little I can do about it. Choosing another provider is simply not a reasonable alternative. I have therefore re-instated my comments. I should like to take this opportunity to make a further observation - as an assiduous user of Wikipedia, I have a legitimate interest in who runs it. None of my arguments have been refuted and I believe I am as entitled as the next man to receive a reasoned response, admin. privileges or no. This is Gareth 1985 22:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC) Out of courtesy to Yskin, I have left his mistaken conclusions intact. To err is human, to forgive divine.

    Gareth 1985 (talk · contribs) is a new username with four edits to its credit -- all of them to this RfA. I'm finding it hard to assume good faith with this vote, & suspect this user of also being a sockpuppet of Deedstar (talk · contribs) whose other sockpuppets (at least those who were known) were all blocked last night. --Yksin 15:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

    See also Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Deedstar (2nd) -- Gareth 1985 & another new account that edited at ESADE have both been indef blocked as probable socks of Deedstar. --Yksin 17:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

    Oh well, here we go again. Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Deedstar (3rd) --Yksin 23:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

    Just to note that over two days later, this latest suspected incarnation of Deedstar has still only made one edit -- to this RfA. (See hidden note on the sock report for why it hasn't closed yet.) -- Yksin 15:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

13. Oppose. Too many concerns for comfort expressed above. Zaxem 01:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
14. Oppose. Weak oppose Not convinced the editor would be an even-handed adminstrator. Cardamon 04:22, 15 September 2007. Changed to weak oppose. Cardamon 00:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)(UTC)
15. Strong Oppose - Due to my past experiences with the user. He and another user came within a hair's breadth of becoming parties to an arbcomm request based on flagrant misrepresentations, mistruths, and just a general mess of POV pushing, which I (and others) ended up just disengaging from. (I'm not linking to the discussions intentionally. It's just not worth dredging up the past, except to explain my oppose. Besides, it's spread out over several user talk pages, several article talk pages, and the AN and AN/I boards.) In hindsight, it seems to me that there was more than a little of an attempt at gaming of the system by a user who obviously was trying to. I just have sincere doubts about this user as an administrator. - jc37 08:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral - Somewhat convinced by Wikidudeman's comments, but not enough to oppose. I think contesting a questionable block, while not really productive, is certainly understandable. I think Dreadstar was calling the kettle back slightly in discussions like this one, but I think that's pretty minor. I'm most concerned with the removal of comments on talk pages that Wikidudeman outlined, as I think most of those instances were not clear bad-faith comments and attempting to silence editors can be taken very negatively. Still, I think it's relatively minor. Candidate might make a valuable administrator -- hard to predict preemptively. — xDanielx

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.

Pedro

(96/1/2); ended 08:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Pedro (talk · contribs) - Face it, guys. We all know England are going to lose the Rugby World Cup. I feel so sorry for Pedro, he'll be so cut when my country owns his. As some sort of compensation, here's an RfA nom! Pedro is a kickass vandalfighter, with 90 AIV reports. He also frequents ANI, the help desk, and UAA. On top of that, he has done some article work, and his talk page edit count indicates a bit of article collaboration as well. Pedro is an excellent candidate (allbeit a pom), and I'm sure the Australian editors will agree that the least we could do considering he's gonna get owned in the Rugby World Cup is give him adminship. Ladies and gentlemen, Pedro! Dihydrogen Monoxide 02:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Co-nomination by Ryan Postlethwaite - Well, what can I say? Pedro has come on leeps and bounds since his first RfA. At that point, I opposed, I just didn't think he was ready or had a full grasp of how things worked, well, I'm pleased to say he's worked his ass off since then and is now a great wikipedian. He's very active on the help desk showing a tendency to help newcomers - a great attribute for any aspiring administrator who must not appear to bite. He's a great AfD contributor giving firm policy reasons for his verdict on articles, he's do a great job at closing these. During vandal fighting, he always warns appropriately after reverting giving users every effort to change their ways before receiving a block. His mainspace work is mainly gnomish tasks, but hell - if we didn't have someone doing that, we'd be far less credable. All in all, I feel Pedro is definately suited to being an admin, and will be an asset to the team. I ask that you support this candidate so we can give him the tools. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Co-nomination by Maxim — I was consdering nominating Pedro, and I looked though your contributions, etc, etc., doing all the steps that a prospective nominator does. But I checked his talkpage last. And I was beaten once again. Not letting my notes go to waste, I'm co-nominating. I was impressed; Pedro is a helpful user at the help desk, and he provides useful insight at AfD. Mainspace-wise, Pedro improves some articles, too, as well as properly reverts and warn vandals. He has authored 2 DYKs. His contributions are nicely balanced, and he is a productive user who deserves the tools, and we would from Pedro being a sysop. Maxim_(talk) 14:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Co-nomintaion by The Random Editor - Ladies, and Gentlemen, Boys and Girls of all ages, I proudly present for discussion, Pedro. Interestingly enough, I originally came across Pedro at WP:RFA. Ever since then, I have been watching him and his edits across Wikipedia. Pedro intially joined Wikipedia back in July 2006, so for those of you with experience concerns that should help expel them. He has already been very active in administrator noticeboards such as Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, and the reform of WP:RFA system where on it's talk page at WT:RFA he has close to 110 edits. I could honestly go on and on about why Pedro should be promoted, but insteading of boring you with my overtly long speech, I will simply cut to the chase. So for your consideration here is Pedro!!! --Thε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 19:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Co-nomination by Politics rule - It is with great honor I can Co-nominate Pedro. I first met Pedro during his first RFA. I believed then, and I still do, that he deserves to be an admin. Pedro has been with us since July 2006, and since then has amassed over 4500 edits, and many edits to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I am very outspoken, so I will get to the point, Pedro is a good editor who deserves to be an admin. So it is with great honor that I am able to help present Pedro! Pat^{Politics rule!} 22:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Co-nomination by Hirohisat - Just in time. I first saw Pedro on Rfa a few months ago, and was very impressed by his comments, which showed his well understanding of the policies. Although not much of a mainspace contributer, with over 4500 edits (just to let you know), he has tons (really, tons) of contributions against vandalism with a fairly large number to AIV. Look through his contributions, and you'll see his excellent work. It is with great honor to co-nom Pedro. --Hirohisat ^Kiwi 08:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: With thanks to my nominators I accept. Pedro |  Chat  08:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: Per my previous RFA my main area of work would be WP:CSD. My "preferences" edit count indicates a difference from the Interiot tool of about 300. Editors may wish to peruse User:Pedro/CSD errors. This is based on the number of "advise user of SD tag" comments I have made, and indeed where that tag was wrong. I monitor these things purely to ensure my understanding of policy is correct. As far as I am aware other than the three items indicated there, the only other CSD tag I applied that was not speedied was declined by the relevant admin and was subsequently deleted via a prod. Although CSD is becoming well attended there are still often backlogs. I firmly believe that attack and copy-vio pages need removing quickly. I also believe that the spirit not the letter of WP:BITE works here as well. When someone has spent an hour creating an article about their upcoming band it is dispiriting to see it deleted. If it then hangs around with an sd tage for two hours (whilst the editor continues to amplify it) and is then deleted it must be far more dispiriting. Better to remove content that is clearly not right for Wikipedia yet retain the editor. The other area would be WP:AIV. Although I feel that few backlogs exist here I believe that I can certainly keep it tip top. From probably 80 (my count says 90 but there will be times I missed a sig or ammended an entry) reports not a single one has been declined by the blocking admin. I do beleive blocks are preventative. When not sure I prefer to wait or consult. This may help - an article was speedied twice, I tried to give advice to the editor but was ignored and he reposted the article under a marginally different title - see User talk:Adeiteam for the works. I approached User:NawlinWiki for advice, as I was not keen to go to AIV as some time had passed since the contribution, however I did feel that maybe a block might have been in order due to the nature of it, and appearing to be a single purpose account. The end result was a level four warning, and I agreed that this was probably best. I have also worked at the help desk, and there have been some times where the admin buttons could also have helped. There are some great admins already over there, so this would purely be supporting them and the non administrator editors to perform mop tasks.

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

A: At my last RFA there was genuine concern about my lack of article writing. I said at the time, and still maintain, that I am not a great article writer. I do however believe that some article writing or contribution to articles is important to understand the admin role, and of course Wikipedia is built on articles! Since my last RFA I have had two "did you know" articles - now let's be honest these are hardly FA or even GA works, but they are encyclopedic and they re-affirm my (then new) belief that admins must have some experience in the front end as well as the back end. I have also expanded and worked on a number of other articles, mainly covered by wiki project England. Of course my main contribution has still been vandal reversion, work at XFD and basically keeping the place clean. Dull, I know, but as we near 2,000,000 articles and the 8th most visited internet site we must be honest to ourselves and acknowledge (IMHO) that janitors are as needed as those fantastic article writers and researchers who create our best work. In addition, I have recently started at the help desk - as I now feel my knowledge of policy and procedure are sound I am delighted to contribute there. We must remember that editors asking questions there are potential administrators, 'crats or stewards of this project and must be given the respect and time they deserve.

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

A: Being regularly active at CSD I get a reasonable number of where has my page gone questions. I also get the odd blanking or "Pedro is a *x*y*x" instead of my user page. If editors are willing to discuss things I'm all ears (or user talk pages ears!). If not then WP:TEA helps if it bothers me (which it doesn't to be honest) and trying to keep WP:DFTT in mind is also a winner. In sum, why get stressed? Anyone with something genuinely positive to contribute will meet half (three quarters/ sevent eights) way, and it can be discussed and resolved. Those not prepared to discuss, consulte and find consensus are generally not the kind of Wikipedians who will further this work.

Questions from Matthew

4. What is your opinion of IAR and when do you believe it should be exercised?

A.1) WP:WIARM refers. 2) WP:CCC refers. In the early days IAR had a lot more value. These days it has less, but is still valuable. Rule is semantic. The five pilllars are rules. Increasingly as Wikipedia develops they become more important whereas we can recognise that other ideas may change. We all put in our free time for the end game of providing the sum of all human knowledge. What is worthwhile in that summation is, of course, hotly debated. But if we do not have a set of guidelines and precedents in how that knowledge is presented then this project will fall apart. So whilst IAR is valuable in keeping the fluidity of this work, without reference to it's mannner of presentation to the end user it will become destructive not constructive.

5. Could you please show me an example of article development you have participated in?

A.Itchen Navigation, Bishopstoke, Twyford School and Talk:English people. My main space entries are weak in comparison to many others. However I believe I have an understanding of encyclopedic content that would help me use administrator tools effectivley as required.

6. When is somebody classed as a vandal and what measures would you take to stop a vandal (please specify block lengths, etc.)

A.1) Allmost all contributions should be seen as good faith and/or tests on the first edit. Sticking "cock" into an article is vandalism in the communities' eyes but equally a chance to greet a new member. Deletion on the first and indeed second edit is not vandalism. Repetition is the key. We have recently had a bug issue with regards to warning on IP addresses and things like that must be considered. A block is ideal with an IP or username repeatedly editing an article or realted article(s) and they are active. In most other cases a block could be punitive - somthing we should steer clear of. It is important to remember that most vandals to Wikipedia are "hit and run" - a reprimand will often stop vandalism. Should it not be sufficent to just warn then a wise decision should be made, based on such things as editing patern, length of editing, user name, articles edited and many more. A perceived vandal is an opportunity to greet a new editor. With regard to block lengths this is almost impossible to answer without specifics. Generaly however, the kay point is that all blocks must be done to prevent harm. Indef blocking of usernames should only be done when an account is clearly single purpose and obviously not going to help this work. For most other cases blocks of 24 hours or less are more appropriae.

Optional questions from Eddie:

7. Could you provide a link to an edit conflict in which you were involved?

A.[46] on English people removed for the second time and then discussed here. Although conflicts are a part of wikipedia (and could well be argued to make it stronger) I felt that this had a hidden agenda hence my double reversion.

8. What do you think of Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall?

A. No Issues. I would be happy to add my name should this current request be approved by the community.

Essay question from JayHenry:

9. Some people feel that RFA has become ridiculously cliquey. Discuss.

A.Hi JayHenry. Well, that's a goodie - though I did note your edit summary [47].There are two approaches to this essay at this time. Given your edit summary and that fact that you asked the question at my RfA one interpretation could be "You've got six co-noms which has slightly annoyed some people and you're allways round RFA - how does that affect your RfA". The other option is the more wider issue of RfA "buddies" - e.g. a perhaps unspoken sense of "!vote for me I'll !vote for you", or a general "we're all out to get adminship and by hanging around in the same gang any individual will better their chances".

So let me deal with my situation, briefly, first. Six co-noms may well look like "bad form" - however I wasn't aware we were playing cricket. This is a serious process to ask to gain tools that require trust to be granted. If six editors wish to put in nomination statements then that is really up to them. I did not solicit them - indeed as explained below three people who had offered to nominate prior to the creation of this RfA did not do so. The thrust would be is this a bad thing ? To gain adminship for reasons of it's own is something I find morally wrong. I want a couple of buttons to help out further. I know I can be trusted, the point of RFA is for the community to decide that based on my contributions I am trustworthy. Note, I say based on my contributions. Every RFA contains the words If you are unfamiliar with the nominee.... There is a potential here, following the instructions as laid out, to say "Oh well, I do know them, so I don't need to review their contribution history.". This is a bad thing. However human nature is human nature. If we see a name at RfA that we have had positive personal interaction with regularly is there harm in supporting without reviewing contributions? I think yes, but that does not mean everyone feels the same. And indeed I have a belly button. Would I perhaps "overlook" a minor issue in the contrib. history if I had other positive dealings? Of course I would. I'd be a liar to say otherwise.

To move out to the bigger picture; if there is a clique is this a bad thing? On the face it, of course a clique is bad. However we are a community, and as such we will act like one. The fundamental strength of Wikipedia is collaboration. And with collaboration comes community, and with community comes closer ties between the individuals of that community. And there lies the rub. There must be no cabal. We must support or oppose (and I'm talking about everything here XFD, FPC, RFA etc.) based on our own opinion, not that of others. This is essential to our integrity.

But how one's opinion is formed may well be through interaction with others rather than cold logic. And this is good. Why? Because we can change our minds, because we can look at the view of our peers and colleagues, because we can move view point, because we respect collaboration, diversity and others. So, whilst a clique is undesirable, a cabal unacceptable, collaboration and mutual respect can only be positive. It is what makes this work so good, and why we are all proud to be Wikipedians. Pedro |  Chat  08:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

General comments

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

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/Pedro
• Requests for adminship/Pedro 2

• Links for Pedro: Pedro (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. Wikipedia policies regarding civility still apply during RFA. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Pedro before commenting.

Discussion

• I'm sorry, but If I see any "Vote For Pedro" jokes I'm going to snap.. ;) Cheers, Dfrg.msc 09:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • How about vote for Pedro.msc? --D_arkF_alls ^talk 10:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
    • That does it. (For those cultural dinosaurs see here' and here.) Dfrg.msc 11:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
      • What about !Vote for Pedro? :-) --_{Boricuaeddie is now} Agüeybaná 23:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
        • • Already been done. Dihydrogen Monoxide 06:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
            • Here comes WP:100, any day now and we should hit it. I'm talking about this RFA of course. --Thε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 23:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Regarding the multiple nominations I have commented on the talk page Pedro |  Chat  07:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Support

1. Strong support as co-nom. Ryan Postlethwaite 08:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
2. Naturally. If Pedro is to admin, then Wikipedia is to better Wikipedia. Makes no sense... By the way - got enough co-noms Pedro? ;) -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
3. Strong support as co-nom. --Hirohisat ^Kiwi 08:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
4. Pedro has learned a lot since his previous RfA, and he is definitely ready to take on all administrator duties. Sebi _[talk] 08:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
5. Dang, that's a lot of co-nominations! (say she with an envious tone because she'd like to be one) :) Phaedriel - 08:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

   Nothing compared to your request Phaedriel :) 10 co-noms and 271 supports counted... --D_arkF_alls ^talk 08:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

6. Glad to see you dumped Husond in his co-nom :) --D_arkF_alls ^talk 08:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

   Yes, I hope is break was very relaxing as I don't think he'll be impressed.... Pedro |  Chat  08:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

7. Strong Support (edit conflict) I have been waiting for this... Jmlk17 08:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
8. Hopefully I beat some noms support. Dihydrogen Monoxide 08:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

   Delightful nom Dihydrogen... Of course everyone knows England will get the wooden spoon. --D_arkF_alls ^talk 08:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

   Dihydrogen, remind me again who the World Cup holders are? — iridescent (talk to me!) 08:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

   Irisdescent, remind me again what rank England is in the RWC? Was it #7? And Australia's #2 right? --D_arkF_alls ^talk 09:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

9. Support Ordinarily I'd oppose due to a lack of experience with articles - I've always believed sysops shouldn't have the power to delete other editors' contributions until they realise for themselves how hard it is sticking to policy all the time - but I think every decision you've made demonstrates you're trustworthy & do have a clear understanding of policy — iridescent (talk to me!) 08:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
10. Support It is time to give this user the mop. A great editor as well. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 09:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
11. Support - super job. Good luck. The Rambling Man 09:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
12. Strong Support - of course! I see this guy's name all over the place! Including giving the most excellent advice on people's RfAs. Everything looks fine. He knows what he's doing. A very fine candidate. Honestly, a few weeks ago, I actually did think Pedro was an admin. :-) Lradrama 09:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
13. Support Dang Skippy! Dfrg.msc 09:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
14. Support Why not? --Chris  G  10:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
15. Support great noms, great user who goes above and beyond the call of duty to AGF, be civil, and help others. Mainspace, so what... an admin who knows policy and diplomacy is a great asset to the community. Plus, with Napoleon Dynamite, how can I not !vote for Pedro?! :) ~Eliz81^(C) 10:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
16. Support - civil and helpful editor with sufficient experience. Addhoc 10:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
17. Support - good answers, especially to question 1. The WP experience shows an excellent understanding of policy. The mainspace count could do with work but there is nothing to suggest this is someone who can't spot good or bad content or will get an itchy trigger finger with the deletion buttons. Euryalus 10:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
18. Si, claro! - FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
19. Support Looks a goodie. --Dweller 11:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
20. Strong Support As co-nom. Darn, a lot of people beat me! Pat^{Politics rule!} 12:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
21. Support - As co-nom. Ooooh, Husond going to be mad when he sees you left him in the dust. --Thε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 13:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
22. Support as I did last time. But I am mildly nauseated by the number of co-noms, the supporters that support him only because he makes comments at rfa (although I do agree he that he does do his work when he comments), and the general bonhomie, desk-thumping and back-patting orgy that we seem to be having here. This is not some popularity contest. There is already a trend at RfA to blindly vote when there is a good set of nominators, with the reasoning "If such good nominators found him suitable for the job, he must be." We don't need any more of that silliness. Anyway, none of this is Pedro's fault; it's the others should have more sense. I'd be surprised if more than half of the supporters of this RfA actually go through Pedro's contributions instead of just "running into him often at RfA" or seeing "his name pop up all over the place" or better yet "I trust the nominators". - TwoOars (Rev) 13:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

    But I do trust the nominators. What's the issue? They are all people with experience at RfA, who know what it takes to make a good admin. Walton^One 17:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

    It doesn't (or shouldn't) matter who the nominators are. The candidate should be assessed based only on his or her own edit history. And the RfA commentators should do their work, actually going through the contributions. If we are going to just support a candidate because we "trust the nominator", we might as well do away with this entire farce called RfA. Let us get the bureaucrats (whom we all trust apparently) to nominate and promote admins themselves and we can all go and do more useful things. Let us just assume that the nominators are doing all the checking for us and we trust the nominators, ergo, we trust the candidate. - TwoOars (Rev) 18:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

23. Support - I agree that all the co-noms are overkill, but I won't hold that against Pedro, who I have observed making consistently well thought out and helpful contributions to Wikipedia. I believe he'd be a fine admin.--Kubigula (talk) 13:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
24. Support, as I thought you were an admin. By the way, Dihydrogen Monoxide, first The Random Editor, and now Pedro! Your noms are awesome. J-ſtan ^Talk_Contribs 14:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
25. Support excellent editor, lots of experience. Melsaran (talk) 14:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
26. Support as before. I don't know Pedro but I see his good work all over the place. The one time I discussed something with him I was impressed with his attitude and civility. Much as I prefer a candidate with lots of articles under his belt, it's not a deal breaker in this case; he can be trusted with the mop. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 14:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
27. Support per nom Review of talk pages shows editor to be thoughtful, patient and insightful. Although main space edits could be higher, I believe the editor understands policy well enough to use the tools and has the temperament and common sense to avoid getting into difficulties. We cannot all be great writers. Yes, we are writing an encyclopedia. However, for the encyclopedia to be credible and useful, we must sometimes glean non constructive articles. He will help us do that. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
28. Support. OK, maybe more mainspace work would be nice, but I see zero chance of misusing the tools so I'm supporting. There's plenty of room for admins who can support the great article writers. Chaz ^Beckett 15:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
29. Support Kind and civil fellow, well-rounded experience -- the exact disposition needed in an admin. Xoloz 15:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
30. Oppose Keeps dropping crumbs on the keyboard while editing Wikipedia. <-- That's what's gonna happen the next time you dump me along with my insanely boring and unsexy nomination. This time I'll support merely for the sake of your excellent qualifications for becoming an outstanding admin. Húsönd 15:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
31. Support - My interactions have always been positive, and I do not believe this user will misuse the tools. That said, Pedro knows well my feelings about multiple co-noms: frankly, it drives me nuts. I will not, however, allow the actions of other editors to influence my support !vote on this RfA. I will, again (as I have before) go on record against a ton of co-noms. I think one or two is about the max number I'd like to see. But I digress... as regards this RfA, of course I support Pedro - I trust him totally and think he'll do a damned fine job with the mop. I don't know why we'd punish anyone like that, but if he wants it, heaven help him, and give it to him. - Philippe | Talk 16:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
32. Weak Support. The candidate's encyclopedia building contributions aren't particularly strong, but he has made an honest effort to create and (modestly) improve some articles. This effort, coupled with the candidate's other contributions to WP, is enough to merit admin status. Majoreditor 16:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
33. Strong Support Pedro has always been kind and helpful at the Help Desk and his contributions attest to his keen understanding of policy. This comment on his last RfA definitely confirms that he is not out simply to get the tools, but has an honest interest in helping Wikipedia: "I have stated repeatedly this RfA should pass or fail on my contribution history alone, and whether it shows I am trustworthy with the tools, and whether I will get good use of them. I would encourage all editors in Support to consider if they have made those comments solely on popularity and if so switch to oppose or neutral. To pass RFA through popularity alone undermines this process, and will not further wikipedia." Bravo! Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
34. Support I can't think of a reason to oppose. Seems civil and has enough experience. -- GDonato (talk) 16:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
35. Support I figured I'd comment on the user, not the noms :P User always seems civil, does good CSD work, and, seems to work well with others. I see no reason not to trust this user SQL^{(Query Me!)} 17:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
36. Strong support fine user. Acalamari 17:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
37. Support - Pedro is exactly the kind of admin we want. Civil, communicative, thoughtful, with experience in a variety of areas. I supported him last time, and I believe he's proved time and time again that he is admin material. Walton^One 17:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
38. Support I've been waiting for this. I've seen him help those less skilled at editing than himself and he's always polite--Phoenix 15 17:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
39. Support Experienced, level-headed; answers to questions show he understands policy and being an admin, at the same time he's not power-hungry. Also I have no problems with the myriad co-nominators. Roadmr (t|c) 18:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
40. Support in spite of the patently silly number of co-noms. Pedro is a good editor who will be an asset as an administrator. I must say I agree with much of what TwoOars said above though. Will (aka Wimt) 18:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
41. Support Mainspace edits vs RfA participation is a little unbalanced, in my opinion, but the vandal fighting and AfD participation show a need for the tools. Personally, I think the "requirements" for successful RfAs is getting ridiculous and I see no reason to oppose an editor that would most likely use the tools constructively. LaraLove♥ 18:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
42. Support he has been active in CSD - and his deleted edits show significant contribution there - I see no reason not to give him the mop. Buena suerte. Carlossuarez46 18:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
43. Support mainspace contributions are a bit thin but he should do fine as an admin, Pascal.Tesson 19:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
44. Support, thought he passed the last RfA. Wizardman 19:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
45. Support. Qualified candidate, no issues or concerns for me. Newyorkbrad 19:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
46. Silliness over co-noms apart, six is ridiculous...I'm not wildly enthusiastic, but don't see compelling reasons as to why not. Moreschi ^Talk 19:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
47. Weak Support - I went back and forth on this for a while in my mind. This RFA with all of its co-noms is a bit jarring, and I don't feel confident in his mainspace contributions. However, I think Pedro will improve Wikipedia overall, rather than damaging it.--Danaman5 20:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
48. Support -- This user will apply the tools thoughtfully, and intelligently. In a perfect world, everyone should have tools and they should only be taken away because of misuse. Unfortunately, we can't do that because of the damage that is possible, so we have to settle for this instead. Opposing because there were too many co-nominations is silly, and requiring some arbitrary level of mainspace writing for adminship seems contrary to the spirit of adminship -- namely, that it's no big deal and everyone should have tools. Opposes for reasons totally unrelated to actual use of the tools seem contrary to this ideal. --Haemo 20:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
49. Support Having personally poked at this guy, I've seen how he can remain civil and rational. More importantly his signature is kewl, dood. the_undertow ^talk 20:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
50. Support Pedro will definately make a good admin. Captain panda 20:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
51. Strong Support--U.S.A. (talk contribs) 20:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
52. Strong Support Per nom. Pedro has been an invaluable to Wikipedia itself, and sincerely deserves the mop by now.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Perfect Proposal (talk • contribs) 21:35, 10 September 2007

    I think you forgot to sign. No worries, though. I've forgotten to sign tons of times.--U.S.A. (talk contribs) 21:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

    I've tagged it.--U.S.A. (talk contribs) 21:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

53. Ach, why not? Seems to be ready and trustable. —AldeBaer 22:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
54. Support No serious concerns... ♠TomasBat 22:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
55. Support - Trustworthy and committed to the project. (!Vote for Pedro.) -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 23:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
56. !Vote for Pedro - trustworthy, user-friendly, and hard-working editor, as demonstrated by his excellent contributions. I strongly believe in the importance of quality mainspace editing for admin candidates, which this user admittedly lacks, but Pedro's other work neutralizes all of my concerns. --_{Boricuaeddie is now} Agüeybaná 23:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
57. Support as a steady editor, no problems. I see co-noms as a strength. Bearian 23:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
58. Support - While during my RFA Pedro initially voted against me for handing out barnstars to a number of people (many of whom were frequenters of RFA's) which he had interpreted as canvasing support or possibly bribing editors for support, which he admitted wasn't assuming good faith as I hand out barnstars copiously to anyone who deserves them and I had been frequenting RFA's at the time a lot so I saw a lot of deserving editors. He eventually changed his opposition to neutral though, however a lot of people decided to oppose me thereafter basing their oppositions on his comments. I eventually withdrew my RFA due to the fact that I didn't want to become an administrator with anywhere below 80% support. Afterwards Pedro was very apologetic and I can't hold one incident against him while his vandal fighting and other activities are very different from that single incident. I'm therefore going to support his RFA because I don't believe that he will abuse the admin tools, though I do believe that he should work on assuming good faith in the future. I also have reservations about his almost 100% support of RFA's even with people who obviously aren't ready to have the admin tools. I also agree with other editors that Pedro must improve his Mainspace edits, This is an encyclopedia and vandal fighting is only a small fraction of the work that needs to be done. Most of Pedro's edits seem to be either vandalism fighting or RFA's. While vandalism fighting is important, Many of Pedro's RFA edits seem to be "moral supports" for people who clearly aren't ready for adminship, which in my opinion isn't very productive. I suppose that supporting people who don't have a snowballs chance in hell just for the sake of making them feel better knowing that they won't become administrator might sound like a nice thing to do, I do not believe that it is a good way to use ones time on Wikipedia. I believe that supports should only be provided if the supporter believes that 1. the individual in question is prepared to use the administrator tools and 2. the individual in question is unlikely to abuse such tools. I am offering my support for this candidate based on the aforementioned criteria. I believe that this user does indeed have enough experience to become administrator and I have no reason to believe that this user will abuse the administrator tools. Though this user does need to work on some aspects of his time spent on Wikipedia as well as attitudes towards other aspects, I see no reason why this can't be done as an administrator as the work which needs to be done isn't vast enough (in my opinion) to hinder his administrator abilities. While spending most of ones time on Vandalism fighting or RFA's isn't my ideal use of time on Wikipedia, though no doubt both are fairly important, I don't see how either could hinder his ability to work as an administrator. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

    Wow, that's one of the longest support statement's I've seen in an RfA.--U.S.A. (talk contribs) 02:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

    I've seen longer... --D_arkF_alls ^talk 06:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

    Wikidudeman, thank you. I shall certainly take all comments on board from this RfA, but your well reasoned and expanded argument is particularly appreciated - and not because of a support when I opposed you as detailed above, although that certainly demonstrates your good faith. I thank you for your time spent crafting this, and wether this RfA passes or fails I look forward to collaborating with yourself again in the future. Very Best. Pedro |  Chat  07:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

    It will definitely pass. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

    (Response to Darkfalls)Yeah, that statement by Gurch is probraly the longest. This would be the second or third. Quite impressive.--U.S.A. (talk contribs) 11:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

59. Support. bibliomaniac15 15 years of trouble and general madness 00:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
60. Support, I actually had thought he was an admin already, but I've seen him edit in a number of places and they have always greatly benefitted Wikipedia. Wikipedia would greatly benefit with more users like him around. On a side note, I was about to make a "Vote for Pedro" reference before reading the discussion near the top. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 01:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
61. Support--Oxymoron⁸³ 05:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
62. Support since Pedro offers us his protection... but no more bloody co-noms please! 6 is absolutely farcical. ~ Riana ⁂ 06:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

    Technically, I haven't co-nommed yet ;) Dihydrogen Monoxide 06:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

63. support Good editor. Six co-noms is a bit excessive though. --Hdt83 ^Chat 07:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
64. Support, I should have watchlisted this page. But I don't like so many co-noms. @pple complain 08:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
65. Support - you winz the longest-nom-list award! Wow :) Still, great editor with a good knowledge of policy. Should be just fine! - Alison ☺ 10:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
66. Support (grudgingly). I have no reservations about Pedro's ability to a competent admin. That said I think the number of con-noms is ridiculous - it makes this process look like a popularity contest which we should be at pains to make sure it does not become. I have never read so many additional noms to learn so little more about a candidate. Guys - just support the candidate - feel free to use words like "strong" or such like if you wish to convey more than your usual level of support for an RfA candidate - but most of those "co-noms" could easily have been made down here and not up there. WjBscribe 11:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
67. Support ... he wasn't one already? (VOTE FOR PEDRO!) Kwsn(Ni!) 14:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
68. Support - Good answer, Pedro. I'm especially glad you reminded us that this is not a cricket match. I trust you to do a good job as an admin. Per WJBscribe, I'd like to serve a nice Filet-o-Fish sandwich to your co-noms, but that's not your fault ;) --JayHenry 16:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
69. Strong support - Courteous, well-versed in policy and calm. Will make an excellent admin. Tim Vickers 17:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
70. But of course. — madman bum and angel 18:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
71. Support The candidate has obviously demonstrated a marked improvement on the issues brought up at the failed RFA. VanTucky ^Talk 21:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
72. Support. A highly dedicated user, will use the mop well. --Sharkface217 00:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
73. Strong Support How are you not already an admin? This user is clearly an excellent contributor who is very familiar with Wikipedia policy. I think he will make a great admin. Wikipediarules2221 00:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
74. Support I routinely see thoughtful comments in front of Pedro's signature, and good counter-vandalism folks need bits.--Chaser - T 04:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
75. Support It frightens me to see so many co-noms, but hey, editor is fantatic. --Ben^chat 05:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
76. Support. Perfectly fine number of mainspace edits (see discussion in "neutral") thought there were 300. . .Sorry! •Malinaccier• ^T/C 23:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
77. Maxim_(talk) 00:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
78. Support: Simple status change from de-facto admin to de-jure admin. dr.ef.tymac 14:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
79. Support - I have seen him around. Will make a great admin. -- Chris B • talk • contribs 17:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
80. Support. When I've run across Pedro, I've always been impressed with this editor's thoughtfulness and thoroughness. --Fabrictramp 19:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
81. Support per Chaser, essentially. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
82. Support See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools. Davewild 07:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
83. VOTE FOR- :) About time, I've been waiting for this. Good luck, you'll make a great admin. CattleGirl ^talk 08:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
84. Support I have encountered this user and I attest that he is of high standing. He deserves the tools. Phgao 17:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
85. Support Not only has Pedro waited until he met his own standards before allowing himself to be nominated, but he has been nothing but courteous and helpful to me and others. If anyone has ever been worthy of adminshipnessosity, it is Pedro. Biofoundationsoflanguage 18:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
86. Support. I see Pedro as a very thoughtful and dedicated user who will make a great admin. I really don't see the problem with having a lot of co-nominations, can he help the fact that so many users strongly think he would make a good admin? Before you know it we will be seeing "Oppose, per to many supports" --Mschel 18:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
87. Support. This user did something today that I think falls within the spirit of adminship; he improved an article and left two people better able to help Wikipedia (and no unhappy ones). I was one of them, and as a result of his thoughtful efforts, I have a deeper understanding of Wikipedia policy; the other editor, a newbie, will, I trust, remain to contribute. When this user says "Better to remove content that is clearly not right for Wikipedia yet retain the editor," he means it, and he makes it happen. Accounting4Taste 21:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
88. Support Pedro is an amazing Wikipedian who I thought was definentely already an admin -Lemonflash_{(do something)} 23:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
89. Support Concerns raised in previous RFA cleared.Great track. Pharaoh of the Wizards 23:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
90. Support. Zaxem 01:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
91. Cliché I-thought-he-was-one support —[[Animum | talk]] 02:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
92. Support - Late to the game on my part, but I have plenty of experience with Pedro to trust him. Hiberniantears 14:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
93. Support. Sociable editor, conscientious, lots of energy. --Fire Star 火星 14:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
94. Support. Why not?! Marlith ^T/C 16:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
95. Support. This editor does excellent work. Useight 21:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
96. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 17:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose Sorry to break the pile on, but I cannot support this. Last 40 or so edits have been pretty much only about this RFA, with a couple of reverts. Mainspace has still not improved a lot from last time. And six co-nominations is unnecessary and pretty stupid - ONE is all that is needed, maybe two to get another opinion that the first may have missed, but six kills it really. Majorly (talk) 11:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand your concerns about the edits in relation to the RfA, but I have to disagree about the co-noms. I do not believe that having many co-noms could be a downside, really they are just supporters who wish to do a little more to help. --D_arkF_alls ^talk 11:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry Majorly, but that is a disapointing oppose. You have failed to mention how you believe he will abuse the tools or even how he isn't qualified for adminship. Maybe he has got too many co-noms, but how is that Pedro's fault? Mainspace isn't brilliant, but he could certainly use the tools. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Majorly. The number of co-noms was overkill, but what would you have me do? I did not solicit them, they were placed there and then I was advised. In fact the three people who had offer to nominate prior to the creation of this RFA have not nominated due to the timing. Wikipedia is as community. To advise my nominators to remove their nominations because it looks "pretty stupid" would be a snub to them and a snub to that community. Pedro |  Chat  11:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd have let one user you trust nominate you. I suppose if any had nominated after the RFA had started that wouldn't have been your fault at all, but still, it's all you've been doing in your latest edits here. We disagree on this RFA, but even though I oppose (for now) I wish you the best of luck should you pass. No hard feelings. Majorly (talk) 11:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

With all the activity on my talk page and a weak (i.e. sporadic) internet connection at the moment, then yes this has regretfully had to be my focus. We've collaborated positively before and of course there are no hard feelings. Pedro |  Chat  11:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Six conominations is absolutely ridiculous, and totally stupid. But that's not Pedro's fault. --Deskana (talky) 16:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me for not having a clue, but I'm just curious why it is ridiculous and stupid for their to be six conominations.--U.S.A. (talk contribs) 02:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Nitpicking, apparently. Don't see how... Dihydrogen Monoxide 06:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

(To Dihydrogen Monoxide) It would probably help you in understanding that if you actually go through the comments on this page instead of dismissing it as "Nitpicking". - TwoOars (Rev) 10:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

1. Oppose – I'm sorry but your mainspace editing doesn't meet my standards. Please try to remember that we are here to create an encyclopaedia, so the mainspace is the most important part of Wikipedia – I'll probably reconsider in three months after I've seen some article development. Matthew 11:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

   Yo Matt, you do pose a very interesting point there, and it's something which I personally disagree with. We have writers who often don't need the tools - they provide the content, and then we have people that maintain the encyclopedia, who have the tools to excercise policy. The maintainers often don't have an amazing mainspace contribution list, but they are doing wikipedia a service by keeping it credible. Mainspace in many ways is the most important thing, but when it comes to adminship, it's often best to leave the mainspace contributors to get on with it. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

   I personally strongly believe that we have too many "janitors". It's my belief that users who are frequent contributors are going to be much better at solving edit wars, judging if something is notable and they are also less likely to burn out, in my opinion (as they can always go and do some editing if administrative tasks are causing them to get too hot.) Matthew 11:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

   Fair enough, there's plenty of other things to do apart from solve edit wars though, and some mundane tasks that article writers couldn't be bothered with. However, I respect your opinion and we'll just have to disagree. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

   Would you withhold support for someone based on too many, too good mainspace contribs? —AldeBaer 11:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

   Matthew, in your opinion, what is the perfect RfA candidate? --D_arkF_alls ^talk 12:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

   Myself :) (he nominated me). And of course, all those other users he has supported. Majorly (talk) 00:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

   (ec) It's not that complex to fathom Matthew's concerns. Essentially, Matthew believes that editors should be very active in non-automatic editing. Undoing and reverting edits is a very simple task. It's much appreciated, but honestly, it's not rocket science. I think if you don't have experience in hands-on encyclopedia building (writing articles, getting involved in article discussion), you're at a disadvantage, as an administrator, when you're asked to help mediate situations like edit wars or conflict disputes. The RfA process selects people based on their experiences and history of editing. Therefore, you can choose to oppose someone because they lack experience that would be necessary to help mediate dispute resolution in the future. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

   I just wanted to point out to everyone that I really think that for whatever reason that Matthew may oppose any RfA, we should respect his opinion no matter what reason or lack of reason he provides, just like anyone else.--U.S.A. (talk contribs) 02:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

   In response to Nishkid, I'd like to point out that indeed, reverting isn't a difficult art in most cases. However, there's always the difficult reversion, the "perhaps vandalism," that takes some brains to revert. Someone has to do that. Someone has to have those brains. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 08:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

   You're faced with a tough decision once in a blue moon. Also, I perused through a few hundred of Pedro's reverts. As of yet, I have not found any difficult reversions. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

   Comment - It is my opinion that RFA shouldn't be a "vote" but a discussion and anyone deciding to oppose or support the nominee should be willing to engage in discussions with people who disagree with his opinion. Convcerning the initial oppose, I agree that Pedro's edits could be improved by working on mainspace pages, however I don't believe that this alone is enough to oppose. User:Majorly points out that his last 40 or so edits were mostly RFA edits with a few reverts, I don't believe that this alone is enough information to conclude that this represents the majority of his edits. At some instances I spend reverting vandalism hundreds of edits at a time but this definitly doens't represent my edits in general. Taking a small sample of the last 50 or 100 or even 200 edits won't suffice for making a valid conclusion about the users editing habits or edits in general due to the flaws in small sample sizes. Concerning the fact that the user has 6 nominations, I don't see a problem with this. While it is indeed somewhat overkill, Pedro makes a good point that there is little he could do about it and it would have been pointless and rude to tell them that 6 was too many. It's hardly in itself a reason to oppose someone. Generally I only oppose RFAs when I believe there is clear evidence that the user in question would somehow abuse the tools. If a user has sufficient knowledge of policy and has a good history of assuming good faith, being civil and refraining from edit warring then that should be a sure support. The fact that a user lacks writing skills should not in itself disqualify him from being an admin as there is so much more to adminship than such. Generally it's not very difficult to understand policy and guidelines about article creation without actually writing articles and thus I don't believe this is a good reason to oppose either. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

   Thanks for your opinion but I completely disagree with everything you said, unfortunately. As a non admin yourself, you perhaps don't realise how important articles are when you're an admin. Let me say also I completely agree with Twooars above - I do indeed find the number of nominations rather nauseating (and for the record I do blame Pedro for letting it happen, though not in bad faith), and I also agree with W.marsh below, about spending to much time with the RfA crowd. This RFA will pass for sure, so I'm uncertain why there's a need for long statements saying why you think I am wrong. Majorly (talk) 15:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

   It appears that your argument is a type of Ad hominem. You are saying that I do not understand the importance of writing articles as an administrator because I myself am not an administrator. This is a faulty argument. I understand the importance of writing articles in general, admin or not. However the difference between the importance of writing them as an admin and writing them as a non-admin aren't that different. The main point is comprehension of basic policy and procedures, which Pedro seems to understand. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

   His distinct lack of article work/collaboration makes me think otherwise, sadly. Majorly (talk) 15:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

   And that is no doubt something that he needs to work on, however I don't believe that in itself means he will abuse the admin tools nor does it mean that he doesn't know how to work with disputing editors. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

   That in itself perhaps, but I find the circumstances of this RFA quite unsatisfactory to be able to support it. Majorly (talk) 16:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

   Aside from your initial opposition post, What other circumstance are you refering to? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I looked through his deleted edits and article edits for his speedy deletion tagging, and it all seems fine (even by my standards). He has tagged like 3 articles in the past 3 months that didn't end up getting deleted, and it looks like in each case he changed his mind either due to choosing to redirect the article or someone improving it. So no signs he'd misuse deletion abilities as an admin. But not much article writing, and 6 co-noms? That just makes it hard to support... it really is the hallmark of someone who spends too much time with the RFA crowd. I opposed last time but I see no basis for doing so this time. Maybe I'll finally support if there's a round 3... --W.marsh 14:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

   Neutral Changed to Support. There is no evidence that he will use the tools incorrectly, but he doesn't have enough Projectspace edits. Too many co-nominations. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 00:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

   779 Wikipedia-space edits isn't enough? Acalamari 01:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

   You're joking right? Nearly 800 project space edits, mostly to administrator related venues such as AIV and ANI, isn't enough? What next - no portal edits? And as he's said countless times above, he can't control the co-noms, nor should someone be punished for being popular. Please re-consider. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 04:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

   Malinaccier is entitled to his/her own opinion. There's no need to get frustrated. Honestly, this RfA is going to pass regardless of which way Malinaccier chooses to vote. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

   By the way, Pedro can control the co-noms. Just Say No. If it worked for the War On Drugs, then it can surely work for RfA co-nominations. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

   Per my comment above, I agree with Nishkid.--U.S.A. (talk contribs) 23:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

   For some odd reason, I thought he had around 300 projectspace edits. . .sorry everyone! (changing to support) •Malinaccier• ^T/C 23:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

2. Neutral After much thought, I think that opposing is unjustified for my reasoning. I'll abstain; but I cannot support due to the reasons I said already. Good luck though. Majorly (talk) 00:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

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

---

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

Jogers

Final (43/9/4); Originally scheduled to end 20:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC). Nomination successful. --Deskana (talky) 22:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Jogers (talk · contribs) - Hello. I've been contributing to English Wikipedia since August 2005 and have made over 35,000 edits. I'm a bot operator and AWB developer. I mostly contribute to music-related articles and I'm an active member of WikiProject Albums. The reason why I decided to nominate myself for adminship is that I'd like to save other admins some work and do certain things for myself instead of requesting them. I frequently nominate articles for speedy deletion and I requested the retitling of an article on several occasions. There are also other areas where sysop rights would be handy from time to time like the ability to make edits to protected pages. Jogers (talk) 20:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: I'd be happy to help to clear the backlogs in the areas I'm most familiar with including CAT:CSD and WP:RM. Jogers (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

1a. Would you elaborate on this answer? For example, do you intend to close deletion discussions as an administrator?--Chaser - T

A: I'm not particularly interested in WP:XFD at the moment. I'd prefer to focus on most uncontroversial maintenance tasks. I tagged many pages for speedy deletion and requested several uncontroversial moves and I thought that it would be more efficient if I was performing requested actions by myself. Jogers (talk) 11:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

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

A: My most valuable contributions may be those that require technical skills. I spend a lot of time developing my bot to make it more useful. I'm also taking part in the development of AutoWikiBrowser, a piece of software used by hundreds of Wikipedia editors. Jogers (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

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

A: I had few discussions that were a little bit unpleasant but I wouldn't really call them "conflicts". The things I do on Wikipedia are usually minor or related to maintenance rather than article content and they are usually not important enough to argue about them. Besides, I'm not a kind of person who is easily stressed. Jogers (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from Eddie:

4. Could you provide a link to an edit conflict in which you were involved?

A: The most serious disagreement as far as I can recall was about using my bot to allow reader's date preferences to work in case when piped links to years "in music", "in sports" etc. are used inappropriately as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) (which seems to be disputed now) and Wikipedia:Piped link. This was my bot's first function and was approved here. The concerns were raised at several pages including my talk page and then moved to requests for approval page and Manual of Style. Sorry for the late answer, it took me some time to find all these links. Jogers (talk) 11:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

3-part Question from User:carlossuarez46:

5. You have been active in CSD recently and at various times in the past, but most of the tagging in your deleted edits seems to be {{db-talk}} and {{db-empty}} which frankly are easy tags to place, and doesn't give me a sense of how you interpret the CSD criteria. With that in mind, please give me your take on three hypothetical articles that someone has tagged for speedy based on A7 (no assertion of notability) and you are the admin called upon to act on them: (1) an article describing a game and how it was made up in school one day; (2) a memorial article about a family's pet dog indicating how it graduated first in its obedience school, fathered many cute puppies, and was gentle with the children; and (3) the just-released self-published album of a band whose name is a red-link.

A: The first two examples are clear-cut cases. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day nor a memorial site so I wouldn't hesitate long before I deleted them. I would give some more thought to the third example. The red-link doesn't necessarily mean that the band is non notable. I would check if the band article was previously deleted on the grounds of insufficient notability and do some quick research in order to find out if the band may meet notability criteria for musicians and ensembles.

Question from User:rspeer

6. As you may see from WT:RFA, I am concerned about the growing problem of edit count inflation. Be honest: what techniques do you use to accumulate such a large number of edits? Would you do anything differently if you were not running for adminship? What kinds of edits do you make that require stopping to think about things? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

A: I make a lot of semi-automated edits with AutoWikiBrowser. My edit count could never be so high without this software. The idea to nominate myself for adminship just popped up in my head recently so I really didn't have a chance to change my editing habits. If I bothered to do things differently because of that I would probably focus more on wikipedia namespace instead of making lots of AWB edits. And it's not like mass edits doesn't require thinking. It's easy to press "Save" several times in a row when everything is set up but preparing good regular expressions is often a time-consuming task. Using my bot to update few maintenance pages is only a single-click task now but I had to write over 1200 lines of code first. Suggesting changes to AutoWikiBrowser also require some thinking. Making this single edit cost me several hours of experimenting, for example. I also like to start a new article from time to time or add some references to the existing ones but I must admit that I was focusing more on my bot and AWB activity recently. Jogers (talk) 10:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Question from Black Falcon

7. Since you intend to focus primarily on speedy deletions, I would like to ask a question about that, similar in nature to the one by Carlossuarez46, but using examples that seem to crop up more frequently. Which of the following articles would you speedily delete and which would you not speedily delete (and, briefly, why)?

1. An unsourced article, about a pamphlet that promotes anal sex, supposedly written by Winston Churchill in 1906.
2. A 10-sentence biographical stub with four sources that does not make an assertion of significance/importance.
3. An unsourced 3-sentence stub about a secondary school, with only an external link to the school's website, that does not make an assertion of notability and only provides the school's name, location (city, province, country), student population, and year of establishment.
4. An unsourced article about a scholarly journal with a small readership that makes no claim of significance/importance.
5. An unsourced article about a book that makes no assertion of significance/importance and is written by an author whose article was deleted at AfD.
6. A one-sentence unsourced article about a song that makes no assertion of significance/importance, written by a band that does not have and never had an article.
7. A two-sentence unsourced article about a village in Nigeria with a population of <150 that makes no assertion of significance/importance.
8. An article about a South African footballer that contains no content other than a half-complete Template:Infobox Football biography and a stub tag.

Thank you, and my apologies for the length of the question. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

1. Speedy delete as obvious hoax as per CSD G3.
2. It strongly depends on the article content. Speedy delete if the subject is clearly insignificant.
3. Not speedy delete. No assertion of notability is not a speedy deletion criterion and there seems to be no consensus on notability of schools, anyway.
4. Not speedy delete. Not a person, group, company, or web content so CSD A7 doesn't apply.
5. Not speedy delete. CSD A7 doesn't apply.
6. Not speedy delete. CSD A7 doesn't apply.
7. Not speedy delete. CSD A7 doesn't apply.
8. Speedy delete as very short article with little or no context.

Jogers (talk) 11:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

General comments

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

• Links for Jogers: Jogers (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• This user operates an active bot: Jogersbot (talk · contribs · logs)

---

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. Remain civil at all times. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Jogers before commenting.

Discussion

• Oppose I don't think Jogers know what he is doing (with admin related tasks). And if this is a dicussion, not a vote why can't IPs voice themselves under the headers (support and the like...)? 82.165.187.34 21:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

  It would help if you could substain your claims that he does not know what he is doing (mostly for others to agree or disagree, which may provoke a change in some of the opinions). -- ReyBrujo 21:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Good editor, solid edit count, and I don't think he will abuse the tools! Pat^{Politics rule!} 20:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
2. I have shared a lot of time with him at WikiProject Album. He is smart, approaches difficulties with a cold head, listen to people and is always open to suggestions. While I haven't been active lately, I cannot but support his nomination for the extremely good experience I had had with him. -- ReyBrujo 20:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
3. Support Long term, courteous, experienced user w/ no indication of incivility in talk pages. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
4. Support Sure. Absolutely. I'd trust this user with the tools. Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 21:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
5. Support I can't see a problem with this editor using the admin tools. (aeropagitica) 21:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
6. Support - if this editor wanted to abuse their position they've had ample opportunity, I don't see what more they can do to prove trust. If they can change AWB so it doesn't display diffs in that horrible new font it's recently started using, change to strong support... — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
7. Support I agree with what (aeropagitica) said. I too, see no problem with the candidate using the tools. Acalamari 23:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
8. Default support in the absence of anything valid to the contrary. —AldeBaer 23:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
9. Support Despite the bot edits, I agree with the above. Experienced, trustworthy editor who would be a good admin. Recurring dreams 23:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
10. Support - been here since 2005, 35k edits and clean block log. Addhoc 00:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
11. Support Has proved and continues to prove himself to be a great contributor. κaτaʟaveno^T_C 00:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
12. Support - I am glad to see your application here. I think your work is excellent and will only improve with the additional buttons. Some of my colleagues are unhappy over automated edits. I would remind them that such edits indicate an efficient way to accomplish necessary tasks and duties. I see no controversies over these edits and would applaud the nominee for cleaning things up as he has. Adminship is about trust, which he certainly has, and about maintenance work, which he does. He should be given the keys to the mop closet. --JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 01:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
13. Support This user is a good wikipedian, and there is nothing that I see indicates he will be an abusive admin. Good luck.--Wikiholic 02:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
14. Support - I see nothing to indicate that this user will abuse the tools. That is, in my mind, the only question when it comes to adminship. --Haemo 02:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
15. Support; clearly dedicated to maintenance tasks, and shows no evidence of a quick temper or poor judgment. No arguments here. --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 02:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
16. Support, administrator jobs are all maininance tasks. He will obviously use the mop we..Marlith ^T/C 03:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
17. Support Great editor, and Eddie, that is no reason to oppose. There's nothing wrong with automated edits. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 03:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
18. Support -- I've read the oppose comments and I think the candidate's vast overall experience and demeanor outweigh concerns about recent edits being largely automated. --A. B. ^(talk) 03:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
19. Support 35,000 edits - he has the experience needed. Perspicacite 03:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
20. Support Has a lot of experience and will not abuse tools. --Banana 04:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
21. Support It is time to give this user the mop. A great editor as well. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 08:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
22. Support no big deal, won't abuse the tools. Lots of experience. Melsaran (talk) 14:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
23. Support. I understand the opposes, but I don't find them convincing. Walton^One 17:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
24. Support this many edits shows vast experience and dedication. I see no reason to oppose.Rlevse 18:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
25. Support Solid editor with a need for the tools. History doesn't leave one to think there may be an abuse of the tools. Opposes to RfAs as of late are, in my opinion, getting ridiculously nit-picky. LaraLove♥ 18:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
26. Support can't see him abusing the tools and has shown he can handle interaction with others effectively. Pascal.Tesson 23:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
27. Support. Edits don't mean experience, but this editor seems to be in the right place. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 12:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
28. Support answers to the questions are reasonable and balanced and this editor will be unlikely to abuse the tools. Carlossuarez46 18:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
29. Support After consideration, I'm changing my opinion. His bot work and edits to images have convinced me that he understands how to work more of the Wikipedia framework than just articles. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 21:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
30. Support as, even without the bot edits, has a solid experience at WP with images, etc. Can be trusted. Bearian 23:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
31. Support A very prolific editor with over 35000 edits ,no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards 00:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
32. Support concerns raised below are just miniscule glitches - nobody's perfect --Ben^chat 05:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
33. Support Trusted user! Reedy Boy 15:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
34. Weak support He's only participated in four AFDs, but has no interest in that area. His CSD work in mainspace is good, but not recent (I had to go back to February to find anything in mainspace). Still, I think he'll be a decent clearer of the CSD backlogs.--Chaser - T 21:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
35. Support I trust Jogers completely, and that is mainly what I believe is necessary for an admin. —METS501 (talk) 23:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
36. Support Even though there are concerns about automated edits, the time spent and dedication speak for themselves. Phgao 17:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
37. Support No evidence this editor will abuse admin tools.--MONGO 19:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
38. Support. "Gets it".  :) -- Renesis (talk) 21:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

    Sorry canceling it my mistake but vote above stands. Pharaoh of the Wizards 19:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

    Already voted once, see a few above. Jmlk17 17:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

39. Support. While I can see where the oppose voters are coming from, he's obviously dedicated to the project and appears trustworthy. Wizardman 16:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
40. Support, Jogers knows what to do with the extra buttons. Conscious 18:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
41. Support - this is an experienced user and AWB dev who will not harm the encyclopedia. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 21:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
42. No question. Flowerparty^☀ 09:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
43. SupportSumoeagle179 15:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - recent mainspace contribs are all automated. I would like to see actual participation in that area. You also say you would focous your work on C:CSD, but I don't see much participation in that area. Finally, the answers are unsatisfactory, IMO. --Boricuæddie 21:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

   Eddie, he is a good editor. Pat^{Politics rule!} 22:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

   I know, and this RfA will probably pass, but I just wanted to make my concerns known. --Boricuæddie 22:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

   .Wouldn't be so sure, as of now it is at 67%. Pat^{Politics rule!} 22:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC).

2. Oppose per Eddie, since at least 3500 edits ago in May (as far as I felt like checking) almost none of your mainspace contributions were very signficant. T Rex | talk 22:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

   Well, I'm not sure why this is important for adminship which is mostly about maintenance, isn't it? It's probably not very convenient to browse trough thousands of my AWB edits but I've been adding content and writing articles as well (the most recent article I started is as far as I remember Maria Peszek) Jogers (talk) 22:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

   Well, you say you want to protect pages. If all pages at WP:RFPP were protected, we could have a bot do it, instead of administrators. Mainspace participation is important to demonstrate that you have knowledge of what things are unacceptable in an article, and, therefore, know when to protect. --Boricuæddie 23:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

   I said that I would like to have the ability to make edits to protected pages. I found it frustrating when I had to wait few weeks for a simple change to be made to the {{Infobox Album}} template after I requested it. I'm not very interested in WP:RFPP at the moment but I think that after over 2 years of contributing to the project and spending hours reading its policies and guidelines I have a good grasp of what things are unacceptable in an article. Most of my recent edits are semi-automated because I prefer to focus on tasks that I'm able to do most efficiently. I had few thousands mainspace edits before I even started to use AWB. Jogers (talk) 09:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

   Dude, Maria Peszek was 4 months and 3.5k edits ago. Since then your basically a bot. T Rex | talk 20:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

3. Oppose per eddie. The answers here are not detailed enough, and you don't seem to be contributing enough recently to merit the tools and calm doubt that you will not abuse them. VanTucky ^(talk) 22:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

   What? —AldeBaer 23:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

   Talk about vague... VanTucky ^(talk) 23:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

   Would you please explain? Pat^{Politics rule!} 23:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

   From a combination of the lack of substantial recent edits (per eddie) and the terse, imprecise answers to questions on this RFA, I am not comfortable with trusting this user with the sysop tools. I mean, come on! One sentence in answering the first question? This user is obviously not ready for adminship. VanTucky ^(talk) 00:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

   I thought the response succinct and to the point. Why waste words when one sentence sums up exactly what we need admins to be doing? I was unaware that verbosity is now a desirable characteristic in admins. --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 02:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

   You miss the point. It's not about length. It's about clarity. I don't need a novel, but I need a satisfactory summary of your intentions that displays a comprehension of the role of a sysop. This, needless to say, doesn't do it for me. VanTucky ^(talk) 21:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

4. Very weak oppose A good editor but he/she not edited any WP:XFD pages, or made a single report to WP:AIV in there last 5000 edits and there is a relatively low amount of editing in admin related pages for 35,000 edits. -Icewedge 02:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose Despite all those edits, there is very little experience in the wikispace, home of many admin-related tasks. Before one is given the mop, one should be familiar with the most common admin areas. Xoloz 03:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
6. Very Weak Oppose You seem to be a very good editor, but I have reservations about your experience in admin-related areas. Jmlk17 07:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

   Comment "I have reservations about your experience in admin-related areas"; He's not an admin yet so how could he have experience there?--Phoenix 15 17:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

   Again, think wiki/project/namespace. In these pages, non-admins can gain experience in many of the areas admins tackle everyday. To be an admin, one ought to have "wet one's feet" there. Xoloz 20:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

7. What The Random Editor said. Wikignoming isn't gonna demonstrate admin capabilities...sorry. What Xoloz said above me also applies :) Dihydrogen Monoxide 06:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
8. Oppose. I'm sorry to oppose after asking such a lengthy question, but your response does not really allay my concerns regarding the issues raised by various opposers above. I have no concerns at all that you would deliberately abuse the tools, but the response to Q7, combined with relatively little experience with XfDs and mostly uncontroversial CSD taggings to date (db-empty, db-user, or db-talk), make me think that you might be too quick to speedily delete articles. For instance, you stated that you would speedily delete the Churchill pamphlet (Q7.1) as an "obvious hoax". However, 'hoax' is not a speedy deletion criterion unless it is blatant vandalism; for instance, if I had said "written in 1862", that could be deleted because Churchill was not alive then. By the way, that example is based on the article Leck mich im Arsch, which was twice wrongly deleted as a hoax.

   Also, although you stated that you would not speedily delete an article about a book by an author whose article was deleted AfD, you said (in response to Q5) that you might delete an article about an album if the band article is redlinked. Though the fact that you would try to ascertain the notability of the band is commendable, an 'assertion of importance/significance' is distinction from actual notability. As neither albums nor books fall under CSD A7 (indeed, the addition of albums have been proposed and rejected at least twice), {{prod}} is probably a better option in both cases. Finally, I do not entirely agree with deleting the footballer biography (Q7.8) for insufficient context. An infobox like Template:Infobox Football biography usually contains enough information, even if incomplete, to allow 1-2 sentences of context-providing text to be written. I would certainly support if you had more experience in admin-related areas or were more conservative in your willingness to speedily delete articles. However, the combination of the two leads me to oppose at this time. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

   Well, in reality I would never delete an article if I wasn't absolutely sure that it should be deleted. I just tried to answer the questions as good as I could. I can see inconsistency in my replies to Q5 and Q7 in regard to applying CSD A7. I guess it's because Carlossuarez46's questions seemed so straight-forward that I forgot that process is important for a while and used common sense instead :-) Jogers (talk) 17:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

   Gasp! Rather than mechanically evaluating text and clicking buttons, you thought!?! Inconceivable! ;P

   I understand your point and realise that a strong case for speedy deletion can be made for each of the three instances I highlighted. I do not support a purely mechanical interpretation of the speedy deletion criteria and agree with Carlossuarez that your response to Q5 is "reasonable and balanced", but the fact that your speedy taggings seem to concern mostly talk pages makes me a little hesitant. For instance, looking at the article Leck mich im Arsch, I would have little hesitation speedily deleting it if it was unsourced, unless the speedy deletion criteria specifically excluded hoaxes. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

9. Weak oppose I am, as, I guess, Black Falcon, a bit disconcerted by the candidate's answers to questions five and seven, which, on the whole, seem to evidence an understanding of CSD that I think to be overbroad and, further, a bit inconsistent with the consensus of the community that the criteria for speedy deletion should be interpreted quite strictly, with one's erring always on the side of not speedying. There is surely nothing to suggest that this user should abuse the tools, and I am convinced that he is generally possessed of sound judgment, a cordial demeanor, and a measured disposition, but I am not certain that he should not avolitionally misuse the tools, e.g., by acting whereof his understanding of policy and practice is not precisely right, such that I cannot, I say with some regret, conclude with sufficient confidence that the net effect on the project of Jogers's being sysopped should be positive. (Nevertheless, it appears that this request will succeed, and I can't say that I'm very troubled by that; I oppose, I suppose, only to echo the sentiments of Black Falcon, et al., in encouraging Jogers, qua admin, to be a bit circumspect, at least initially, in his applications of CSD.) Joe 18:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral Minor edits are needed, and with 35,000 edits to the user's name, the lack of recent "big" edits is of no concern to me. However, the lack of contributions to Wikipedia cleanup is what puzzles me. You've worked on bots (4 of your own) and images (close to 1,000 edits), but this isn't mentioned in your responses. Could you please explain the significant disproportion of your edits to Wikipedia-space (only 360) when compared to articles (26,500+)? - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 10:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I've mentioned my bot activity in the introduction. The functions currently performed by my bot are listed on its userpage. I uploaded few hundred images (mostly album covers) and added some fair use rationales where appropriate. I haven't mentioned it in my responses because I didn't feel it was important enough for my nomination. As for the disproportion it may be partly due to the fact that I like to arrange maintenance tasks for myself (like maintenance pages located in my userspace and updated by my bot). Jogers (talk) 11:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, I believe your image contributions could be an important part of your nomination. Image issues, especially concerning non-free content, is an important part of maintaining Wikipedia, a task that requires various administrators. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 14:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I should have probably mention it then because I have quite a lot of experience in dealing with non-free images. Jogers (talk) 16:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, now you have. Support. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 21:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

1. Neutral - Well first of all you have done some good work, and I'm sure you have some experience. However, I see 360+ edits to the Project Space, and none of them except WP:RM are really, edits that require a understanding of policy. It would also be nice if you got involved in vandal fighting, and made a few reports to WP:AIV. You need to get involved in admin related boards before I support. --Thε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 13:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
2. Neutral - minor edits =/= bad admin/abusive admin. lack of interests in admin related areas =/= bad admin. (Wikimachine 04:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC))
3. Neutral. Weak Projectspace count. Will support later. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 00:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
4. Neutral I was thinking about a weak support and then weak oppose, and then back to weak support, etc...so I am neutral. Get some more mainspace edits and try again and I will support it. Wikipediarules2221 00:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

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

---

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

Currently none.

Related requests

• 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