Wikipedia:Requests for adminship: Difference between revisions
- Адыгэбзэ
- Адыгабзэ
- ak:Wikipedia:Administrators
- Ænglisc
- Аԥсшәа
- العربية
- Aragonés
- অসমীয়া
- Авар
- تۆرکجه
- বাংলা
- Беларуская
- भोजपुरी
- Български
- བོད་ཡིག
- Bosanski
- Буряад
- Català
- Cebuano
- Čeština
- Dansk
- الدارجة
- Deutsch
- ދިވެހިބަސް
- डोटेली
- Eesti
- Ελληνικά
- Emiliàn e rumagnòl
- Español
- Esperanto
- Estremeñu
- Eʋegbe
- فارسی
- Føroyskt
- Français
- Gaeilge
- Galego
- ГӀалгӀай
- 贛語
- ગુજરાતી
- 𐌲𐌿𐍄𐌹𐍃𐌺
- 客家語 / Hak-kâ-ngî
- 한국어
- Hawaiʻi
- Հայերեն
- हिन्दी
- Hrvatski
- Ido
- Igbo
- বিষ্ণুপ্রিয়া মণিপুরী
- Bahasa Indonesia
- IsiXhosa
- IsiZulu
- Italiano
- עברית
- Jawa
- Kabɩyɛ
- ಕನ್ನಡ
- ქართული
- कॉशुर / کٲشُر
- Қазақша
- Kurdî
- Ladino
- Лакку
- ລາວ
- Latina
- Latviešu
- Lëtzebuergesch
- Lietuvių
- Ligure
- Lombard
- मैथिली
- Македонски
- മലയാളം
- Malti
- Māori
- मराठी
- მარგალური
- مصرى
- ဘာသာမန်
- Bahasa Melayu
- Mirandés
- Монгол
- မြန်မာဘာသာ
- Dorerin Naoero
- Nederlands
- Nedersaksies
- नेपाली
- 日本語
- Нохчийн
- Occitan
- ଓଡ଼ିଆ
- Oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча
- ਪੰਜਾਬੀ
- Pälzisch
- ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ
- پښتو
- Перем коми
- ភាសាខ្មែរ
- Plattdüütsch
- Polski
- Português
- Ripoarisch
- Română
- Romani čhib
- Runa Simi
- Русиньскый
- Русский
- Sakizaya
- संस्कृतम्
- Sängö
- ᱥᱟᱱᱛᱟᱲᱤ
- Sardu
- Scots
- Seediq
- Sesotho
- Shqip
- سنڌي
- Slovenčina
- Slovenščina
- Ślůnski
- Soomaaliga
- کوردی
- Српски / srpski
- Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
- Svenska
- Tagalog
- தமிழ்
- Татарча / tatarça
- ၽႃႇသႃႇတႆး
- Tayal
- తెలుగు
- ไทย
- ትግርኛ
- Тоҷикӣ
- ತುಳು
- Türkçe
- Türkmençe
- Twi
- Тыва дыл
- Удмурт
- Українська
- اردو
- Vèneto
- Tiếng Việt
- 文言
- Winaray
- 吴语
- ייִדיש
- Yorùbá
- 粵語
- Žemaitėška
- 中文
- Betawi
Submit nom. |
|||
Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
<!-- Please place new nominations for adminship at the top, above the most recent nomination. Please leave the first "----" alone, and don't forget to include the "----" line separating the new |
<!-- Please place new nominations for adminship at the top, above the most recent nomination. Please leave the first "----" alone, and don't forget to include the "----" line separating the new |
||
nomination from the previous one. --> |
nomination from the previous one. --> |
||
---- |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/CastAStone}} |
|||
---- |
---- |
||
{{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nburden}} |
{{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nburden}} |
Revision as of 02:31, 29 November 2007
↓↓Skip to current nominations for adminship |
Advice, requests for adminship (RfA), bureaucratship (RfB), and past request archives (search) | |
---|---|
Administrators | |
RfA analysis |
|
Bureaucrats |
|
Useful pages | |
Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated. |
Editors are reminded that the policies on civility and personal attacks apply at RfA. Editors may not make accusations about personal behavior without evidence. Uninvolved administrators and bureaucrats are encouraged to enforce conduct policies and guidelines, including—when necessary—with blocks. |
Proposals to reform the Request for Adminship process are currently under discussion. |
RfA candidate | S | O | N | S % | Status | Ending (UTC) | Time left | Dups? | Report |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CastAStone | 0 | 2 | 4 | 0 | Unsuccessful | 05:21, 29 November 2007 | 0 hours | no | report |
Nburden | 1 | 7 | 1 | 13 | Unsuccessful | 04:36, 29 November 2007 | 0 hours | no | report |
Scott5114 | 17 | 13 | 3 | 57 | Unsuccessful | 07:02, 29 November 2007 | 0 hours | no | report |
thedemonhog | 31 | 14 | 12 | 69 | Unsuccessful | 00:03, 1 December 2007 | 0 hours | no | report |
Hbdragon88 | 51 | 1 | 0 | 98 | Successful | 21:04, 30 November 2007 | 0 hours | no | report |
Dlohcierekim | 72 | 3 | 1 | 96 | Successful | 14:35, 30 November 2007 | 0 hours | no | report |
SorryGuy | 28 | 12 | 5 | 70 | Unsuccessful | 22:59, 29 November 2007 | 0 hours | no | report |
RfB candidate | S | O | N | S % | Status | Ending (UTC) | Time left | Dups? | Report |
WJBscribe | 172 | 3 | 1 | 98 | Successful | 16:54, 29 November 2007 | 0 hours | no | report |
RfA candidate | S | O | N | S % | Status | Ending (UTC) | Time left | Dups? | Report |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CastAStone | 0 | 2 | 4 | 0 | Unsuccessful | 05:21, 29 November 2007 | 0 hours | no | report |
Nburden | 1 | 7 | 1 | 13 | Unsuccessful | 04:36, 29 November 2007 | 0 hours | no | report |
Scott5114 | 17 | 13 | 3 | 57 | Unsuccessful | 07:02, 29 November 2007 | 0 hours | no | report |
thedemonhog | 31 | 14 | 12 | 69 | Unsuccessful | 00:03, 1 December 2007 | 0 hours | no | report |
Hbdragon88 | 51 | 1 | 0 | 98 | Successful | 21:04, 30 November 2007 | 0 hours | no | report |
Dlohcierekim | 72 | 3 | 1 | 96 | Successful | 14:35, 30 November 2007 | 0 hours | no | report |
SorryGuy | 28 | 12 | 5 | 70 | Unsuccessful | 22:59, 29 November 2007 | 0 hours | no | report |
RfB candidate | S | O | N | S % | Status | Ending (UTC) | Time left | Dups? | Report |
WJBscribe | 172 | 3 | 1 | 98 | Successful | 16:54, 29 November 2007 | 0 hours | no | report |
Requests for adminship (RfA) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become administrators (also known as admins), who are users with access to additional technical features that aid in maintenance. Users can either submit their own requests for adminship (self-nomination) or may be nominated by other users. Please be familiar with the administrators' reading list, how-to guide, and guide to requests for adminship before submitting your request. Also, consider asking the community about your chances of passing an RfA.
This page also hosts requests for bureaucratship (RfB), where new bureaucrats are selected.
If you are new to participating in a request for adminship, or are not sure how to gauge the candidate, then kindly go through this mini guide for RfA voters before you participate.
There is an experimental process that you may choose to use to become an administrator instead of this process, called administrator elections. It is approved for one trial run, which will take 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
Candidate | Type | Result | Date of close | Tally | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
S | O | N | % | ||||
AirshipJungleman29 | RfA | Withdrawn by candidate | 27 Sep 2024 | 34 | 21 | 4 | 62 |
Significa liberdade | RfA | Successful | 21 Sep 2024 | 163 | 32 | 10 | 84 |
Asilvering | RfA | Successful | 6 Sep 2024 | 245 | 1 | 0 | >99 |
HouseBlaster | RfA | Successful | 23 Jun 2024 | 153 | 27 | 8 | 85 |
The community grants administrator access to trusted users, so nominees should have been on Wikipedia long enough for people to determine whether they are trustworthy. Administrators are held to high standards of conduct because other editors often turn to them for help and advice, and because they have access to tools that can have a negative impact on users or content if carelessly applied.
Nomination standards
The only formal prerequisite for adminship is having an extended confirmed account on Wikipedia (500 edits and 30 days of experience).[1] However, the community usually looks for candidates with much more experience and those without are generally unlikely to succeed at gaining adminship. The community looks for a variety of factors in candidates and discussion can be intense. To get an insight of what the community is looking for, you could review some successful and some unsuccessful RfAs, or start an RfA candidate poll.
If you are unsure about nominating yourself or another user for adminship, you may first wish to consult a few editors you respect to get an idea of what the community might think of your request. There is also a list of editors willing to consider nominating you. Editors interested in becoming administrators might explore adoption by a more experienced user to gain experience. They may also add themselves to Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls; a list of names and some additional information are automatically maintained at Wikipedia:List of administrator hopefuls. The RfA guide and the miniguide might be helpful, while Advice for RfA candidates will let you evaluate whether or not you are ready to be an admin.
Nominations
To nominate either yourself or another user for adminship, follow these instructions. If you wish to nominate someone else, check with them before making the nomination page. Nominations may only be added by the candidate or after the candidate has signed the acceptance of the nomination.
Notice of RfA
Some candidates display the {{RfX-notice}}
on their userpages. Also, per community consensus, RfAs are to be advertised on MediaWiki:Watchlist-messages and Template:Centralized discussion. The watchlist notice will only be visible to you if your user interface language is set to (plain) en
.
Expressing opinions
All Wikipedians—including those without an account or not logged in ("anons")—are welcome to comment and ask questions in an RfA. Numerated (#) "votes" in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections may only be placed by editors with an extended confirmed account.[2] 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
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.[3] 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".[4] 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.[5]
Current nominations for adminship
Current time is 07:11:34, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Purge page cache if nominations have not updated. |
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
Final (0/2/4); ended 05:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Withdrawn by candidate
CastAStone (talk · contribs) - This user deserves administrator status because he is dedicated to ridding Wikipedia of vandalism and whole-heartedly promotes the maintenance of high content standards. DavidJ710 (talk) 02:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Withdrawn
- Thank you David for nominating me. I'm honored to be nominated based on the work I've done in the past.--CastAStone|(talk) 03:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate has indicated a desire to have his nomination withdrawn.
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: AfD and Recent Changes Patrol are basically my two favorite things to do on the site. I'd love to take a bigger role and to spend more time in both. Honestly, the biggest attraction to being an Admin to me was the undo button on individual edits, so now that everyone has that, being able to close obviously overworked AfD's is what I think I would be using the tool kit for the most.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- 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: A long time ago I had a few Scientology talk page edits that ended up with that Miss Selena Kyle individual and another individual, obviously a practicing Scientologist, in a flame war of sorts, and I can't help but worry that I contributed to it. My solution in the end was to get out of it, because being right is one thing, but being insulting is another.
General comments
- See CastAStone's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
- Links for CastAStone: CastAStone (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/CastAStone before commenting.
Discussion
- I suspect that this is a bad faith nomination. The user who is nominating CastAStone is a new user with less than 75 total edits---most of which are to his own main page to make it look like an experienced editor. The user then posted CastAStone's nomination at 2:31. That nomination was erased as CastAStone had not accepted. At 2:48 David asked CastAStone if he would be interested in being nominated. David made it sound legit, but noting David's history, I have to suspect that David was trying to embarrass CastAStone for some reason.Balloonman (talk) 04:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe because of [4]? Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 04:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a legitimate nomination. CastAStone and I are good friends in the real world, and I know that he is passionate about Wikipedia, and has been for a long time. In the recent past, he has been adjusting to post-college life, and settling into a career. My nomination is based upon CastAStone's enthusiasm and diligence to Wikipedia in the past. Look past the past 6 months and see how hard he has worked. Look at his userpage and see that even he thinks he would be a good admin, but is just to modest to nominate himself, and that he is coming back from a break from wikipedia. Maybe my nomination was premature, but I think CastAStone would do a great job as an admin. DavidJ710 (talk) 04:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support
Oppose
- Oppose I'm sorry, but looking at your edits, you only contribute sparsely. You make a few edits a month, then leave for a while. And I would also like more experience in admin-related areas. Sorry, but take this as advice. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 04:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Sorry, but I agree with JetLover. You contribute good info to articles but you don't have many edits as of recent and it's pretty sparse between your edits. If you bump up your edit count in the coming months, I would happy to support you in your attempt to become an admin. ZacBowling (user|talk) 04:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- Advice Another candidate who should pull his nomination. You have less than 50 edits over the past 6 months. Over the past year, you have less than 350 edits. You simply do not have enough experience to warrant the tools. Especially recent edits. Please pull your nom---this could result in a pile on if you don't. I would also like to point out that the person who asked CastAStone to become an admin has less than 100 edits himself. I checked his edits to see if he was being disruptive in asking multiple people to become admins, but CastAStone was the only one.Balloonman (talk) 04:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral leaning toward oppose per Ballonman. Thanks for your enthusiasm.
Continue with a mix of RCPatrol (assuming you are reporting to WP:AIV), WP:AFD, and article building.Recommend getting an editor review 3,000 edits/3months from now. Heed that advice before considering another RfA. Good luck and happy editing. Dlohcierekim 04:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Checking contribs, user hasn't made an XFD edit for three months and made an AIV report for two years. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 04:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral leaning toward oppose per Ballonman. Majoreditor (talk) 04:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. Your edit history and level of activity don't suggest that you've put enough work in to be a qualified candidate, but there are many here who will help a sincere individual improve in the areas that need work. If you really have thought about being an admin, there are coaching opportunities available. Come back and we'll see how you're doing. Until then, best, ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 04:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
Closed per WP:SNOW at (1/7/1) ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 04:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nburden (talk · contribs) - Hi, I'd like to nominate myself for adminship. I've been a member since December, 2006, but didn't really have that many edits until October, 2007, when I how useful the recent changes link can be. Since then, I've been quite active in patrolling for vandals. Additionally, I'm active at WP:ABUSE and have done some work in a few wikiprojects. I will admit to having had a brief bout of vandalism during the HD-DVD key crisis (see here), but I think I've proven that I've changed substantially. Either way, thanks for your consideration. Nburden (T) 01:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 intend to use admin tools to help with RCP first and foremost. Additionally, I'd keep an eye on CAT:CSD and try to keep up there. Then, in my spare time, I'd go looking for backlogs.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: I feel my best contributions have been fighting vandalism, specifically the fact that several times, I've been able to give some explanation and guidance which has helped build better editors. I will admit that I haven't added too much new content to articles, but as far as that goes, my best are Bomber Raid and SSG550 Sniper.
- 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 a brief brush with conflict over at Learning disability (see talk), but the whole thing was handled first on user talk pages, then at the article talk page, and with no name calling. Essentially, we disagreed on content, and we discussed content. I think that this is a good strategy, and will stick with it in the future.
- Question by JetLover
- 4 Why did you vandalize at one time? How can we trust you won't do it again?
- A
- 5. What happened with Wikipedia:Abuse reports/141.150.53.30?
- A.
General comments
- See Nburden's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
- Links for Nburden: Nburden (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Nburden before commenting.
Discussion
- "Comment' I went to Nburden's talk page and recommended that he pull this nomination. I's rather see him pull it than have this turn ugly.Balloonman (talk) 03:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment nom has not edited since transcluding. Dlohcierekim 03:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support
Oppose
Oppose I am highly dubious that anybody could gain an adequate understanding of wikipolicy and an adequate breadth of experience in 2 months to warrant the tools. Especially when you were blocked for vandalism 6 months ago.Balloonman (talk) 03:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)I am pulling my oppose, not because I believe he has any chance of passing, but rather because I don't want to discourage Nburden. Nburden, please pull your nomination and come back in 4-6 months.Balloonman (talk) 03:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Per inexperience and vandalism. Also, you have less than 50 talk page edits. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 03:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - Straight off the bat, the fact you admit you've only been really active since October this year shows me you're inexperienced. So far all your edits have been pointing towards being promoted to adminship, which although fair, is not the only reason why we're here on this site - Building an encyclopedia is foremost and you have done little to strive for that. I'd suggest waiting at least another 4 months before standing for adminship again, pick up a FA or GA, prove that you can understand our policies perfectly and stay out of trouble. With that combination, you'll be promoted in no time, but for the time being, 2 months work is not sufficiant to be granted sysop abilities. Stick at it and good luck. Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 03:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per JetLover. Temperalxy 03:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - per JetLover. Sorry, a few months more experience and a couple thousand edits will do the trick. For now, it's a no. jj137 ♠ Talk 03:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose You were basically inactive until October. I think you need to establish trust in the community for a bit longer before asking for a position of trust. Wikipedia definitely needs vandalism patrollers, so keep doing what you're doing. Past transgressions can be forgiven if you prove yourself trustworthy for an appropriate length of time. I don't think two months is enough. DOSGuy (talk) 03:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Impressive work in the last two months. The problem is, it's only two months. I don't think it's enough time to get a great handle on policies and procedures. Plenty of work in the mainspace, which I like, but not enough in the Wikipedia namespace, the areas where admins do the most work. I recommend withdrawing this RFA, spending some time in areas like WP:XFD, tagging articles for deletion, maybe find a backlog that you find interesting and work on it, and reapplying for adminship in a couple more months. Useight (talk) 04:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose due to lack of experience. Keep up the good work and consider adminship at a later date. Majoreditor (talk) 04:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- Gratuitous advice and neutral to avoid biting and pile-on. Thanks for coming forth openly about the vandalism. It was 6 months ago. Unfortunately, you persisted until you drew a block. You have worked hard and commendably to make up for that aberration. I would recommend that you continue reverting vandalism and in a wikignome role. In addition, I suggest making more substantial edits. There are redlinks begging to be turned into stubs. Take part in XFD. Don't let this discourage you. After 3 months, 3000 edits, seek an Wikipedia:Editor review. Heed the advice that generates. Hang in there and try again later. Good luck for the future. I recommend that you withdraw. Dlohcierekim 03:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Seconded (although I have already voted). DOSGuy (talk) 03:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
FINAL (17/13/3); withdrawn by candidate[5] at 07:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Scott5114 (talk · contribs) - Scott5114 has been a longstanding and exemplary member of Wikipedia since 2005, with over 8,000 edits. Since then, he has become an essential contributor to WP:USRD and WP:OKSH. He has performed many tasks relating to assessment, maps, and shields for these projects. In addition to this, he has contributed to Kansas Turnpike, a WP:FA. He is a civil user and has an empty block log. I believe that Scott5114 would be an excellent administrator. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
- Thank you. I accept this nomination. —Scott5114↗ 01:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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: My focus would probably be on clearing administrative backlogs. One that I'd probably focus on often would be the copied-to-Commons categories. I've done new page patrol in the past, so I'm familiar with the speedy deletion criteria and would be likely to help out clearing those too. Vandal-fighting is not really my forte, however - I'd probably not do much blocking unless it was particularly egregious vandalism that happened to hit my watchlist.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: The two recognized articles I've contributed to are Kansas Turnpike, which is an FA, and Oklahoma State Highway 74, which is currently a GA. The Kansas Turnpike article took about a year's worth of work, collaborating with User:SPUI, which was a lot of fun. Currently, I'm in the process of improving all of the Oklahoma state highway articles to B-Class (or greater!), about three-fourths or so I wrote originally.
- 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 ever been in an intense edit war. The only editing conflicts that I've been in have been large-scale, involving much of the U.S. Roads WikiProject. The two most notable instances are the WP:SRNC debacle, which I was only tangentially involved in, and the recent debate over whether "decommission" was a neologism. In that debate, I think if I were to do it all over again, I would call the Mediation Cabal in earlier, because the mediator that took the case did an excellent job getting everyone to calm down and come to the table to discuss the situation.
- Optional questions from O (talk)
- 4. Explain how you would deal with a BLP dispute in this scenario: there is some content in an article that is libellous and biased to some but perfectly fine to others. It appears extremely libellous to you. What do you do?
- A: I would probably move the content to the talk page (removing it from the article) so that it could be worked on to reach a version that everyone involved agrees is more neutral version. That would remove the section from the eye of casual readers and Google, but allow it to be improved to a point that it could be re-added to the article.
- 5. If you find an article which has been blanked or deleted quoting OTRS, and the person who created the article would like it restored as they contend there is no problem with the article. What actions will you take to either follow OTRS or the article creator?
- A: My first course of action would be to find out more about the nature of the OTRS action, such as who was responsible for fulfulling it and their reasons for doing so. I would then attempt to explain the situation to the editor (presuming, of course, the OTRS action was valid) and, if I felt that I couldn't adequately explain it, put them in touch with the OTRS person that handled the request.
- Follow-up: When you are explaining the situation to the user, what is the most appropriate venue to do so? Be as specific as possible.
- A: It would depend upon the method they used to contact me. If it was through user talk pages, that would be how I would respond. Contact with the OTRS member should he handled depending on the specifics of the case, as the OTRS member may have sensitive information that shouldn't be publicly divulged.—Scott5114↗ 21:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 6. What do you do when you come across a user who has an excessively long signature, or one which may look offensive or shocking to others?
- A:Probably leave a note on their talk page requesting they change it. If they refused, I'd probably leave a note on the Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents page to verify that other people share the same opinion as I do. (Offensiveness is often in the eye of the beholder, and there always exists the possibility that perhaps I'm just missing something.) Then, I'd probably give a short block if the user was still unwilling to change it. If the user persisted afterward, I'd issue a longer block.
- 7. You are involved in an arbitration case, in which involved disputes over an external links section, a whole lot of personal attacks, and misuse of admin tools. You give your input, and get attacked on your talk page. How would you handle the situation after getting attacked?
- A: I'd do my best to brush it off. Responding to personal attacks seldom gets you anywhere – why give the attacker the satisfaction?
- 8. Do WikiProjects own the articles they keep an eye out for? Why or why not?
- A: WikiProjects do not own the articles by any means, though setting and enforcing standards on the articles under their care is certainly within their bounds. Any editor can and should be able to edit any article no matter what WikiProject it falls under.
- 9. Would you use admin rollback on article edits that violated a couple of policies and guidelines? Why or why not? If not, what is another appropriate action you could take?
- A: Not admin rollback. Manual reversion with a proper edit summary is better in this case. All opportunities should be made to reach the editor to inform them of the guidelines, including talk pages and even HTML comments within the article. Policy infractions should be handled in the manner which the policy prescribes and established precedent, of course.
Strictly Optional question by DarkFalls
- 10. Take a look at User:DarkFalls/Fair-use test 1. Please identify the problems (if any) with each rationale, and discuss how to fix it. Which of these images have the most severe flaw with rationale? Which has no flaws?
- A: I'm going to assume that these all refer to the same file. In that case, the most severe flaw would be Example 2, which has the false assumption that creation of the file means that you hold the copyright and thus can release it to the PD. Example 1 should go into detail on the purpose of use (like Example 3), and the "Other Information" field should probably contain information that relates more to the copyright/licensing situation (also like Example 3). I think Example 3 is the unflawed example, as it gives the most information and is most specific. Examples 4, 5, and 6 are missing the standard template (though I don't feel that should be grounds for the file's deletion by any means - but the template would be an improvement). #4 also lists reasons that don't match with the "required components" of the relevant policies. #5 is horribly vague and doesn't include any of the required components. Example 6 doesn't include the competition and purpose components. —Scott5114↗ 07:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 11: As a follow-up question, which images will you delete out of the examples given?
- A: None of them. I would try to fix the fair use rationales before deleting, if possible, because in most cases it'd only take about five minutes of my time. My opinion is that only in cases where the content itself goes against policy (that is, unnecessary fair use images) should it be deleted. —Scott5114↗ 18:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Keepscases
- 12. Do you find this amusing? http://lolinator.com/lol/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship/Scott5114
- A: RFA in lolcat? Definitely amusing! Maybe that's the solution to "fix" RFA that everyone's been missing. :P
Optional question from Balloonman
- 13. Wikipedia has established 4 key policies related to article content that every administrator should know. What are they? Why are they important? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Balloonman (talk • contribs) 04:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A: WP:BLP, because incorrect information in biographical articles can have negative effects on living people (e.g. the Seigenthaler incident); WP:NPOV, a foundation issue because Wikipedia is collaborative, and allowing biased articles would cause hopeless edit warring and disagreement; WP:V, because to be a reliable encyclopedia, articles must be able to be cross-referenced; and WP:NOR, because original research is often a fringe view (usually not NPOV-compliant) and is not verifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scott5114 (talk • contribs) 05:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is why people are so concerned about your answer to number 4. BLP isn't a random guideline/essay that we can choose to ignore, it is one of the four key policies concerning article content.Balloonman (talk) 05:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And he implied this where? --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is why people are so concerned about your answer to number 4. BLP isn't a random guideline/essay that we can choose to ignore, it is one of the four key policies concerning article content.Balloonman (talk) 05:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A: WP:BLP, because incorrect information in biographical articles can have negative effects on living people (e.g. the Seigenthaler incident); WP:NPOV, a foundation issue because Wikipedia is collaborative, and allowing biased articles would cause hopeless edit warring and disagreement; WP:V, because to be a reliable encyclopedia, articles must be able to be cross-referenced; and WP:NOR, because original research is often a fringe view (usually not NPOV-compliant) and is not verifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scott5114 (talk • contribs) 05:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another question by DarkFalls
- 14. As of now, do you stand by your previous views of BLP? If not, please demonstrate your current understanding of the policy.
- A: I certainly feel different about the importance of BLP. I remember hearing about the creation of the policy but did not closely follow the discussion at the time and thus grossly underestimated its importance. Unquestionably, whenever there is badly sourced or otherwise contentious information about a living person in an article, it should be removed. Unquestionably. My answer to question four only applies if and only if the specific situation described in the question comes up. In that context, where the bias of the passage in question is disputed, I stand by my answer. Should I get the tools, that does not automatically make my opinion hold more weight than others'.
General comments
- See Scott5114's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
- Links for Scott5114: Scott5114 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Scott5114 before commenting.
Discussion
- For the benefit of people debating Scott5114's answer to #4 above, which references Wikipedia's policy regarding biographies of living people, the relevant content is as follows (emphasis in the original):
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, talk pages, user pages, and project space.
- The content cites this notice from Jimbo in the footnotes. As an added note, the content above has not changed since the start of this RfA (see this previous version for verification). My apologies if this seems heavy-handed or out of place, but given that this is going to be a particularly contentious point in this discussion, I thought it best to take the initiative and put it up here at the top so that commenters on both sides could readily verify the content. --jonny-mt(t)(c)I'm on editor review! 02:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I did say that I would remove the content from the article, but considering the circumstances presented in the question (some editors do not feel it is biased), I felt it would be best to have the content moved to the talk page in order to work out a version of the text that would be agreeable to all parties involved. This is regardless of my own feelings on the content, because the possibility always exists that I may be wrong or not interpreting the passage in the manner it was intended when it was written. —Scott5114↗ 03:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And you were right to say it. You said it because you're not a tyrant. I just assumed that we resolved controversies through discussion around here. While I understand that an encyclopedia is no place for unsourced material, I'm disappointed to see such a noble position used as a basis to oppose your application. I would never fault anyone for saying that they would seek consensus or encourage debate on a user-edited encyclopedia. Perhaps Wikipedians care more about the letter of the law than the intention behind your statement. DOSGuy (talk) 03:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of people seem to have jumped the gun here. The question never specified whether the contentious material is sourced or not. If it appears libelous to some editors but not to others but is properly attributed to a reliable source, should it be "removed immediately and without discussion"? --Polaron | Talk 15:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand the objections to the answer to the BLP question. BLP merely states that such material can and should be removed without discussion. Not that we should never ever talk about whether contentious material should be included in an article or not. I might, for example, remove the content and then go to the talk page and write "I removed a statement that said blah blah libel. Unless someon can produce a source for this claim, it should not be in the article." Trying to turn BLP into some sort of blanket ban on even talking about contentious biographical information is misguided, in my mind. -Chunky Rice (talk) 19:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As has been pointed out to me, and as I have then deduced, there is a logical fallacy in most of the oppose votes to Scott. "Scott does not know about BLP" does not necessarily mean that "Scott will be a bad admin." The logical fallacy of excluded middle is being used here. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right, of course, but a lot of people look for any excuse to oppose a candidate. They want the bar set impossibly high, and care more about the memorization of policy than the goodwill and talent of the candidate. I don't know Scott, and I have no personal stake in his application. I just can't stand hypocrisy. Scott is human and, like every other Administrator, he is imperfect. He might even, God forbid, make a mistake. Hands up, Admins, if you've never made a mistake. Anyone? And when you made that mistake, did someone fix it, point it out, and did you learn from it? The nice thing about Wikipedia is that anything that can be done can be undone. It's almost as though someone had the foresight to recognize that no one's perfect! Does Scott have a woefully inadequate grasp of Wikipedia's policies? Certainly not. Would Scott ever abuse the rules on purpose? I don't think so. Will he try his best to learn all of Wikipedia's policies? I believe he will. Will he read the policy page before he takes action on a matter that he's unfamiliar with? Will he ask other Administrators for help? Will he learn how to be a great Admin? I don't see any reason why not. He is experienced, he has made a lot of edits, shown a willingness to take on additional responsibilities, and I believe that he has the character to responsibly use Administrator privileges. Nobody's perfect, and I really hate to see a good candidate tossed out because people have set an unrealistic ideal for what an Admin should be. An Admin should be doing all of the things that Scott is doing and, unfortunately, an Admin will be human. Perhaps those of you who decided to Oppose based solely on #4 would like to reconsider? DOSGuy (talk) 03:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No the concern is that Scott showed no understanding of wikipolicy in any of his answers---especially but not limited to the one concerning BLP. All of his answers were weak. Those answers are often the first impression people have of a candidate---thus, it is his opportunity to show mastery of a subject. Yes, many of the questions could be enhanced, but that being said, those are the questions where the candidate can demonstrate his mastery of the topic. Those are the options where he could show how he would analyze the scenario and evaluate the appropriate response. For example, question 4 did not indicate if the subject was cited or not. If it was cited, then that could potentially change the response. If it was cited, how reliable is the citation? Nor did it indicate if the statement was attributed to another party, again that could potentially change the response. But Scott didn't delve into these options. The question is vague and can be read in several different ways. But that is an opportunity for the candidate to demonstrate his analytical abilities. Scott didn't do that. He gave a short answer, without asking the questions that needed to be asked. While question 4 is the one that is of most concern, Scott didn't do that with any of the questions. If Scott had knocked the other questions out of the park, his answer to 4 might have been overlooked. Unfortunately, he didn't. I'm sorry that this RfA is in jeapardy, but one's RfA is a time to put your best foot forward. I honestly don't believe Scott did that here. He was provided with a link, and didn't bother to read the policy before responding. If he isn't going to read the policy, when a link is provided, how likely is it that he will take the extra effort to research an issue after getting the tools? Again, I would strongly recommend that he go through Admin coaching (from somebody who is not familiar with him) and coming back in a few months.Balloonman (talk) 03:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a position I can respect. Statements like "Oppose per #4" were flimsy. I'd just like to say that if Scott's RfA fails, that I encourage him to go through Admin coaching and try again. We all want what's best for Wikipedia, and I want Scott to be the best candidate he can possibly be. He has good intentions and maturity. If he's not ready yet, let's make him ready. DOSGuy (talk) 04:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not personal. I've never encountered Scott before, and based upon the support votes that I see below, I have no reason to believe that he doesn't have the temperment to be an admin. (He has garnered respect, in my eyes, in how he has handled the criticism leveled here.) I have no doubt that WHEN he runs again, he will be better prepared for the RfA. I hope to be able to support him at that time.Balloonman (talk) 04:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a position I can respect. Statements like "Oppose per #4" were flimsy. I'd just like to say that if Scott's RfA fails, that I encourage him to go through Admin coaching and try again. We all want what's best for Wikipedia, and I want Scott to be the best candidate he can possibly be. He has good intentions and maturity. If he's not ready yet, let's make him ready. DOSGuy (talk) 04:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support
- Support as nom --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good editing on articles about roads. NHRHS2010 talk 02:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I've found that in my time working with Scott, this user has been a fair arbiter in heated debates that have popped up within the USRD community. From that, I believe that this user would handle other situations outside of USRD well. That aside, from my personal experience of working with this user, I believe the said user has a fairly good knowledge of how the entire encyclopedia works, and is worthy of being an admin. Hence my reason for supporting this RfA. --Son (talk) 07:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Scott is unquestionably one of the best and most dedicated editors that I've had the pleasure of working with at USRD. What has impressed me the most is his ability to remain calm in even the most fiery of discussions, an absolute must for an admin. Due to the nature of USRD, by participating in the project and the various XFDs, Portals, and subprojects, an editor learns about the inner workings of Wikipedia very quickly, and I believe Scott knows his way around Wikipedia very well. I see no reason not to give him the mop. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 09:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Unlikely to abuse admin tools. A good editor. --Siva1979Talk to me 09:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Will make a good admin. Epbr123 (talk) 11:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. A good, decent editor who can be trusted. Meets my standards for syops, has reasonable (if imperfect) answers to questions above, and has no red flags. Bearian (talk) 17:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Those opposing per the answer to Q4 are being rather unfair. The candidate is trying to describe how he intends to continue to foster the community discussion aspect that is so central to Wikipedia. The question explicitly says that the material does not appear libelous to some, and as such, if it has any possible merit, it absolutely should be discussed on the talk page, but not, as the candidate correctly notes, in the article. The question also fails to note whether the information in question has any possible sourcing that could corroborate it. It looks like people are jumping at the chance to oppose this quality candidate. GlassCobra 17:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I agree with GlassCobra on the opposition on the merits of his answer to Q4. Also - even though situations like what the questions describe come up and should be tested on for qualifications, everyone - admin or not - will run into such situations and will need to know what is the best course of action to take. Yes - Adminship is not a reward, but this RFA is not about that. Scott has handled himself in well situations that were escallated from what I've experienced working with him. Before opposing one's nominations think about all of the possibilities that might be of light in this nomination. based on that - I don't see Scott as one that would be likely to abuse his priviledges of adminship. master sonT - C 17:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Keepscases (talk) 19:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Seems to be a good editor and I feel this user would make a great Admin. Dustihowe (talk) 19:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support He has been a wikipedian since 2005, with much experience. I haven't seen him in any conflicts, and he has been a huge help to WP:USRD. He will make a great admin. —JA10 Talk • Contribs 23:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't know why so many people are being critical of #4. If it was a clear cut case, that would be one thing, but the question states that some people don't consider the material to be libellous. Since the situation is contentious, the proper thing to do is to open the floor to discussion. We don't want dictators who remove content because they think the material is inappropriate when there are others who think the content is perfectly fine! Wikipedia is a user-contributed encyclopedia made up of a community of equals, so we really have no choice but to approve content by consensus. Anyone who doesn't understand that should not be an Admin. That was an outstanding answer from a longtime contributor, and a great many people have vouched for your character. I would be proud to have you as an Admin. DOSGuy (talk) 23:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)Reluctantly changed my vote.[reply]
- Support We have some hideous backlogs here and anyone who is volunteering to tackle them should be welcome. Scott has has shown himself to be a good editor. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 00:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Some of the opposition have some relevant arguments, although I don't think the user will abuse the admin tools. If this passes, I am sure Scott will take it slowly, and only use the tools that he feels comfortable using. His answer to #1 is a good indication that he will do so. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - the only concern is the understanding of BLP issues, and I would imagine by now the below opposition has resolved that. Neil ☎ 10:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Strong editor - Always a great guy to work with. In USRD, he's supposedly next in line. :) Mitch32contribs 21:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - good editor, deserves sysop tools. Good luck. jj137 ♠ Talk 03:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Oppose the answers to the questions show a lack of understanding of Wikipolicy. Particularly 4,
6,and 8. Question 4 indicated no familiarity with WP:BLP which states, "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." (emphasis in policy)Question 6- he didn't even mention RFC name.Question 8 he implies that the project sets the standards for the pages under it's purview. The various wiki-projects do not enforce anything. The standards they set are only good insofar as they represent the views of the participants of the project. If a project were to declare that general notability guidelines do not apply to their project and that anybody from their target arena was worthy of an article then the rest of the Wikiworld can override the project.Balloonman (talk) 06:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]- If the WikiProject standards cannot be enforced, then what is the good of a WikiProject? --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WikiProject standards represent the views of those people who participate in the project. They can help give guidance to the wider commuity that may not be as intimiately familiar with the subject, but the standards provided by a project cannot override those of wikipedia itself. They are merely guides issued by people who are interested in the subject.Balloonman (talk) 07:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Your stance seriously undermines the purpose of the WikiProject. Why have rules if noone will follow them? --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, Wikiprojects cannot override Wiki-policy. If an article is up for AFD, the people at the AFD may refer to the appropriate wikiproject, but they are not required to adhere to the guidance of the project. Wikiprojects do not establish policy. Wikiprojects DO NOT enforce rules---a perfect example is AFD. If the participants at a Wikiproject thought an article needed to be deleted, they don't have the ability to delete it. If an admin associated with the project deleted it without going through the proper steps, the article could be recreated and a complaint lodged against the admin. They are expected to follow the rules of Wikipedia. Generally, people outside of a project will defer to the people who are more knowledgable about the subject, but that is assuming that the project adheres to the overarching policies. For example, suppose that WP:Christianity decided that all articles under their umbrella should use the BC/AD convention. That's fine and good for them to say so, but that would be against existing policies concerning dates. And then how do you handle it when an article falls under the purvue of two wikiprojects that have differing views? Balloonman (talk) 07:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- However, when WikiProjects do not conflict with Wiki-policy, then the standards should be enforceable. That is what I believe Scott means. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It may be what Scott wanted to say, but his answer was very weak. When responding to optional questions, he should remember this is his time to shine. It is his chance to show people that he not only knows and understands wikipolicy, but knows how to look it up and articulate it when asked a question he isn't familiar with. People are asking questions that matter to them. By giving inaccurate (question 4) or incomplete (question 8) answers, he fails to demonstrate his understanding of Wikipedia. With the exception of the question about images (number 10?) , none of his answers demonstrated a familiarity with Wikipolicy. RFA is like an interview, you want to make yourself look as good as you possibly can. I would recommend that Scott go through admin coaching and return in 3 months.Balloonman (talk) 08:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You still have not demonstrated how his answer was incorrect. Furthermore, you assumed that Scott meant that WikiProject guidelines were above Wikipedia guideline. This is jumping to conclusions. My concern regarding number 8 is that many esteemed editors do hold teh same values that Scott and I do, and there is nothing wrong with that. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And I quote, "setting and enforcing standards on the articles under their care is certainly within their bounds." Setting standards is not within their bounds. Enforcing standards is certainly not within their bounds. At best, the answer he gave is incomplete and needed to be elaborated upon. At worse, it is incorrect. Wikiprojects help bring like minded people together to help them establish consensus, but it does not give them guardianship over specified articles. The normal avenues of enforcement still prevail. In one's RfA one should give complete answers that demonstrates a breadth of knowledge concerning wikipedia policy/guidelines. With the exception of the question on Images, he failed to demonstrate knowledge concerning applicable policies/guidelines on any of the questions.Balloonman (talk) 04:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Problem is, you have restated his answer, but not backed it up except for a restatement of your position. Many Arbcom candidates do believe that WikiProjects can set and enforce standards (and I did not ask them for the purposes of this RFA). --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And I quote, "setting and enforcing standards on the articles under their care is certainly within their bounds." Setting standards is not within their bounds. Enforcing standards is certainly not within their bounds. At best, the answer he gave is incomplete and needed to be elaborated upon. At worse, it is incorrect. Wikiprojects help bring like minded people together to help them establish consensus, but it does not give them guardianship over specified articles. The normal avenues of enforcement still prevail. In one's RfA one should give complete answers that demonstrates a breadth of knowledge concerning wikipedia policy/guidelines. With the exception of the question on Images, he failed to demonstrate knowledge concerning applicable policies/guidelines on any of the questions.Balloonman (talk) 04:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You still have not demonstrated how his answer was incorrect. Furthermore, you assumed that Scott meant that WikiProject guidelines were above Wikipedia guideline. This is jumping to conclusions. My concern regarding number 8 is that many esteemed editors do hold teh same values that Scott and I do, and there is nothing wrong with that. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It may be what Scott wanted to say, but his answer was very weak. When responding to optional questions, he should remember this is his time to shine. It is his chance to show people that he not only knows and understands wikipolicy, but knows how to look it up and articulate it when asked a question he isn't familiar with. People are asking questions that matter to them. By giving inaccurate (question 4) or incomplete (question 8) answers, he fails to demonstrate his understanding of Wikipedia. With the exception of the question about images (number 10?) , none of his answers demonstrated a familiarity with Wikipolicy. RFA is like an interview, you want to make yourself look as good as you possibly can. I would recommend that Scott go through admin coaching and return in 3 months.Balloonman (talk) 08:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- However, when WikiProjects do not conflict with Wiki-policy, then the standards should be enforceable. That is what I believe Scott means. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, Wikiprojects cannot override Wiki-policy. If an article is up for AFD, the people at the AFD may refer to the appropriate wikiproject, but they are not required to adhere to the guidance of the project. Wikiprojects do not establish policy. Wikiprojects DO NOT enforce rules---a perfect example is AFD. If the participants at a Wikiproject thought an article needed to be deleted, they don't have the ability to delete it. If an admin associated with the project deleted it without going through the proper steps, the article could be recreated and a complaint lodged against the admin. They are expected to follow the rules of Wikipedia. Generally, people outside of a project will defer to the people who are more knowledgable about the subject, but that is assuming that the project adheres to the overarching policies. For example, suppose that WP:Christianity decided that all articles under their umbrella should use the BC/AD convention. That's fine and good for them to say so, but that would be against existing policies concerning dates. And then how do you handle it when an article falls under the purvue of two wikiprojects that have differing views? Balloonman (talk) 07:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Your stance seriously undermines the purpose of the WikiProject. Why have rules if noone will follow them? --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WikiProject standards represent the views of those people who participate in the project. They can help give guidance to the wider commuity that may not be as intimiately familiar with the subject, but the standards provided by a project cannot override those of wikipedia itself. They are merely guides issued by people who are interested in the subject.Balloonman (talk) 07:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not edit biographical articles, so I am not familiar with the policies that apply to them. I can't see the hypothetical situation posed in the question coming up during the course of my editing. —Scott5114↗ 06:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Therein you are showing your lack of experience with wikipedia. This is a very real possibility. But your lack of familiarity of the policy and inability to research the appropriate response are what bothers me. I don't expect people to know the answer to every question, but you should be able to research it--hell the person who posed the question provided you the link to the answer! I was asked about inappropriate names on my RFA, I had never dealt with the issue, but I answered the question by citing the appropriate policies. I didn't know the answers but I knew where to look. You gave poor answers with no indication that you realized that policies might exist.Balloonman (talk) 07:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't edit biographical articles. I might have edited Chris Tomlin once. Does that mean that I have a lack of experience with Wikipedia? --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- BLP is not exclusive to biographical articles! It is relevant to ANY article that discusses a living person. To take an area that is one of Scott's interest, an article on highways may discuss the Secretary of Transportation. The article isn't a biography, but can still have a BLP concern. ANY article that mentions a living person can. Again, however, I want to pull you back to the concern that not only is Scott not familiar with this policy, but didn't appear to know where to research it.Balloonman (talk) 07:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am an administrator and am not familiar with BLP. Is this of concern to you? --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you were provided with the link to WP:BLP and asked a question about the provided link, would you look at the policy before responding on your RFA? I would like to think that you would. Again, I'm not asking that he be familiar with everything---I had never heard of OTRS---but if I was asked about it, I would have investigated it before responding. If he doesn't take time to research the applicable policies before becoming an admin (or during his RFA) what is the likelihood of his researching them afterwards? Right now he knows that he is going to be evaluated on his answers, but he gave very weak answers. Before giving somebody the tools, I would like to know that they know how to look up and identify applicable policies.Balloonman (talk) 07:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am an administrator and am not familiar with BLP. Is this of concern to you? --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- BLP is not exclusive to biographical articles! It is relevant to ANY article that discusses a living person. To take an area that is one of Scott's interest, an article on highways may discuss the Secretary of Transportation. The article isn't a biography, but can still have a BLP concern. ANY article that mentions a living person can. Again, however, I want to pull you back to the concern that not only is Scott not familiar with this policy, but didn't appear to know where to research it.Balloonman (talk) 07:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't edit biographical articles. I might have edited Chris Tomlin once. Does that mean that I have a lack of experience with Wikipedia? --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Therein you are showing your lack of experience with wikipedia. This is a very real possibility. But your lack of familiarity of the policy and inability to research the appropriate response are what bothers me. I don't expect people to know the answer to every question, but you should be able to research it--hell the person who posed the question provided you the link to the answer! I was asked about inappropriate names on my RFA, I had never dealt with the issue, but I answered the question by citing the appropriate policies. I didn't know the answers but I knew where to look. You gave poor answers with no indication that you realized that policies might exist.Balloonman (talk) 07:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, there is no mechanism to deal with obscene / long signatures at RFC name. Or if there is, it is not evident. Even as an administrator (which I have been for nearly 2 years) I was not aware of the BLP policies or the so-called RFC/NAME mechanism related to signatures. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no official process (that I know of) to get rid of extremely irritating signatures. WP:RFC/NAME only deals with the actual username. --DarkFalls talk 06:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You have a point there, I did misread the question. I thought it as asking about usernames, not signatures. I would have still liked to have seen a reference to WP:SIGNATURE, but I will strike that concern from my comments above.Balloonman (talk) 07:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no official process (that I know of) to get rid of extremely irritating signatures. WP:RFC/NAME only deals with the actual username. --DarkFalls talk 06:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I take issue with the policy as it stands. I honestly don't care whether it comes from Jimbo Wales himself; there are obvious times when discussion should, or should not, occur. So I take issue with the policy's statement. Without question. --Son (talk) 17:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you don't like it, work to improve it. 哦, 是吗?(User:O) 22:22, 27 November 2007 (GMT)
- If the WikiProject standards cannot be enforced, then what is the good of a WikiProject? --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - Scott5114 is a fine editor and a credit to the project, but I'm afraid that I can't support this nomination. Adminship is not a reward given to people in recognition of their services--it is a task taken up by people who want to deal with the muck and the thankless jobs required to keep Wikipedia humming, and I suggest the nominee keep that in mind as this process continues. As far as my specific concerns go, Scott's answer to the first question is particularly troubling, as a prospective admin should be prepared to field requests from all sections of the project, which in turn requires a broad level of experience and knowledge. Regarding this point, I think his Wikipedia namespace contributions are the most telling--the vast majority of these are edits in road-related project spaces, with no reports to WP:AIV or WP:UAA and a single edit each on WP:RPP ([6]) and WP:AN/I ([7]). Although Scott has participated in a number of AfDs, most of which were related to his primary interest, I have not been able to find any comments convincing me that he has a firm understanding of how to apply Wikipedia policy and guidelines--a number of comments do not attempt to make an argument or address concerns raised by the nominators (1, 2, 3, 4), and most of the arguments he did make in AfD do not reflect a full understanding of policies. The one that really sticks out is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windsor Mill Road, which illustrates a less-than-complete understanding of WP:N and WP:V as well as the AfD process itself. That being said, I am heartened by his participation at WP:IFD and WP:MFD, which shows an interest in administrative tasks and forces him to branch out a bit. If he continues to do work on more quasi-administrative tasks and shows a better understanding of the application of policy to topics other than roads (e.g. WP:BLP, which is not demonstrated above), I'd be more than happy to support him the next time around. --jonny-mt(t)(c)I'm on editor review! 11:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - response to Q4 is concerning. Otherwise a good editor. Addhoc (talk) 14:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per response to question 4. Believing that "extremely libellous" material should exist on WP (in any form) is hopelessly out-of-step with current policy. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - per Jonny. I don't (currently) see any need for the tools and most of your Wikipedia related edits can be do without them. I may support next time though. — Rudget contributions 18:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per the answers to Q4 and Q8. Even accepting Rschen7754's clarification of the answer to Q8 as a possibility of what was intended, I'm very uncomfortable with this view of Wikiprojects in practice. Suggest the editor take some more time to brush up on policies and guidelines and try another nomination down the road.--Isotope23 talk 20:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm very sorry to do this, but the answers to the questions, overall experience, and some of the other oppose comments speak for themselves. I highly respect Scott as a level-headed user wherever I work with him, but I have doubts on how he can handle difficult situations that are outside of the roads scope. The lack of knowledge on how to respond to queries he may not be the most familiar to is something that I should be able to invoke on any random administrator [candidate] without any trouble. When dealing with something that has OTRS involved, you never discuss the situation in publicly viewable venues, since anything that has to do with OTRS is almost always sensitive. Sensitive material, including libellous and/or unsourced ones, [at the very least on Wikipedia], do not belong anywhere [on Wikipedia, at the very least], not even talk pages for discussion. The flawed judgements on the AFDs that jonny-mt pointed out will reflect on how good an administrator's judgement is, and by looking at those AFDs signify that more education on the various content policies/guidelines is needed. Because of all that, I am going to have to say no for now. 哦, 是吗?(User:O) 22:22, 27 November 2007 (GMT)
- Oppose. All the above explain why. Answer to number 4. I know you wouldn't abuse the admin tools; you're a good editor, but I can't support because of that. Jack?! 01:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but I don't understand this position. The question states that some people think the content is biased and libellous, and some people think the content is perfectly fine. The issue is contentious, but the Administrator believes that the content is libellous. Are you saying that the Administrator should just impose his opinion and override all of the people who think that the content is fine? Scott5114 answered correctly, saying that he would remove the content from the article and allow the content to be debated. Please tell me that you wouldn't just delete the content if you were in his position. We need consensus and discussion, not dictators imposing their own opinions. I fear for Wikipedia if the people who dislike Scott's answer to #4 get their way. DOSGuy (talk) 02:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think by and large, the issue with the answer to #4 was that Scott didn't say "he would remove the content from the article and allow the content to be debated"... he said he would move it to the talkpage during the debate. In the case of potentially libelous, unsourced material, it should be removed from the article and not moved anywhere. The content can certainly be debated (it would still be in the page history), and sources can be sought, but the policy is crystal clear on this: "Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material"; that applies to both the article space and the talkspace. Just moving potential libel from one place to another, or restoring it unsourced because there is some sort of consensus to do so isn't responsible editing. This isn't even an admin function... every editor should be doing this.--Isotope23 talk 14:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but I don't understand this position. The question states that some people think the content is biased and libellous, and some people think the content is perfectly fine. The issue is contentious, but the Administrator believes that the content is libellous. Are you saying that the Administrator should just impose his opinion and override all of the people who think that the content is fine? Scott5114 answered correctly, saying that he would remove the content from the article and allow the content to be debated. Please tell me that you wouldn't just delete the content if you were in his position. We need consensus and discussion, not dictators imposing their own opinions. I fear for Wikipedia if the people who dislike Scott's answer to #4 get their way. DOSGuy (talk) 02:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Due to concerns over the user's understanding of policy, particularly question number 4 regarding WP:BLP. --Strothra (talk) 07:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- oppose I just did not like the answers I read to the questions --Jeanenawhitney (talk) 14:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per the answer to Question 4. Whether or not one is familiar with the finer points of BLP, one should never do anything to preserve content that appears "extremely libelous." The candidate either didn't read the question or didn't think before answering it. On such a sensitive issue, this lack of care is a major concern. Xoloz (talk) 14:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, due to your answer to question four. WP:BLP applies to talk pages too, and indeed every page on Wikipedia, not only mainspace pages. I can see you becoming administrator in a few months, when you've become more familiar with the guidelines and policies, however. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 19:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Good editor but needs greater variety of experience (e.g., edit more kinds of articles, get involved in XfD and/or policy discussions) and needs to demonstrate greater knowledge of policy and guidelines. -- Wryspy (talk) 20:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- Neutral - Has Good Edit History and Quality but as others have said, the response to certain questions does not match WP Policy. PookeyMaster (talk) 23:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral Per answer to question #4, but still a good editor. Jmlk17 00:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral It's unusual for such an excellent editor to have such a contentious RfA. I never thought I would see the day when saying "I would allow the issue to be discussed" would be the wrong answer, but this time it was. While I still think that it was a noble sentiment, and while I don't expect you to memorize all of Wikipedia's policies, my support was dependent on the notion that, since I believe in your maturity and responsibility, you would look up any policy before taking action. You don't have to know all of the answers as long as you know how to find the answers when you need them, but there appears to be valid concerns about the research you put into your responses. I think it would benefit the candidate to get some mentoring from an Administrator about the duties and daily responsibilities of an Admin, and then apply again, if for no other reason than to have your RfA pass with flying colors. But for better preparation, this application would have easily passed. DOSGuy (talk) 06:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
Final (31/14/12); Closed as no consensus by WjBscribe at 00:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
thedemonhog (talk · contribs) - thedemonhog has been editing Wikipedia since June 2006. Since then, she has made around 5,000 edits, including 3,000 to mainspace, and has written two featured articles, two featured lists, a good article and a DYK article. thedemonhog is an active member of WikiProject Lost, and has participated at AfD and Wikipedia:Requested moves, where she has displayed a good knowledge of policies and guidelines. She is also experienced at working with templates and images, and is a regular contributer Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. thedemonhog is a sensible and devoted editor, who would make excellent use of the admin tools. Epbr123 (talk) 00:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Hello, I accept. Please note that I began contributing in April 2006 using my IP address. Including the 1272 edits with 230 not in the mainspace using my IP, my count is over 6500. –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 intend to move protected pages that are protected against moves, create accounts for users when similar user names exist (as long as they are not too similar) and respond to problems and questions at the noticeboard. The requested moves and account request pages seem to be monitored less than some others, such as the one for protection requests. Of course whenever I pass by the protection requests page or recent changes, I will try to make myself useful. Finally, while the "undo" button is quite speedy, the "rollback" button is apparently faster, so I would use that.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: Most of my time on Wikipedia has been spent editing articles of the Lost WikiProject. I have renovated the project page and significantly contributed to many Lost articles, adding "out-of-universe" information and citations. The article on the fourth season has over 80 references and the season does not even begin airing until February. When the new season airs, I plan to tackle the episode articles immediately and get them nominated for good or featured article status a week after the episode airs.
- 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 do not think that I have been too stressed out, nor do I think we should be as editing Wikipedia is just for fun. I had a minor disagreement over which picture to use in an article, but that was a year ago and we rationally discussed it. There was also a misunderstanding in March after a user (unknowingly) uploaded a picture within minutes after I uploaded an almost identical image. His was deleted because I was (barely) first, I edited out the watermark and I shrunk mine so as to better meet fair use. He didn't understand and thought I was out to get him, so I explained myself while keeping a cool head. The biggest conflict I have had was in December/January. Two sides engaged in an edit war, violating the three-revert rule several times. At the time, I was largely unfamiliar with the policy and that incident taught me to discuss matters instead of reverting. Protection was granted and it was discussed on the talk page – both of which should have happened earlier.
Optional question from Elkman:
- 4. I noticed you were blocked in June for violating Wikipedia:Non-free content. You were warned here and then blocked a minute later. (Personally, I don't think it's right to give someone a warning and then block them right away, unless they're a persistent vandal, but that's another topic.) Could you explain the circumstances that led up to this block? Was it only in relation to fair-use images that were later orphaned, or were there other problems? --Elkman (Elkspeak) 01:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A: I enjoy an illustrated Wikipedia and I used to upload high resolution fair use pictures without providing rationales. By June, I was beginning to clean up my mess, but I was blocked due to my numerous prior violations. Now, each of the fair use pictures that I have uploaded are low resolution and have rationales. See them here.
Optional question from Lankiveil:
- 5. I notice that most of your contributions are related in some way to a particular television programme. While there is nothing else in your history that indicates you would be unsuitable for the role, this extremely narrow focus makes me uneasy, as I'm not sure that you've interacted with more than a narrowly focused group of Wikipedians. Can you direct me to any significant contributions that you have made outside of the TV programme "Lost"? Lankiveil (talk) 03:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A: Most of my edits have been television-related, but of course, I fix spelling errors whenever I find them. Occasionally, I visit the recent changes page and revert vandalism. I also comment at the TFA requests page, welcome new users and am helping with the proposal for today's featured list.
Optional question from Jonathan:
- 6. I have noticed that your edits are more distributed to the mainspace than the other namespaces. Why is that? Signed, Jonathan • Don't stereotype 15:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A: I do not think that I consciously chose to have my edits distributed the way that they have been (~65% to article, image and template namespaces and ~35% to Wikipedia and various talk namespaces). Maybe I would rather improve the encyclopedia than talk about improving it.
Optional question from DGG:
- 7. Could you give us your view of one currently disputed policy question at WP, and one open disputed AfD not involving television programs. Obviously, there's no right or wrong answer,--thats why I asked for currently disputed subjects. I ask because I see almost no edits to discussions of WP policy, or to XfDs among your contributions. DGG (talk) 20:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A: Hi, sorry I took so long to answer. Are there other places to look for diputed policies besides Requests for comment/Policies and the policy village pump? I looked over requests for comments discussion for the wheel war policy. I disagree with the proposal. The original wording was short and to-the-point. The proposed wording seems overly long and more likely to confuse. I commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marion Frances Chevalier, writing that although sources will be hard to find, the article satisfies notability guidelines. Now, I'll give some explanation as to why I contribute the article namespace more than the Wikipedia namespace. The wheel war proposal will come to a conclusion regardless of whether I give input (unless I was the one who proposed it). Vandalism will be reverted and AfD's will usually have the same outcome whether or not I vote. On the other hand, no one was going to rewrite Through the Looking Glass (Lost) to featured article status (or at least, not for a while).
- among the places to look for discussions of policy are the talk pages for the basic WP:POLICY pages, such as N, RS, V, NOT. I hope you will have looked at some of them by the time you apply again. DGG (talk) 04:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A: Hi, sorry I took so long to answer. Are there other places to look for diputed policies besides Requests for comment/Policies and the policy village pump? I looked over requests for comments discussion for the wheel war policy. I disagree with the proposal. The original wording was short and to-the-point. The proposed wording seems overly long and more likely to confuse. I commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marion Frances Chevalier, writing that although sources will be hard to find, the article satisfies notability guidelines. Now, I'll give some explanation as to why I contribute the article namespace more than the Wikipedia namespace. The wheel war proposal will come to a conclusion regardless of whether I give input (unless I was the one who proposed it). Vandalism will be reverted and AfD's will usually have the same outcome whether or not I vote. On the other hand, no one was going to rewrite Through the Looking Glass (Lost) to featured article status (or at least, not for a while).
Question From Pedro
- 8. I have reviewed your contributions per my standards and I still am undecided. The opposers make some good points, and I'm still in awe of Q6 that whilst brusque is also accurate. Onto my question, as this is now about mid point in your RfA. If this RfA fails how will you feel? Pedro : Chat 11:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A: I would not feel too bad. It does not look like I am going to make it and that is okay as the tools are not necessary. You can expect Greatest Hits (Lost) to go to FAC soon and for me to contribute more to the Wikipedia namespace regardless of the outcome of this RfA.
General comments
- See thedemonhog's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
- Links for thedemonhog: Thedemonhog (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/thedemonhog before commenting.
Discussion
Support
- Support. Upon reviewing your contributions, I see no obvious reason to oppose :) good luck! Anthøny 00:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as nom. Epbr123 (talk) 00:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I see no reason not to. Unlikely to abuse admin tools as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 07:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - as per AGK. Nothing to oppose with. Rudget.talk 12:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to support, although I would like to see you edit in more areas of Wikipedia. I know that giving you admin tools will do this, as you will be able to do admin tasks, so that is the reason why I am supporting. Good luck. Jack?! 13:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support.I agree that participation in a broader range of topics, both in and out of the mainspace, would be of benefit to the candidate, and I encourage her to read and understand the relevant policies before wading into areas where she has had little involvement to date. Having the mop will force her to broaden her horizons, which is why I support the candidate. Good luck, ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 17:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC) Changed to oppose, below ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 18:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]
- Support, from writing TTLG to FA, she's a quality contributor, although the limited scope of contributions is of small concern. Will (talk) 19:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This candidate is a quality contributor. I see no evidence that the tools will be abused. Acalamari 19:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, your editing is great, but I wish you had more experience on the Projectspace. Nevertheless, you will be a fine admin. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 21:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support As per nom.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - nothing wrong here. jj137 (Talk) 00:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Seems like a really great editor, and an excellent contributor to the project rather than someone who just reverts vandalism all day. I can understand the arguments made by the opposition, but don't think that there is any legitimate reason to oppose (just my opinion). Nor am I worried that the editor has a narrow field of interest; if anything, I find this preferable. She is devoted to one specific topic, and is likely an expert on the subject. All admins should have at least one area of expertise, where they can really help the project; why deduct points just because her area happens to be a television show? faithless (speak) 10:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I find her work definitely satisfactory. Some are opposing because of the many mainspace contribs, but I prefer a high percentage of mainspace edits, because it's the whole reason why we're here. She also has sufficient experience in other areas and has been editing for a long time. No reason not to support. Useight (talk) 17:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I think she'll do fine --MoRsE (talk) 21:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support benefits outweigh risks to the ultimate task of 'pedia building in this case so a green light from me.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support — I don't see any compelling evidence that this user will misuse the tools. Everyone should have tools, unless they are going to misuse. This editor seems mature and intelligent enough to know when to apply the tools, and when not to. Concerns about experience seem to ignore this distinction. --Haemo (talk) 01:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, no concerns. Neil ☎ 11:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, seems unlikely to abuse the tools. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support capable user no concerns --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 05:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I see no concerns on my part. Dustihowe (talk) 19:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support because she satisfies my standards. I have no reasons to dis-trust and not give the mop to her. She's a competent and long-standing editor. Although her interests are not mine, we could use some knowledgeable about such things as a sysop. She's made reasonable answers to all the questions. Bearian (talk) 21:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I sense nothing but good intentions from this user. My primary criteria for Adminship is a mature, responsible editor with a sufficient body of edits to prove knowledge of Wikipedia and its policies. Clearly mature and responsible, lots of edits, and clearly passionate about a particular field. Great answer to #6, by the way. Everyone is talking about Wikipedia but no one is doing anything about it! DOSGuy (talk) 00:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Adminship is about trust. I trust this user to read the manual before throwing herself into unfamiliar tasks and to refer users with questions onward if she can't answer them herself. Anyone with that level of content work has enough social skills to handle most any social interaction that pops up. The answer to question #6, which has almost certainly doomed this RFA, is awesome - succinctly worded in its certainty about the primacy of content over process in an encyclopedia, which is exactly as it should be. (When in a forum of users who, by self-selection, tend to be interested in process and policy, it's bad politics to imply that they're interested in issues secondary to the site, but I'll give you extra points for being oblivious to wikipolitics.) - BanyanTree 04:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yay, extra points! :) –thedemonhog talk • edits 04:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per Q6. Having an admin who is not interested in being a process wonk, let alone a process bully, would be a net improvement to Wikipedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I have seen nothing to demonhog's detriment; re Q6, what is seen as brusque, I read as terse, which is no bad thing. There are too many words wasted here. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 00:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Support Based on honest answer to my question. Many concerns of the opposers are valid, but I am confident that whether this RfA passes or fails the candidate will take the criticism on board constructively. Best Wishes. Pedro : Chat 08:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per Questions 6, 7: a golden ratio of work vs. talk. We must have workhorse admins in addition to wikilawyers. `'Míkka>t 01:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well said. DOSGuy (talk) 03:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support She is an excellent editor and I doubt she would abuse the position. -- Scorpion0422 01:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Support - Overall, a Good Candidate but the lack of Knowledge with some of the Policies is of Concern. Other than the Policies Issue, the User has my Support. PookeyMaster (talk) 06:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - no indication that the user will abuse the buttons. Adminship is not a job, it's a set of extra buttons given to editors who are trusted not to misuse them. There's no requirement that they ever use them for anything specific or anything at all. Zocky | picture popups 13:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Safe. Axl 17:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I see no cause for concern with this editor, and I was rather impressed with the answer given to Q6, which I thought was right on the button. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Oppose - I think that more experience in other areas of Wikipedia is necessary to create an admin who isn't quickly out of their depth in issues they haven't encountered before. Also, I am rather concerned over the image issues in the past, the seems to continue at least in the Peter Petrelli article about a month ago, wherein images already in place were replaced with random, less-effective images. It would seem that someone seeking adminship would be highly interested in finding consensus before making these drastic sorts of edits. The editor needs more experience. When Thedemonhog is able to distance himself further from his problematic past, and garner experience outside of the Lost series of articles, then I would be more comfortable supporting this editor for adminship. Not now, though. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough that you do not feel that I have enough experience, but I can defend myself against the Peter image dispute. I was going through the Heroes character articles and I noticed that the majority of infobox images were portrait promotional photos. Strangely, Peter's article had a cropped screenshot instead (see here). I felt that the articles should be consistent so I uploaded a promotional photo (see here). Arcayne said above that "images already in place were replaced with random, less-effective images." The image I uploaded was not random, it was equally effective and it was an image – not images. Arcayne then saw that I had changed the image without discussion and instead of reverting back to the old image, he uploaded a new version of the picture (see here) without discussion. As I said at my talk page, I can ask Arcayne the same question that he asked me (why did you change the image without gaining consensus?). –thedemonhog talk • edits 17:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- With respect, you pulled the initial placeholder image without consensus, and inserted another, again without consensus. While trying to find the image that had apparently been deleted or overwritten, I found another. While I didn't seek consensus for the replacement image (which focused on the character's fact and not a torso shot), I am not the one seeking adminship. Admins should not just be folk with a better toolbox; they should be serving as examples to the membership, so as to inspire editors to want to be better. Pulling and substituting images without consensus or even a single post before the fact is not what I am looking for in someone who wants admsinship I am not saying you are a cad, and without merit. I am just saying that you need more time outside your comfort zone, so we can see how your experience is applied in other areas. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough that you do not feel that I have enough experience, but I can defend myself against the Peter image dispute. I was going through the Heroes character articles and I noticed that the majority of infobox images were portrait promotional photos. Strangely, Peter's article had a cropped screenshot instead (see here). I felt that the articles should be consistent so I uploaded a promotional photo (see here). Arcayne said above that "images already in place were replaced with random, less-effective images." The image I uploaded was not random, it was equally effective and it was an image – not images. Arcayne then saw that I had changed the image without discussion and instead of reverting back to the old image, he uploaded a new version of the picture (see here) without discussion. As I said at my talk page, I can ask Arcayne the same question that he asked me (why did you change the image without gaining consensus?). –thedemonhog talk • edits 17:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose No demonstration of knowledge or even interest in Wikipedia policy. The basic work of an administrator is the application of this policy to disputable situations, and without experience in policy there is no way of doing the work correctly. Acquire some by working in WP space, and come back in three months, and I hope to be able to support. DGG (talk) 00:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per dicussion. I have worked with thedemonhog for over a year- we are two of the most active editors of the Lost articles. As has been said, she is quite a capable, understanding and intelligent editor, and it has been a pleasure to improve and promote articles with her. Nonetheless, I too take issue with the fact that her editing and time on Wikipedia are so narrowly focused. An administrator needs a history of experience with the technical and policy side of Wikipedia. As a member of the overall Wikipedia community, I hope and expect that our administrators fully comprehend policy and can help guide us, and if we feel that there are doubts with a prospective admin, here, the requests page, is the place to sort them out. I'm afraid that thedemonhog's history and experience with Wikipedia policy is lacking now, and I would not feel confident currently to call upon thedemonhog to resolve a Wikipedia matter outside of the Lost pages. However, also as has been said, I am confident that in time thedemonhog would make a wonderful admin, and I unfortunately must oppose. -- Wikipedical (talk) 04:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not At This Time. I'm reasonably confident that user would not maliciously misuse the admin tools, but as per the answer to question five above, I'm not convinced that this user has had a broad enough experience with Wikipedia to use the tools effectively. Perhaps in a couple of months when your contributions to things like Featured Lists and the like are a little wider, I will be more confident supporting your application. Lankiveil (talk) 07:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Oppose User does seem like a great editor, but I don't see the broad(er) range of experience I would prefer to see in an admin. The TV episode editing is wonderful, and I do hope you keep up the great work there, but try broadening the areas you edit in. I'm almost positive I will be able to support next time. Best of luck! Jmlk17 07:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose A great editor but not ready for admin tools yet maybe at some point in the near future Alexfusco5 21:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. The editor needs more experience. The editor needs to demonstrate more knowledge of Wikipedia policy. Editor needs greater breadth of experience. Needs to get involved in a greater variety of articles. Get involved in XfD discussions. You're going to have trouble helping resolve disputes if you don't know more about the variety of things that go on around here. Although apparently unlikely to abuse tools, editor shows insufficient need for them. Wryspy (talk) 02:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose A crucial part of being an administrator is to help mediate disputes, help less experienced contributors, and make sure that the whole process goes smoothly. A lack of knowledge on various policies and guidelines are not going to help a(n) [future] administrator go anywhere when they are involved in a dispute. 哦, 是吗?(User:O) 03:17, 27 November 2007 (GMT)
- Oppose One of the users primary interest in becoming an admin is to move pages, but I see only 7 edits on the Request for Moves page. I'm also concerned about her depth of knowledge elsewhere.Balloonman (talk) 05:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I'm unsure whether this user understands what admin work entails. Answer to Question 6 is frankly offensive and confrontational toward Wiki-Gnomes, which also causes me to wonder about candidate's communication abilities. Xoloz (talk) 14:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How was it offensive or confrontational? –thedemonhog talk • edits 01:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Respectfully, I disagree with Xoloz's interpretation of the answer. thehog indicates her own preference for how she improves Wikipedia. She does not imply that the work of Wiki-Gnomes is less valuable. Axl 18:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How was it offensive or confrontational? –thedemonhog talk • edits 01:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose While this user clearly has a fundamental grasp of the subject whic clearly forms the vast majority of their edits - the TV programme "Lost" - it is nor demonstrated to me in the edits presented that they possess an equvalent grasp of the basic wkipedia policies. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 18:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose due to Question 6. A great deal of admin work takes place in the Wikipedia and Wikipedia Talk namespaces. Indeed, much of an admin's work directly involves "talking about" improving the project, whether through warnings and blocks to vandals, discussion of proposed and contested deletions at XfD, discussions at AN/I, or evidence at RfC and Arbitration. The well-qualified administrator must be prepared to discuss his/her actions, seeking consensus if necessary, and accepting consensus if it shows their actions to be in error. While a lack of prior participation in these areas isn't necessarily a problem, disdain for those areas of the project is of serious concern. With all respect to the candidate, I cannot support. changed from support, above ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 18:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per question 6; I don't feel as offended as Xoloz at the answer but admin work involves a lot of talking about things, handling difficult and contentious issues, and lots of thankless work that probably doesn't fit your vision of improving the encyclopedia but it does many other people's. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - due to the conflict, that seemed pretty petty to be arguing over. remember as admin you should act at all times professional. I just witnessed an admin that started an edit war and then went to another admin to complain. This is what I don't want to see. admin's should never feel they are the almighty, they should not think that they are correct all the time. They should take a step back and look at things objectively. Because of the way the above was handled and the way he seemed to react after he was vindicated, indicates to me that this will happen again. Therefore I strongly oppose this nomination. --Jeanenawhitney 17:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- Neutral. This editor is clearly highly accomplished in the area of TV series. She understands how we create featured articles in that area, and has a clear understanding of where she would work as an admin. However, articles about TV series are somewhat unusual; they are typically sourced from a narrow range of types of media - typically, the programmes themselves, as well as accompanying material from magazines and the web. In spite of my concern that her experience of article space is thus limited (although she reverts vandalism on a much wider range of articles, including scientific topics), I am encouraged by her expressing an interest in Greek mythology. Have you, thedemonhog, made significant, well-referenced content contributions to articles in that area? Samsara (talk • contribs) 04:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A: No, I have not. Right now, I want to fix the Lost articles because most of them are just plot summaries that are in danger of being nominated for deletion. Greek mythology articles seem to be in no danger of this. Additionally, I am currently more interested in Lost than classical mythology. If this was three years ago, I would more likely be editing mythology articles. –thedemonhog talk • edits 06:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral I see no indication that this editor would attempt to abuse the mop, but also see no broad range of experience to gauge how they might react to different circumstances. A steady editor who is learning, but perhaps needs to widen their Wikipedia imprint. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral - Although I have no doubts that this editor is unlikely to abuse the tools, I too have doubts which echo those of LessHeard vanU. These concerns are not enough to lead me to oppose, but I cannot support. Perhaps in a few months, with evidence of additional experience outside of the niche of TV articles. -MBK004 04:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe - You are a great user and all, with your Lost obsession and all that jazz, and true, you will not abuse the tools (in good faith), but you lack experience in almost all areas. Now, that may seem hypocrytic if you look at my background, but I think that you would be overwhelmed by the responsibilities of admin-persons. For example (and this is an optional question, too): What if, by arbitrary means, an user that was knowledgeable, but not too knowledgeable, asked you about a subject that you had no experience in whatsoever, such as, say, World of Warcraft or Wikipedian Arbitration? Would you quickly pilfer through Wikipedia searching for random bits of information that they asked you about, or would you direct them to another administrator? Or, as an alternative option, would you simply ignore them and do the opposite of what a Wiki admin is supposed to do? Flaminglawyer talk contrib 05:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't find that neutral particularly weighty, considering your ~100 contributions. Rudget talk 14:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Notice that in my second sentence I said that this comment/question may seem hypocrytic. Flaminglawyer talk contrib 18:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose. But that very fact, sort of removes all sort of substance from the rest of the neutral. I'm slightly surprised by your good knowledge of Wikipedia. Rudget talk 18:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Notice that in my second sentence I said that this comment/question may seem hypocrytic. Flaminglawyer talk contrib 18:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't find that neutral particularly weighty, considering your ~100 contributions. Rudget talk 14:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A: Administrators are not required to play World of Warcraft, so I would direct the user to its Wikipedia article. As for arbitration, I would refresh my memory at requests for arbitration, give the user a summary, tell the user that it is the last step of conflict resolution (if the dispute cannot be resolved sooner), and give them links to arbitration policy and dispute resolution. –thedemonhog talk • edits 20:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral I don't know what to do; support or oppose; I've seen good things in the support comments while there are concerns in the oppose section. NHRHS2010 talk 20:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral.This neutral is significantly leaning towards oppose and I will likely more it there, but I would like to encourage the candidate to respond to DGG's question seven first. I had been waiting to respond based on the answer there, but the user has not done so. As has been said in the opposes, I am worried about policy knowledge. That question is a prime example of a way to demonstrate knowledge. SorryGuy 07:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am going to go ahead and remain neutral. While I appreciate your answer, I am still not convinced of policy knowledge or need for the tools. SorryGuy 01:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Does anyone need the tools? –thedemonhog talk • edits 03:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't, but I would use them responsibly if I had them. I like the sentiment that you intend to continue to be an editor — using Admin tools when necessary in the course of your editing duties — rather than become a bureaucrat and divert your attention from editing. That kind of casual attitude toward Administrative powers is preferable to anyone who wants Adminship too badly, which betrays a lack of understanding of WP:DEAL. Since you will need to know Wikipedia policy to be able to responsibly use those tools, even if you don't intend to make policy or become a bureaucrat, I think you would be wise to phrase your answers in a way that makes it clear that your primary passion is editing, and that you don't have disdain for the work that goes on outside of the mainspace. You came here to edit, and there's nothing wrong with that. DOSGuy (talk) 18:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Does anyone need the tools? –thedemonhog talk • edits 03:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am going to go ahead and remain neutral. While I appreciate your answer, I am still not convinced of policy knowledge or need for the tools. SorryGuy 01:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. I'm not totally satisfied about the fair-use image business. While I can appreciate that the user learned something from the experience, and that she won't make the same mistake again, I'm not certain about her ability to enforce policy in this area in the future. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 20:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I would prefer to see a broader range of experience before offering support but see nothing in principle against. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 00:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)CHanged on reading extra info. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 00:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral I doubt that this user will abuse the tools, but her lack of experience with policy worries me. — Wenli (reply here) 02:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral Hher lack of experience with policy is of issue. --evrik (talk) 15:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral There are no major red flags for an "oppose" from me, but the issues with lack of communication make me a little unsettled to hand this user the mop right now. I would like to see a little more collaboration, broad range of experience, and "behind the scenes" work (that of a WikiElf) for me to feel content that thedemonhog has full knowledge of policies and the inner-workings of Wikipedia, as that's what admin-work entails. нмŵוτнτ 00:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral at this time Have no reason to believe this user would abuse the tools, but I feel a more rounded contribution to the project would be desirable. Whitstable 19:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, you seem pretty fun and all, but do not strike as a professional. Also, Statusbot says you haven't been online for 3 days - what's up with that? --DlaeThe Freudian Slip 21:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not professional? I will look into the StatusBot problem, but if you look at my contributions, you will see that I have made ~90 edits in the last three days. –thedemonhog talk • edits 22:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.
Final (51/1/0); Closed as successful by WjBscribe at 21:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hbdragon88 (talk · contribs) - I have been editing since January 2005 and my primary interests are video games, specific novel series, and other topics that I, for some reason, come up with and happen to read up on Wikipedia. hbdragon88 (talk) 21:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Self-nomination. hbdragon88 (talk) 21:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 mostly plan to hang around CAT:CSD and Special:Newpages, since that is where I have worked the most. I have had conflicts in the past, so I am making a CSD Pledge: if there is any context whatsoever on an article I think is an A7 candidate, I will prod instead and leave the speedy tag on for another administrator to review. I will also only tag and not touch G11 articles, as I seem to have a too-broad definition of what "promotional" means.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: My best article to date has been Duke Nukem Forever, currently a WP:GA. I've also reworked plot summaries for fictional articles and video games, adding context for readers unfamiliar with the world and expanding where it is not comprehensive, such as that for Taichi Kamiya, Kari Kamiya, Pokémon Colosseum, and Pokémon FireRed and LeafGreen. I also have a tendency to merge articles, and created most of the newer character articles for the Ender's Game series (Fig 1, Fig 2, and a ton of merger work for Fig 3). Most recently I've been adding reception information to articles like Blender Bros., Time Crisis: Project Titan, and Flash Focus. For the former, I consider them to be my best because they make the articles comprehensive and/or better abide to WP:FICT and WP:NOT#PLOT, for the latter, it also follows WP:NOT#PLOT better.
- 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: If I am in a conflict with someone, and they revert, I usually fall back, usually leave it at their version, and discuss it on the talk page, solicitng either a WP:THIRD ro to the WikiProject that the article falls under for further input. I may also ask questions at the user talk page to notify them of the WikiProject notice or for clarification for why he or she did reverted me.
- Followup Q The stress will get worse once you are an admin, so could you please list whatever examples have caused you the most difficulty, so we have some idea how you are likely to handle this.DGG (talk) 09:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Recent examples of conflicts include Jigsaw Killer, World War Z, and a relatively minor one on the List of Ace Attorney characters page. In the first two examples I posted the conflict on the WP:THIRD page, and they either agreed or disagreed.
- Probably the most difficult conflict was on Need for Speed: ProStreet (back then titled Need for Speed 11), whewre I got into an argument over how much speculative information to trim and what was considered a reliable source (Fig 1). After a couple of reverts, I and discussed the issue on the talk page and left it at his version until he came back (gone from 4 March to 16 March). It was settled at WP:THIRD.
- Another conflict was on GameFAQs on whether to include spinoffs or not. I was discussing it on the talk page (Fig 2), and I began edit warring only when the other party had not responded after a week after a posting to his user talk page [8]. This time, the THIRD agreed with RockMFR, and I respected the consensus and helped out in reverting since it is a recurring joke among anonymous uers to either remove the spinoffs bit or say that the spinoff doesn't exist. hbdragon88 (talk) 10:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Followup Q The stress will get worse once you are an admin, so could you please list whatever examples have caused you the most difficulty, so we have some idea how you are likely to handle this.DGG (talk) 09:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A: If I am in a conflict with someone, and they revert, I usually fall back, usually leave it at their version, and discuss it on the talk page, solicitng either a WP:THIRD ro to the WikiProject that the article falls under for further input. I may also ask questions at the user talk page to notify them of the WikiProject notice or for clarification for why he or she did reverted me.
Optional Question from Spartaz
- 4 Is there a reason you don't have a user page? Its frowned on for admins not to have a page and pretty unfriendly for new users who might be coming to you to raise a concern or ask for help.
- A: I just never had it restored after I left for a week in April 2007. I still have it at User:Hbdragon88/userpage (the purpose was so that I could move it back without admin intervention).
One Night in Hackney andJeffrey O. Gustfason also lack user pages as well. With the new default signature adding a link to the user talk page, I think that new users can locate me without trouble. 03:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)- ONIH isn't an admin and Jeff has recently been subject to an arbcom case - I hope you won't be modelling your admin behaviour on him. At the very least will you do a redirect to your talk page? Spartaz Humbug! 09:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- He isn't? Huh. No, I'm just emulating his red userpage, nothing more. (And possibly a Shazam! moment.) But, it's been almost eight months...I guess I can recreate my userpage. hbdragon88 (talk) 19:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A: I just never had it restored after I left for a week in April 2007. I still have it at User:Hbdragon88/userpage (the purpose was so that I could move it back without admin intervention).
Optional Question from AGK
- 5. I have already supported your Request with pleasure, but I'd still be interested in your response. Administrators are often subjected to enquiries from inexperienced, confused and often angry users, who are often fond of citing you deleted my article. Do you think you have the necessary skills to interact with these users? Can you give examples? What can an Administrator do to maximise the likelihood of a user understanding your response? Anthøny 20:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I explained to Magmagirl what our polciy was regarding fair use images and suggested contacting the copyright holder [[9]. I also responded to a copyright violation [10] [11] by explaining what kinds of cut-and-pasted text we could accept. When Evitavired queried about a page that I had tagged for speedy deletion [12], I responded by telling him how we could accept his text [13] hbdragon88 (talk) 04:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
- See Hbdragon88's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
- Links for Hbdragon88: Hbdragon88 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Hbdragon88 before commenting.
Discussion
- Can you create at least an redirect of your userpage linking to your talk page, as leaving your userpage redlinked is frowned at This is a Secret account 21:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Uncle G would be something to look at? I have no problem with a lack of userpage. bibliomaniac15 00:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What, and give up the health benefits? GracenotesT § 01:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Or you can make a list of articles you have created on your talk page in a template, like moi. Miranda 22:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you plan on deleting your page as soon as this is over? John Reaves 20:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Haha, so I wasn't the only one with the idea. No, this is for real. I've been working on drafts of a new userpage for a few months, but was delaying it because I thought I might want to change my username, and didn't want the b'crat automatic "move page" thing to make it obvious what the new username was. I finally decided against the name change, and so here it is. hbdragon88 (talk) 04:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you plan on deleting your page as soon as this is over? John Reaves 20:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Or you can make a list of articles you have created on your talk page in a template, like moi. Miranda 22:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support
- Support--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 21:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Anthøny 22:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. <DREAMAFTER><TALK> 23:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Tim Q. Wells (talk) 01:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. RFerreira (talk) 03:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - seems like a good user. Can find nothing to oppose with. Rudget.talk 12:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No problems here. A good user. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support. All I see
is goodare great things. Good luck :-) —Qst 14:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] - Support civil user, dealt with him several times before, excellent medication skills on video game related articles, which is one of least-underrated subjects there is on wikipedia. Would make a good admin This is a Secret account 20:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I can trust you with the tools, and look forward to the benefits Wikipedia will recieve from your adminship. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 21:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Over 6000 mainspace edits and a regular editor no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. bibliomaniac15 23:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Epbr123 (talk) 23:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: No reason not to support this one. Good luck! - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No problems here. --Sharkface217 06:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 07:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Keep it rollin'! Jmlk17 08:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Plenty of experience. Tiddly-Tom 09:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- support I appreciate the recognition that his view on some things (in this case , G11) is a little different from the consensus, and his clear statement of willingness not to use admin powers in that respect. DGG (talk) 18:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Midorihana(talk)(contribs) 22:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support good 'pedia building in this case so a green light from me.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support MEH responsible and democratic. Does things sensibly, first user i actually ran into here. ætərnal ðrAعon 22:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Civil, explains himself clearly in discussion, trustworthy. — TKD::Talk 23:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - in my single instance of interaction with this user, he was very civil and responsible in what was a rather embarrasing situation, and earned my respect. Best of luck with the tools. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 02:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems good to me. John Reaves 06:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Bout time, hm? :) ~ Riana ⁂ 10:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Meets my standards for edit count, etc. Knows how to fix an article per statement on User:Hbdragon88. No concerns. Bearian (talk) 15:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've interacted with hbdragon88 a number of times over an extended period, and have found him courteous and efficient. When he's been unsure of how something should go, he's asked first and this kind of treading carefully is useful in both new and established admins. Does plenty of article work, too. Plus, he had the good sense of humour to ask me to move Splash (disambiguation) to Splash. Splash - tk 17:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - trustworthy editor. Addhoc (talk) 19:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support NHRHS2010 talk 19:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Zaxem (talk) 11:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - hahnchen 22:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support no reason not to and too many good reasons already given above. , Dlohcierekim 23:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- While Hbdragon88's dispute with Ssbohio is regrettable, I could find no evidence of similar problems in the recent past. I see in the answers above a willingness to step back from disputes and seek resolution from a neutral party. Hopefully, dragon has learned from this conflict from so long ago. States a knowledge of his limitations and a willingness to not act recklessly with the tools. , Dlohcierekim 23:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - (ec) After discussing the situation with hbdragon88, I feel confident that he takes a different approach now than he did then. My concern was never with what happened in the past, but with the doubts it raised over future conduct. My doubts are gone. Hbdraon88's contributions to this project make me confident that he will wield the mop with distinction. --Ssbohio (talk) 11:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support having met my arbitary standards. Answer to optional Q5 and the diffs there was very good. Talk Page looks civil, I note the dispute highlighted below and that seems resolved. Certainly looks like the candidate will ask before acting if unsure, which is certainly good. Suggest the WP:NAS assuming this is succesful, and leaning on other admins or experienced editors if needed. But all in all, a pleasure to support. Pedro : Chat 11:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Spartaz Humbug! 18:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Clearly a good user who can be trusted with the tools. Wryspy (talk) 20:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support haven't run across him/her but seems qualified. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support From what I have seen of him, he is very even-tempered and responsible in his actions and words. He is an ideal candidate for a mop! -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 07:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- SupportLooks like a great candidate to me, won't abuse the tools and will be an asset to the admin staff.
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 18:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] - Support. Good answers, excellent editor. --Carioca (talk) 19:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I have faith that this user won't abuse the tools. нмŵוτнτ 00:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support--Jusjih (talk) 04:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I can't see any problems with his history. PookeyMaster (talk) 06:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support experienced and capable, likely to make an excellent admin. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Well reasoned level headed editor. Whispering 16:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I weakly support this nomination. The reason for my "weak support" is because I came across Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Leana Risa, which was an MfD where you nominated a newish user's user page for deletion when it wasn't even worth deleting. You had previously prodded the user page and it was declined. However, my reason for supporting this nomination is because you are a good user, and should be an admin, but I hope you'll take more care when MfD'ing or prodding newish/new users' user pages. Acalamari 18:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, looks good. Wizardman 18:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support have no worries about the tools being abused and this user acts in a civil manner Whitstable 19:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support User has a good track record; I think they would make a find admin. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 21:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Oppose -- Hbdragon88 has shown himself to be pedantic and incivil in his dealings with me more than once, describing my edits as fracking ugly as hell and objecting to my use of wikilinked dates to allow user preferences to determine date displays, rather than forcing all users to adhere to his notion of what a proper date should be.
- Later, Hbdragon88 broke multiple reference links in an article in a quest to make a point about proper English usage. We were unable to effectively discuss or resolve the issue on his talk page, my talk page, or the article talk page. Peace was restored when an uninvolved editor stepped up to provide a third opinion.
- An admin needs to be able to get along with some difficult people, even those more difficult to deal with than I. From my personal experience, Hbdragon88 isn't the person to do that, and hence, isn't the right person to be granted admin tools. I'm open to rethink this, but, as it currently stands, my personal expericne shows me little or no potential benefit to granting this editor adminship. --Ssbohio (talk) 20:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That conflict dates back to about 17 months ago. I guess I'm still a bit pedantic about things (most recently on Talk:Pokemon where I undid someone's cut-and-paste archiving to do the move page archiving, in a similar fashion to how I insisted on TOCleft instead of TOCright on Talk:Justin Berry), but I stepped away then and will continue to step away and disengage/refrain from conflict instead of edit war, or in the case of being an admin, not edit war and abuse tools. In terms of disputes, I think you have your opinion and I have my own, and the only way to break the deadlock is to have a THIRD offer his or her opinion. hbdragon88 (talk) 05:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I really want to support your nom, but you haven't spoken to the issue I raised about your conduct in our previous interaction. Yes, the conflict arose 17 months ago, when you made an impression on me that still stands. I was prepared to reverse myself to support, as much of your contribution history looks good. However, even in the face of WP:MOS & WP:MOSDATE, there was never any acknowledgement that your approach was lacking or even wrong in some way. That's why I worry about the tools in your hands. If I can't be confident that we both believe that the MOS carries more weight than either of our opinions, then how can I be condfident in your approach to more substantial policies, like NPOV? I really want to support your nom, but you haven't spoken to my concerns. --Ssbohio (talk) 14:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Switching to support. Hbdragon88 has allayed my concerns about this situation. --Ssbohio (talk) 10:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I really want to support your nom, but you haven't spoken to the issue I raised about your conduct in our previous interaction. Yes, the conflict arose 17 months ago, when you made an impression on me that still stands. I was prepared to reverse myself to support, as much of your contribution history looks good. However, even in the face of WP:MOS & WP:MOSDATE, there was never any acknowledgement that your approach was lacking or even wrong in some way. That's why I worry about the tools in your hands. If I can't be confident that we both believe that the MOS carries more weight than either of our opinions, then how can I be condfident in your approach to more substantial policies, like NPOV? I really want to support your nom, but you haven't spoken to my concerns. --Ssbohio (talk) 14:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That conflict dates back to about 17 months ago. I guess I'm still a bit pedantic about things (most recently on Talk:Pokemon where I undid someone's cut-and-paste archiving to do the move page archiving, in a similar fashion to how I insisted on TOCleft instead of TOCright on Talk:Justin Berry), but I stepped away then and will continue to step away and disengage/refrain from conflict instead of edit war, or in the case of being an admin, not edit war and abuse tools. In terms of disputes, I think you have your opinion and I have my own, and the only way to break the deadlock is to have a THIRD offer his or her opinion. hbdragon88 (talk) 05:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- oppose - due to edit wars, states that he has been in them. this is not a candidate for admin. give the admin position and who knows what he will do with it. --Jeanenawhitney 18:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.
Final (72/5/1); Closed as successful by WjBscribe at 14:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dlohcierekim (talk · contribs) - Ladies and gentlemen, it's a pleasure to nominate a familiar name to many of us. Dlohcierekim has been a Wikipedian for 20 months now (well actually two years due to the operation of another account as detailed by henrik in his joint nomination below), making over 15,000 solid edits from this account and admins will be able to verify a good many more that have been deleted via the WP:CSD process. So, the rationale:
Article Writing
- As detailed on his user page Dlohcierekim has created nearly 30 articles. A perusal will show that they are well written, referenced, and in accordance with policies, as well as helping to remove redlinks.
- Dlohcierekim has made substantial input helping at WP:CLEANUP
Page Patrol
- As detailed above significant deleted contributions shows Dlohcierekim can spot stuff not right for Wikipedia and tag it accordingly. No fears about the delete button here.
- 130 odd reports to WP:AIV shows a knowledge of our blocking policy.
Project Input
- Use of the WP:ANI and WP:AN boards
- Regular at WT:RFA adding helpful insight
- WP:AFD input bringing value to the debates and evidencing policy knowledge.
House Keeping
- A civil user who understands the balance of WP:COMMUNITY as well as getting on with the job at hand
- Clean Block Log
- E-mail enabled
- Edit summary use spot on
All, I believe that nothing but good can come by allowing Dlohcierekim access to administrative tools. I hope that the community will find themselves in agreeance with this course of action. Pedro : Chat 09:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Co-nom by Henrik. Since Pedro has done such an excellent job of describing Dlohcierekim, I find myself with little to add. However, after running into Dlohcierekim, I was struck by what a kind, friendly, helpful Wikipedian he and can only wish we had more people like him. He is consistently polite, calm and is always willing to stop to listen to other editors, all invaluable traits in an administrator.
Dlohcierekim has openly operated two accounts since March 2006, due to concerns about his first account being too easily recognizable to do regular vandal patrolling. As User:Mikereichold, he has helped improve Wikipedia's coverage of Florida, especially Largo, Florida, while the contributions of User:Dlohcierekim are mentioned above. By the time he found his way to WP:CHU he already had sizable contributions using both accounts, and unfortunately WP:REAT is inactive. In total, he has over 20000 edits, 170 AIV reports, plenty of article building to his credit, all well distributed over the namespaces.
With over 20000 edits in many diverse areas and two years of participation he certainly has the experience. I think Dlohcierekim will make an excellent administrator and I am surprised he isn't one already. I hope you too will find him suitable. henrik•talk 07:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
Thank you. I accept the nomination. As I say in my answers to the questions, I'm mostly a Wikignome who has spent a lot of time reverting unconstructive edits and reviewing new pages. I can benefit the project with the admin tools. I'm overwhelmed by the support of my nominators. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional statement
I need at to explain the Wikibreaks. The first in June 2006 was when my ferret was very ill, and I was too tied up emotionally with that for anything else. The second was very protracted and due to a combination of problems. To cross post from Pedro's talk, "I was busy in real life, which made it hard to find time. Then my computer broke down, making it hard to edit from home. I was limited to editing from my employer's computers at work and the Largo Library's computers. I had changed my monobook.js, and whenever I tried to log on an Iexplorer browsered computer, it locked up. (Something I doubt the library's IT people appreciated at the time.) So I wound up using my alternate account to check its watchlist when I could get to the library and use the one there. Which dropped me to about 20 edits a month on that account and none on this one. In August, I had the time to address my computer problems and got mine going again. Then I realized I could fix my monobook.js with my alternate user. With this account working again, my wiki addiction took over and I started editing again at my previous rate."
Welcoming I've made a lot of edits welcoming new users. This is not just to be friendly or say "howdy". I believe laying a welcome template on a new user helps them enter the collegial community of Wikipeida. It reminds new users that we are a community with expectations of its members in terms of editing and behavior to one another. Sometimes, the only pillar new users understand is BE BOLD, and they manage to MISPLACE BEANS without being told not to. Also, I know from experience that if it's necessary to coach a new user, a welcome template softens the blow. I hate laying a your page is gonna be deleted message on someone without giving them some idea of what guidelines to follow. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Largo and who's asking any way. I did not realize how strong my WP:COI / WP:NPOV issues were when I added some of that. I might as well make a statement renouncing any perceived ownership of the article and urge others with a clearer view to edit it instead. It's sometimes sticky when a nom has two accounts. The Dlohcierekim account is for the tools. The Mikereichold account is mostly a convenience because I don't need to change the watchlist. Not that Dlohcierkim has been much of a screen/identity protector. At least four other editors have seen through it. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 18:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Ghit thing I've reread Eddie's oppose, and he seems to be saying that I think the number of Google hits corrresponds to notability. I'm sorry if that is the impression some have gotten. Generally, when I cite Google hits, I'm saying that I went through these and did not find evidence of notability. It is an invitation for another set of eyes to find what I missed. And I do change my opinion if evidence for or against deletion is found. As Pedro says, that is part of my rationale. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 07:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify the use of User:Dlohcierekim/standards, these are how I explain my supports at RfA. They are not used to oppose. They are a rough guide to when I am likely to support. I can and do support noms based on seeing things, despite edit counts and other criteria, that make me feel safe. Contrarily, if a user shows something that causes me a qualm, I will oppose or simply not partake either way despite edit count or time with the project. I look for reasons to support a nom, not oppose. I don't think it's unrealistic to say I am likely to support if a nom has been here 3 months and has 3000 edits. Not in the face of some other opposes I've seen. I also don't think it is onerous to be more likely to support a candidate with less time or a lower edit count and who has done some of these other thing such as mediation, multi wiki's, all the rest. Mediation commitee and FA are big pluses with me. If you read further you will see that I believe that adminship is no big deal. Hope that helps. <moved from water's oppose to here> Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 16:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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: My main use for the tools would be in speedy deletion and WP:AIV. The bulk of my edits are in Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol and reviewing Special:Newpages. I have a particular horror for defamation pages, and I always regret not being able to delete them on sight. Most of the time I RCPatrol, I find a few warnings will stop the unconstructive edits. I would rather add one more warning and hope the unconstructive editor takes the hint-- vandalism is futile. But I've also known the frustration of watching while the vandalism continued and I could only try to keep up reverting it. I have comparably less experience with WP:AFD and PRODS and would move more slowly there.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: I'm not much of an article writer, mostly a wikignome and stub creator. As Pedro says, I like to have verifiable sources. I was very new when I expanded Largo, Florida, but that spun off Timeline of Largo history. I had read about the Great Gale of 1848 while researching the Largo article. So I dug up all I could find and created the Great Gale stub. More recently, I enjoyed digging up info on Anton Giulio Bragaglia, which had come over as a machine mangled translation of an article on the Italian Wikipedia and William J. Simmons (educator). I thought I'd created that one, but then I found it was already here, so I merged my info into the pre-exisiting article and made mine a redirect. Compared to what others have done, these seem pretty minor to me.
- 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'm afraid I've not engaged in any serious conflicts. Conflict usually arises from me reverting an edit that looks unconstructive to me. I try to remain open to reason and to stick to my understanding of policy in my responses. If the other editor can show me that I was in error, then I apologize for wasting their time. With real differences of opinion, I know to seek an unbiased third party, seek consensus on the talk page, or to set up an RFC. Basically, I seek to avoid conflict whenever I can, and I'm not afraid to admit when I'm wrong. If anything is going to stress me on Wikpedia, it's probably a situation that needs input from other editors, and I don't mind seeking it.
- Addendum I was actually in a recent conflict, though not over editing. Still, it shows what I'm trying to say. Meant to add this before transclusion, but things did not go as planned. The thing that will anger me the quickest is when someone refactors my comments to make it look like I said something I did not. Which is what happened with User talk:Jiggerdude. One can follow the conversation by running through the difs. He refactored my comments to say a lot more than I did. I reverted and warned him about that. He again put words in my mouth. By this time I'd lost all patience, so I asked at AN/I that he be stopped from editing his talk page. Not much of a conflict, but there it is. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 07:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A: I'm afraid I've not engaged in any serious conflicts. Conflict usually arises from me reverting an edit that looks unconstructive to me. I try to remain open to reason and to stick to my understanding of policy in my responses. If the other editor can show me that I was in error, then I apologize for wasting their time. With real differences of opinion, I know to seek an unbiased third party, seek consensus on the talk page, or to set up an RFC. Basically, I seek to avoid conflict whenever I can, and I'm not afraid to admit when I'm wrong. If anything is going to stress me on Wikpedia, it's probably a situation that needs input from other editors, and I don't mind seeking it.
- 4. What do you want Wikipedia to be in three years from now?Marlith T/C 00:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A: Err, haven't thought about that much. I'm winging it on the fly. I want it to continue to be a congenial place to edit, firstly. Beyond that, to grab the quote form Mr. Wales from off the top of my userpage, "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That’s what we’re doing." So, I would like to see the Encyclopedia be more accurate and more full of information. Whenever possible, I would like to see more verifiable information and less innuendo or rumor. Sometimes it's hard to dig out verifiable information, but I always feel good when I locate a source. I would like it to be the first place people turn to for encyclopedic information. And as hard as it's becoming with pay walls going up around so much information, those pay walls make our goal all the more important. It's hard to make it such a storehouse of knowledge without running the risk of it becoming too indiscriminate, or containing insignificant information, or full of stuff that's just plain wrong. And I think the conflicts over what to include and what to exclude is the major source of discord within the project. But it's worth trying. If we all look beyond our differences toward that goal, we will achieve it or make one impressive try. Nothing else I've ever done has so felt worth doing. That includes my job, and all the other fluff at the top of my user page. Hope this is satisfactory. It makes sense to me at the time of writing. To sum up, more sourced information at greater depth on more subjects. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 07:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 5 Do you intend to continue to use two usernames, with neither page actually linked to the alternate account? DGG (talk) 00:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A: Hmm, that had been my intent, but as I've said, this username has not been much of a screen for my real identity. Thinking about it now, I figure I might as well at least restore the acknowledgement on Mikereichold. Probably might as well put the link on this username to, for the sake of openness. My original concern was off-wiki consequences to on-wiki vandal fighting. Never had a problem, so I was overcautious at the time. (I'm thinking this through as I type.) So, yes, I might as well link the two. Mikereichold is still useful so I should keep it, not retire it. To answer the question, no. I'll link them. I know there have been problems on the project with sockpuppetry and secret accounts in the past, and my intent when I came to Wikipedia was to be transparent. That's why I started with my real name in the first place. Thanks for asking. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 01:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I also made a number of edits with this IP User:65.35.168.248. It was my IP before I got Mikereichold, and there have been times when I edited without logging in first. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 01:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- AND, I can use Mikereichold in places (work, the Library) where I would not want to risk compromise of my admin account. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 04:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And I removed the link from Mikereichold to Dlohcierekim after The Crazy Russian called me "Mike" on the "Dloh" talk page. Not to hide the two accounts (I always did say "this is an alternate user.") but to protect my real world identity. Too many people here read backwards to make a simple reversal like that effective, though. Oh, well. No one's egged my house yet, so I guess I'm OK. , Dlohcierekim 01:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 6 In view of the concerns raised about some of your AfD posts, would you be willing to spend at least a week contributing to each of the listings at WP:DRV before closing any AfDs? You've contributed to Wikipedia for almost two years and I think hanging out with the DRV crew for a week should assuage any concerns in the XfD area. -- Jreferee t/c 15:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A: Great idea. Yes. That would probably be the best way to learn more. Maybe more than a week. I'm in no hurry to close AfD's. Thank you. Dlohcierekim 15:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I was not clear enough when I said that I plan to "go slow" with AfD's. I'm comfortable with CSD and blocking vandals and know enough to get a second opinion if I have a doubt. AfD is something I would do only if there was a real need and only if I felt certain that I was closing correctly. DRV participation-- more as an observer at first-- would help me work on any weak areas. :) Cheers, Dlohcierekim 15:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
- See Dlohcierekim's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
- Links for Dlohcierekim: Dlohcierekim (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Dlohcierekim before commenting.
- UGH I had not planned to transclude this till Tuesday, as I'll be busy with work. If you ask extra questions, please bear with me, as there may be a delay in my responses. Thanks to all. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 16:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
Support
- Support Of course. I've had this page watchlisted for a while.--chaser - t 14:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A strong all-round candidate who can clearly be trusted with the mop. BencherliteTalk 14:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. An excellent editor (and candidate), whom I have seen around Wikipedia regularly over the previous few months. Good luck, —Qst 15:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The usual "I thought he was already" response. DS (talk) 15:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Of course. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support As per my nomination statement. Pedro : Chat 15:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Having reviewed Special:Contributions/Dlohcierekim, I see plenty of deletion discussion participation, counter-vandalism edits and WP:AIV reports, WP:AN/I-and-related-boards participation, and all the other stuff we see in our best candidates. The trust factor is there, and I don't see any reason to oppose. Best of luck! Anthøny 16:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Has a need for the tools and will use them responsibly. Epbr123 (talk) 17:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - no doubt. Great user. What I find amazing: nearly 2500 edits to the Wikipedia namespace, and nearly 8000 user talk edits. I'm not sure if I've ever seen that many for anyone in a while. jj137 (Talk) 17:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - of course. Addhoc (talk) 17:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit-conflicted) Nominator support! I think I said it all in my co-nom. henrik•talk 17:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support: I trust this user will make a great admin., and has clearly demonstrated knowledge of our policies and guidelines. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I have seen only good things from Dlohcierekim and believe that I will see only good things as an admin. Captain panda 17:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, of course. This experienced, hard working user will make a fine addition to the administrative body. Furthermore, we need more admins with unpronounceable usernames. Húsönd 18:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support! Good luck! *MindstormsKid* 18:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Seems to be doing good work. I'd prefer it if not all edit summaries were marked as "minor" but this is, ah, a minor point. Pigman☿ 19:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. bibliomaniac15 19:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm Mailer Diablo (talk) and I approve this message! - 19:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Another case of RfA cliche #1 -- this promotion should have happened ages ago. Xoloz (talk) 19:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strongest Support - as per (was going to be) co-nom. One of the best candidates in ages, and I hope everone else sees that! :) - Rudget.talk 20:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support пﮟოьεԻ 57 20:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, definitely, I trust Dlohcierekim's judgement. :) Spebi 20:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Jmlk17 21:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Wasn't one already? Let's remedy that! -MBK004 (talk) 22:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - good track record. As noted below, needs to brush up on AfD criteria just a bit. No biggie, though, and everything else is in order. Not BITEy either, and that's important in an admin - Alison ❤ 23:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - seems to have good judgment and priorities, and I think the AfD thing will be easy enough to improve. I think he'll be a good addition to the team. (Though, please, Dlohcierekim, go right now and turn off the thing that's marking every edit as minor, as it makes it hard to parse your contribs. I think you can fix it under the "preferences" menu.) - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 01:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Done. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 01:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. User has not been perfect at AfD, but then again, everyone makes mistakes. Good luck! Lankiveil (talk) 03:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Thought-you-were-already Support Good luck! GlassCobra 05:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Contribs suggest a hard-working and mop-ready admin. And from what I've seen of Dlohcierekim, judgement appears to be spot on. (The ghit thing seems to be more or less addressed, in that it's been acknowledged as an area for improvement). --Bfigura (talk) 06:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good luck!--Oxymoron83 06:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Unlikely to abuse admin tools. I am confident that this user would be a great admin. --Siva1979Talk to me 07:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I see nothing that would worry me here, --Herby talk thyme 13:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I have seen this user contribute in a wide variety of ways, always with the best interests of Wikipedia at heart; a hard-working intelligent individual who will use the tools well. Accounting4Taste:talk 15:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I thought he was an admin already. His signature pops up everywhere, it seems. :) Maser (Talk!) 19:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support This user is very active all around the encyclopedia and has over a year of experience. This user shall not abuse the tools. Marlith T/C 19:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, excellent user who does good work all over the place. I trust the user would not speedy delete articles just based on GHits. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 20:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Seen you around, good luck. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 20:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Very experienced, and the oppose diffs give me no reason to think that the candidate is untrustworthy in any way. VanTucky talk 22:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I quite like the smiley in your sig. And you seem like a nice and dedicated user whom will not abuse the tools. All the best, ScarianTalk 22:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My observations of this user have been positive. Acalamari 00:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A sensible editor who will do well as an admin. Acroterion (talk) 03:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. A very good guy. I have seen him around for along time, I had thought at several points that he was already an admin. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 06:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Minimally qualified. The mop isn't that big of a deal. --Sharkface217 06:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Experienced, reasonable and civil. Actually, has had enough experience a year ago. Kusma (talk) 07:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. It's news to me that Mikereichold and Dlohcierekim are one and the same. I looked, and did find one discussion from 2006 May in which the use of two accounts may have been deceiving. With search engines no longer indexing many project pages, I can't say for sure if this has happened other times, but I doubt it. In all of the other pages that I was able to find containing both signatures, the two accounts were either used in separate discussions, or in such a way that it was obvious that they had the same operator. That one mishap is not going stop me from supporting this request because it was probably an accident, because it was a long time ago, because Mike has shown he understands sockpuppety rules (here, on his user page, and here), and because I'm sure he is going to be more careful in future. Looking through the history of the two accounts, it is clear that he is trustworthy, skilled, and has more than enough experience for the job. ×Meegs 12:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, my. Must have forgotten I was logged in on the one and then came back as the other. Sorry. That was unintentional. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good luck! Midorihana(talk)(contribs) 22:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Having run into the nom at various points of the project and having been favorably impressed when I've done so, I was a bit taken aback to find opposes placed here by editors whose opinions I very much respect. Because of that, I've spent considerable time examining his contributions just to be sure that I could stand by my impression, and I've come away convinced. While I can certainly agree with the opposers that it would be more beneficial to discuss what kinds of google hits are coming up in AfDs, by the nom's own statements (here and here) he seems to understand the challenges of using Google to confirm or deny notability in AfDs. Moreover, I like the evidence I see here and here that he is not only putting some thought into his AfD opinions, but monitoring the conversations and re-evaluating based on later input. I do not agree with every opinion he has ever put forth at an AfD, but I respect his familiarity with policy and his obvious desire to work towards consensus. With respect specifically to DGG's impression that "Next time I'll consult with someone more knowledgeable before bringing a Russian pol here" may be an admission of lack of familiarity with policy, I interpret the nom's statement to admit lack of familiarity rather with Russian politics. WP:BIO does indicate that "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such a person may be notable for other reasons besides their political careers alone". His decision to bring the subject to AfD rather than nominate it for PROD suggests an awareness that wider review might be beneficial, and assertions of notability in the article as he found it and in the source provided are slim enough that his uncertainty about notability seems understandable. (That said, in such a case I might suggest tagging notability concerns and broaching the subject on the talk page of the article or a related wikiproject. But I'm not naturally bold, and, even there, what I see suggests to me familiarity with policy & desire to seek consensus.) I do not believe the nom would misuse the tools, through willfulness or lack of awareness, but feel pretty confident that he would continue as he seems accustomed to do in working devotedly and cooperatively to improve the encyclopedia. I would, however, second Dorftrottel's suggestion that he drop the smiley from his sig. I love emoticons, but fear using them automatically can lead an admin to trouble. :) Not too long ago, I got a very irate note from an editor who felt my use of the language from Template:Nothanks-web was condescending. A lot of admin work leads to ruffled feathers, and minimizing those = a good thing. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 04:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- For everyone wondering, I was the one who nominated Moonriddengirl for admin. If I may toot my own horn here for such foresight, beep beep! -- Jreferee t/c 01:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This user is not perfect and admits his mistakes. As Moonriddengirl says directly above me, he seeks consensus, which is good. I'm satisfied by his explanation of his position on search engine results and notability. He's been here a while and seems to know what he's doing. I'm pretty sure that the net effect of his adminship would be good, so I must support. WODUP 06:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support :) Neil ☎ 11:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support as a user who knows the rules and when to bend them. Very active in WP community discussions. Meets all of my standards, which also happens to be his. Bearian (talk) 15:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support very good user who is also friendly. No reason to oppose. NHRHS2010 talk 19:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- He's got everything going for him in my eyes. Experience, post count... I have no worries for him. Support, baby! ----Jump! Slash! Dash! Ouch! Super Mario SonicBOOM! 20:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per answer to question number 4 above - great answer. You obviously have your head on your shoulders where it belongs, and you are an asset to Wikipedia. I haven't had any of my wiki-paths cross with you as of yet (at least I don't think so), but I hope I will! Don't let the new mop (if you in fact receive it) drag you down - I say keep the smile in your signature. Keeper | 76 01:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support seen him around and he's most definitely a force for good, and would be an asset to the admin corps. Bolding usernames in replies is at least more sensible than copy-and-pasting the recipient's entire sig in the reply (not too few people do that!) Pegasus «C¦T» 04:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support easy one to support - a thoughtful and sensible candidate who appears able to be and treat others as individuals. MLA (talk) 13:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I've had very positive interactions with nominee at AfD and elsewhere, and now that their two accounts are fully disclosed I have no reservations whatsoever. — Satori Son 13:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - The last thing we need is an admin who is misusing alternate accounts. I reviewed the 22,414 combined edits (including deleted edits) of Mikereichold and Dlohcierekim going back to December 2005. I found very few edits to the same pages by both accounts and nothing that would indicate a misuse of the alternate accounts. Dlohcierekim appears to be using both accounts from the same location, but has promised above to use the two accounts in remote locations. I'm listing what I found so others can draw their own conclusions. (1) Overlapping uses: In the November 2006 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gladys the Swiss Dairy Cow (2 nomination), !voted as Mikereichold[15], but identified that signature as a mistake and switched it to Dlohcierekim [16]. A sock puppet and/or someone with the intention of misusing alternate accounts is not going to make such a correction. Used both accounts to comment in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/HighInBC[17][18][19][20], but not to participate twice in that RfA. In RfA publicity, participated in the discussion as both Mikereichold and Dlohcierekim, but it does not appear to give the impression of two separate users supporting each other. In the September 2007 Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Amire80, you used the Dlohcierekim account to !vote[21] and used both the Dlohcierekim account and the Mikereichold account to make corrections.[22][23] [24]. In the September 2007 Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Penwhale, used both accounts[25][26][27][28][29][30] On one day, !voted in Colonization of Mercury AfD as Mikereichold and the next day !voted in Colonization of Mars AfD as Dlohcierekim. (2) Dlohcierekim appears to be using both accounts from the same location: (A) Dlohcierekim 19:28, 24 Sep 2007, Mikereichold 19:32, 24 Sep 2007, Mikereichold 19:35, 24 Sep 2007, Dlohcierekim 19:43, 24 Sep 2007; (B) Dlohcierekim 13:27, 27 Sep 2007, Mikereichold 13:33, 27 Sep 2007, Mikereichold 13:45, 27 Sep 2007, Dlohcierekim 13:51, 27 Sep 2007, (C) Dlohcierekim 04:36, 29 Sep 2007, Mikereichold 04:44, 29 Sep 2007, Dlohcierekim 22:38, 29 Sep 2007, Mikereichold 22:43, 29 Sep 2007; (D) Dlohcierekim 22:29, 2 Oct 2007, Mikereichold 22:59, 2 Oct 2007, (E) Dlohcierekim 15:23, 4 Oct 2007, Mikereichold 15:35, 4 Oct 2007, Dlohcierekim 15:40, 4 Oct 2007; (F) Dlohcierekim 13:07, 12 Oct 2007, Mikereichold 13:17, 12 Oct 2007, (G) Mikereichold 17:26, 23 Oct 2007, Dlohcierekim 17:59, 23 Oct 2007; (H) Dlohcierekim 03:38, 25 Oct 2007, Mikereichold 03:47, 25 Oct 2007, (I) Mikereichold 21:44, 9 Nov 2007, Dlohcierekim 21:54, 9 Nov 2007; (J) Dlohcierekim 03:48, 14 Nov 2007, Mikereichold 04:22, 14 Nov 2007, (K) Dlohcierekim 20:39, 15 Nov 2007, Mikereichold 20:44, 15 Nov 2007; (L) Mikereichold 02:37, 16 Nov 2007, Dlohcierekim 02:39, 16 Nov 2007, Dlohcierekim 15:45, 16 Nov 2007[31], Mikereichold 16:08, 16 Nov 2007[32]; (M) Dlohcierekim 16:36, 20 Nov 2007[33], Mikereichold 16:43, 20 Nov 2007[34], Dlohcierekim 16:44, 20 Nov 2007[35] -- Jreferee t/c 01:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support seems to know what he is talking about.Balloonman (talk) 05:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good answers, looks like a good editor likely to be equally as good with admin tools. --Strothra (talk) 07:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Been around long enough to get it, I hope. ;) ~ Riana ⁂ 10:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 16:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - An outstanding editor. I'll trust them as an admin. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 18:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes Spartaz Humbug! 18:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - All the best Khukri 20:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Per Pedro's nomination statement--WriterListener (talk) 22:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, good editor - I think he'll wield the mop well. Dreadstar † 05:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - no concerns, and needs the tools. That's enough for me. --Haemo (talk) 06:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support seems to know policy, won't abuse tools. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No red flags here. нмŵוτнτ 00:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support `'Míkka>t 01:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Weak oppose Probably a pointless oppose, but I feel this user does not understand disputes and does not understand the idea that adminship is no big deal. CO 19:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please expand on that, CO, as it would help in whether I should oppose or support. Jack?! 19:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose — apart from agreeing to some extent with CO, I see that you use number of GHits as a rationale for deletion a lot. For example, here you said, "only 29 Google hits" and didn't even bother to search for refs, even when the subject was obviously notable. This also happened here, here, and here, to name a few recent occasions. I also see some unproductive comments, such as this. Sorry, but having a lot of GHits doesn't always make you notable, and having no hits doesn't make you non-notable. I'm afraid I don't entirely trust your knowledge of our deletion policies. Again, sorry. --Agüeybaná (talk) 22:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Agüeybaná. Constructive comments so thank you. Just a point, but did you did note that on the first and second diffs you presented here, that although the candidate cited Google hits, he backed this up with results from, respectiveley, Reuters and Amazon.com? He may indeed have used Google hits as part of his rationale on those AFD entries but it's a bit harsh to say that was his only rationale when the diffs say otherwise. Cheers! Pedro : Chat 22:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think those are are ongoing
RfA'sAFD's. I plan to revisit those, and will certainly change to keep if I see compelling evidence of meeting respective notability and verifiability. I plan to go slow with WP:AFD in any event. As to not understanding disputes, I'll provide a recent example of a recently stressfull situation tomorrow or tonight. Like I said above, I seek a third onpinon or take it to WP:AN/I. Haven't set up an RFC yet. As to "no big deal," I've used it so often as a support rationale it's on my standards. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 23:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think those are are ongoing
- Hi Agüeybaná. Constructive comments so thank you. Just a point, but did you did note that on the first and second diffs you presented here, that although the candidate cited Google hits, he backed this up with results from, respectiveley, Reuters and Amazon.com? He may indeed have used Google hits as part of his rationale on those AFD entries but it's a bit harsh to say that was his only rationale when the diffs say otherwise. Cheers! Pedro : Chat 22:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Agüeybaná's AFD concerns. Samsara (talk • contribs) 04:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Agüeybaná.Also (this is not the reason I oppose, but I mention it since things like this give me the creeps): The smiley in your sig, please get rid of it. Heart icons are bad enough, but a smiley is a big no-no for an admin. I dorftrottel I talk I 08:54, November 24, 2007- moved clutter to talk page I dorftrottel I talk I 04:44, November 25, 2007
- With all due
torespect, dorftrottel, I'm not an admin yet. If enough of the community agrees with the oppose reasons, won't be for some time. With the exception of a few, like the problem editor in section 3, I edit Wikipedia with a smile on my face. I would hate to indef block anyone, but if it gets to that point, they aren't even going to notice the smiley face. And look at the many people that havetheretheir day brightened by it. I greet, help, and have discourse with far more people than I report at AIV or AN/I. I'm sorry it creeps you out, but Wikipedia probably needs more smiles, not fewer. Unless I get a real outpouring of negative comment, I plan to keep the :). Thanks for your feedback on the other. I'll endeavor to be more careful in how I say things. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Everything in its right place. I daresay my own userpage has one or two potentially funny things on it, but that's where it stays. Your opinion that Wikipedia needs "more smiles, not fewer" betrays a doubtful indifference in your judgment as to when and where a smile is useful, helpful, honest, appropriate, and/or wanted. Having a smiley in your sig sorta reminds me of plastered-on TV smiles, and those are exactly the kind we do not need, for they devalue the occasional real smile. I'd like to further amend my oppose with deepened doubts due to additional minor things like bolding of usernames in replies (it shouldn't be necessary to ask you not to) or the fact that when you correct e.g. the grammar in your own posts, you always strike the original rather than just correcting it. To me, when combined with all of the rest, this last demonstrates an over-carefulness and -correctness which I personally associate with over-eagerness to get the tools. Or maybe rather "admin status"? Sorry, clearly not, at least not yet.I dorftrottel I talk I 15:27, November 25, 2007
- I'm a bit perplexed, so could you elaborate as to why you associate carefulness and accuracy with over-eagnerness for the admin tools? Assuming that these two notions could result in such a conclusion seems to be a non sequitur. Nishkid64 (talk) 08:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Over-carefulness and over-
accuracycorrectness indicate what I see as an unfavourable lack of WP:DGAF; nobody should edit and behave so as to become an admin. I'm aware this is a weak sequitur at best, but I tried to express my own perception as best I could. While the community seems disproportionately concerned with easier-to-grasp issues like e.g. incivility, a more general impression and intution always play into my judgment on a user's suitability for the tools. This led me to support most of the time, but recently I tried to more carefully examine candidates, going beyond superficial aspects like edit count or policy violations. However, you're right that this isn't exactly strong reasoning. May switch based on further development. I dorftrottel I talk I 18:50, November 26, 2007
- Over-carefulness and over-
- I'm a bit perplexed, so could you elaborate as to why you associate carefulness and accuracy with over-eagnerness for the admin tools? Assuming that these two notions could result in such a conclusion seems to be a non sequitur. Nishkid64 (talk) 08:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I never heard of WP:DGAF before. I will embrace it as my own. I promise to incorporate this in my editing if I have not done so already. , Dlohcierekim 23:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Upon reflection, I have come to the conclusion that I wish I'd known about this before I answered Q 3. Though I would have put in different terms, this pretty well sums up how I feel toward conflict. Though maybe I said some of it in Q 4. As for the negative parts of DGAF, there just is no version of The Truth that I am so committed to that I would revert war or wheel war over. Discussion, clarification and the elimination of misunderstanding, without doing anyone the violence of trying to force them to change their opinion. Yup, glad you brought it up. , Dlohcierekim 00:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thought you already were, and am now feeling somewhat relieved that you aren't. Annoying signature. Equally annoying habit of bolding usernames (please don't bold mine when you reply to this). Arbitrary standards, some of which are unrealistic for non admins (honestly, how many are on medcab/OTRS?). Ghits. Per nom. Maybe next time. Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 07:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)As several issues have been addressed by the candidate, I'll sit this out. By the way, there's a comma lying around randomly in your sig ;) Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 06:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]- I'm sorry, but I don't think you're interpreting his standards page correctly. As I read that page, he is listing examples of what would be beneficial, not enumerating requirements for support. As for the rest, your reasons are of course your prerogative, but the bolding usernames and sig comments seems like minor issues, unrelated to the central question of an RFA: Can this user be trusted with admin tools? For example, have you tried asking the candidate to stop bolding usernames? henrik•talk 10:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, these are how I explain my supports at RfA. They are not used to oppose. They are a rough guide to when I am likely to support. I can and do support noms based on seeing things, despite edit counts and other criteria, that make me feel safe. Contrarily, if a user shows something that causes me a qualm, I will oppose or simply not partake either way despite edit count or time with the project. I look for reasons to support a nom, not oppose. I don't think it's unrealistic to say I am likely to support if a nom has been here 3 months and has 3000 edits. Not in the face of some other opposes I've seen. I also don't think it is onerous to be more likely to support a candidate with less time or a lower edit count and who has done some of these other thing such as mediation, multi wiki's, all the rest. Mediation commitee and FA are big pluses with me. If you read further you will see that I believe that adminship is no big deal. Hope that helps.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- --Jeanenawhitney (talk) 14:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Any particular reason? BencherliteTalk 14:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- something just bot right in what I am hearingJeanenawhitney (talk) 15:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Any particular reason? BencherliteTalk 14:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose There's no one killer reason to oppose for me, but it's the sum of a lot of little things which, while not problematic of themselves, add up to someone who is either not conversant with wikipedia norms or chooses not to conform. The alternative username, bolding usernames, username with smiley, deleting based on GHits, marking all edits as minor are all little niggles. AKAF (talk) 17:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I trust you are aware that the candidate has changed his signature to remove the smiley[36], fully linked his accounts[37], explained the GHits[38] and removed the preference setting which marked all hits as minor[39]? henrik•talk 17:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, all within the course of this RFA, when the penalty for not doing them is not being adminned. Honestly, I'm wondering if he couldn't get this stuff done in the first 2 years of editing, how is he going to keep himself in line once he has the mop. My feeling is that admins need to be able to stay in control when in heated discussions, and so need to have a significant amount of independant self-assesment. There's too many little things to say that this editor isn't at that point yet.AKAF (talk) 18:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well everyone's entitled to there oppose rationale. If a user's intuition tells them to oppose, then they should do so. I believe the collective wisdom of consensus is greater than our wisdom as individuals. If consensus is to give me the mop, so be it. If such consensus does not emerge, so be it. Trust to consensus. Trust the crats to gauge consensus. Dlohcierekim 18:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose it's "intuition" in as much as it is a combination of small effects. For instance, I can admire how you have attempted to instruct the bureaucrats to ignore my optinion in drawing their consensus. For instance, discarding my opinion because you feel that it's just "intuition" agrees well with your regarding RFDs as unimportant based on Ghits. I'm not opposing because you marked some edits as minor, I'm opposing because your MO has remained consistent and then changed drastically during this RFA, which indicates to me both a lack of self-criticism and a tendancy to be easily pushed by external forces, neither of which are suitable attributes for an admin.AKAF (talk) 09:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- AKAF! I was saying that I respect your oppose reason and that you have a right to it. Your assertion that I was instructing the crats to disregard your vote shows that we are on different wavelengths. I'm afraid you have completely misinterpreted my response. Thanks for clarifying and making more concrete your oppose rationale. While I disagree with it to some degree, I will certainly want to watch out for the faults you have pointed out. Thanks again. Dlohcierekim 13:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, got a bit too hot under the collar. Looks like you'll pass though, so good luck. AKAF (talk) 07:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- AKAF! I was saying that I respect your oppose reason and that you have a right to it. Your assertion that I was instructing the crats to disregard your vote shows that we are on different wavelengths. I'm afraid you have completely misinterpreted my response. Thanks for clarifying and making more concrete your oppose rationale. While I disagree with it to some degree, I will certainly want to watch out for the faults you have pointed out. Thanks again. Dlohcierekim 13:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose it's "intuition" in as much as it is a combination of small effects. For instance, I can admire how you have attempted to instruct the bureaucrats to ignore my optinion in drawing their consensus. For instance, discarding my opinion because you feel that it's just "intuition" agrees well with your regarding RFDs as unimportant based on Ghits. I'm not opposing because you marked some edits as minor, I'm opposing because your MO has remained consistent and then changed drastically during this RFA, which indicates to me both a lack of self-criticism and a tendancy to be easily pushed by external forces, neither of which are suitable attributes for an admin.AKAF (talk) 09:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I trust you are aware that the candidate has changed his signature to remove the smiley[36], fully linked his accounts[37], explained the GHits[38] and removed the preference setting which marked all hits as minor[39]? henrik•talk 17:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- Neutral changed to Neutral per Moonriddengirl's arugment above DGG (talk) 05:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
.OpposeI do not think you have quite enough understanding of policy, as admitted by your comment in a recent AfD brought only a few days ago: "Nom withdrawn in the face of overwhelming keeps. Next time I'll consult with someone more knowledgeable before bringing a Russian pol here. Thanks y'all for showing me the error of my way" Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farid Babayev. I hope to support next time, as I think you are learning. DGG (talk) 09:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]Thanks DGG. Rest assured if this passes, my primary use is going to be clearing out CSD and blocking vandals. I will go very slowly with AfD and will look to the more experienced for guidance.Struck jabber. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]Oh, and I definitely will be phrasing my AfD rationales better.Struck jabber Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
Final (28/12/5); Originally scheduled to end 22:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC). No consensus to promote. --Deskana (talk) 22:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SorryGuy (talk · contribs) - User has been around since August 23, 2005, and has been consistently active for a while now. He does a good amount of vandalism patrolling/warning, XfD participation, and RfA "voting" (not just all supports either) as well as a good deal of article cleanup. There is always a lot of XfD and vandalism work to do (especially if anon pages creation is enabled), and the more hands the better. I definitely trust this user to use the extra permissions well and think that the site would benefit from having this user as an admin. Voice-of-All 22:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I am surprised but also honored. I accept. SorryGuy 05:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to make a short additional statement to Voice of All kind comments, though. While I know that I will not abuse the tools, I had felt it would be best to wait to seek them until I had been active for a few more months. At any rate, I would like the community to know that while my participation in the project in the past has been on-and-off, I plan on being committed to it in the coming year. If the community asks that I prove this before asking for the tools again I more than understand, but with Voice of All offering this nomination I figure it will at least be a learning experience. SorryGuy 05:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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: The area which I expect to contribute most to is AfD. As it is, I mostly only contribute to AfDs that are labeled as six days or older. I do so as I feel those are the discussions which need the most input. As a result, I feel my understanding of deletion policy has become strong and as such this area will likely be the one that I contribute most to. Further, while I do not have a large amount of reports to WP:AIV, I have contributed to vandal fighting and as such feel that I will be able to check AIV and make blocks accordingly. Another administrative area I would like to help with is WP:CV although I have not quite done much work in this area yet. While I would also like to work in speedy deletions, I am not yet confident in my abilities here and as such will wait until I have studied the related policy more closely. SorryGuy 05:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: I have two contributions to the content building side of Wikipedia which I am proud of, although for different reasons. When I found Lord of the Rings in my early stages of Wikipedia, I was dismayed at how it looked. It was mostly unreferenced, had little flow, and was poorly written despite being over 70kB. I edited it down, referenced it, and added content that before didn't exist but which was needed. I also created subarticles for use in the main article. I went on to put it into WP:FAC where it past after a somewhat lengthy debate. As this nomination runs, I also have The Preuss School UCSD at FAC. In its case, I found it as a one or two paragraph stub. As a result, almost all its content is written by me. As such, it has likely been a more trying experience, but also a more rewarding one that has led to me understanding various pieces of policy that I before did not know as well. On the Wikipedia side of things, I am proud of my AfD contributions as well as my work welcoming users, although I have not welcomed users in quite some time. SorryGuy 05:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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: In general, I do not feel as though my Wikipedia experience has been a stressful one. I can not think of a time where I had any real conflict with another user. I do, however, understand that if this candidacy is successful I will likely have to be involved in these types of situations. In these situations, I feel as though I understand civility policy well enough to adhere to it. Of course, if I feel I can not, I am pretty effective at clicking the red X at the top of my screen. SorryGuy 05:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Optional question from xDanielx
- 4. As you know, lots has changed since your big period of frequent activity around mid-2006 (WP:N being an obvious example). Do you feel that, for the most part, you are aware of major policy changes, and the more subtle changes in community-wide views? Have you noticed any particular changes that you have strong feelings about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by XDanielx (talk • contribs) 06:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A: Firstly, I would note that while I sporadically edited for a long period of time, I did follow the project pretty closely, or at least as closely as reading the signpost allows. Eventually some topics did pull me in at times. At any rate, I do feel as though I have reached a general understanding of the policies that have changed, although it has led me to having to read a few things again and in a few instances (using new templates, citing new policy in AfD) changes in my behavior. Personally, I would say the largest difference I have noticed is what I would call a de-centralizing of the community. I was around when such things as Ezperanza and Community Justice were in full-stride and at the time supported them. Besides that, though, I feel as though the project has largely remained the same. After all, it does stand for the same core values that make it what it is. SorryGuy 08:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Optional question from Epbr123
- 5. Could you give some examples of your AfD contributions which you feel best demonstrate your knowledge of policies and guidelines? Epbr123 (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A: Recently, I feel as though the deletion discussions found here and there are good examples. SorryGuy 17:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Optional question from Rudget
- 6. - I see you've been here since 2005 and have so far not contributed heavily (5 or more edits) to any deletion discussions, either at articles for deletion, categories for discussion (etc.) or participated largely in Wikipedia discussion pages such as administrators's noticeboard or administator intervention against vandalism. Do you think this lack of experience will have a negative effect on your judgement when you come to those processes? Rudget.talk 14:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A: In short, I do not feel as though it will have a large negative effect, no. While I agree that having that experience would be great, I feel as though I understand the underlying policy related to these topics. I understand that blocks from AIV are to stop disruption, that their length should be blocked based on the likelihood of repeat offense, and that infinite blocks should only be used for severe and continued infractions of policy. I also understand relevant deletion policies and how to apply them. As such, I do not think that will be a problem. SorryGuy 17:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 2 optional questions from Mr.Z-man
- Please answer as if you were an admin.
- 7. A poorly sourced, somewhat negative article about a notable living person is deleted without discussion as a BLP violation. Another admin undeletes it with the reason "BLP is not a criteria for speedy deletion." What do you do and why? Mr.Z-man 19:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A: My precise answer obviously depends on the specifics of the article but in general: I would first see if the statements could be sourced. If so, I would do so immediately. If I was unable to do so, I would remove the statements, reducing it to a stub if it is called for. Depending on what content is left at this point, I would consider listing the article for deletion. If I felt sources could be found but as unable to do so myself I would likely remove the statements in question and consider listing it at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Almost all of this action is as directed by WP:BLP. SorryGuy 03:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 8. A registered user is reported to WP:AIV as a vandalism only account. The user has been removing some sentences from an article about a subject you are unfamiliar with, using no edit summary, and is being reverted (with the edit summary "rv v") by the user who reported him. What do you do and why? Mr.Z-man 19:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A: This one would also be easier to answer with more specifics but in short I do not think I would block the user. His behavior does not match with any of the criteria for blocking at WP:BLOCK. I will assume good faith and say the user is not being purposefully disruptive. As such, I would likely ask both users to leave the article at whatever state it is in and discuss the attempted change on the article's talk page. I would of course have to take into consideration what sort of sentences were being removed, the number of times it had occurred, and the user's prior contributions. Another consideration, depending on the precise situation, would be WP:3RR. SorryGuy 03:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
- See SorryGuy's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
- Links for SorryGuy: SorryGuy (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/SorryGuy before commenting.
Discussion
- Questions raised about AfD and other participation seemed to be based at least in part on the text of the question concerning this above. I'd just like to point out that SorryGuy posted to AfD a number of times just in his last 100 edits. I wonder if the question is referring to 5 edits in a single discussion? That is pretty unusual, from what I've seen. AvruchTalk 18:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support
- Slightly tentative support. I had kind of an opposite reaction to answer 3 (relative to Kurykh) -- I think it's amazing that someone can go through 2,000+ edits without any substantial conflict. Gaining the tools generally means being involved with more serious disputes, but I'm sure SorryGuy's pacifism will be a good attribute in those events. I like what I've seen of his contributions, but I'll keep an eye on the comments of others in case I missed something important. — xDanielx T/C\R 09:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Pacifism is good, yes, but what I'm looking for is experience in conflict resolution, not just engaging in conflict. And in my opinion, you can't gain conflict resolution skills without being in a major conflict. —Kurykh 18:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I've gone through a lot of your edits to get to this. Downsides are certainly your intermitent editing (which you have addressed above). You seem to have just one deleted contribution in a year and under 200 total but you did do some speedy tagging at one point. Very few AIV reports, but there we go, that's only one measure. Upsides, looking at some AfD contribution it seems good, and I applaud your policy of looking at the older AfD's to see if you can add value. Talk page is all civil (although I'm not sure I'd have archived months of sign-posts!). You recently consulted with an editor regarding vandal warnings (see here and here) and your cool head in that mildly heated exchange was impressive. Article writing is certainly there. So on balance although I'd have liked a bit more input (read edicountitis into that !!) I can't see you abusing the tools, which is the fundamental thing really. Best Wishes. Pedro : Chat 11:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom. Voice-of-All 11:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A good editor who is unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979Talk to me 13:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - as per answer to Q6. Rudget.talk 18:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Good answers. Just make sure to be an impartial admin, and to not blow up when facing the trolls. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 21:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- He's got XfD participation. What's the problem? Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 09:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I think its silly to tell a proven trustworthy and reliable editor to "wait a few months." We need good admins now. There are huge back-logs to be dealt with and the more trustworthy admins we have a work the better for the community. —Gaff ταλκ 21:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Seems knowledgable enough about the key policies and guidelines. Epbr123 (talk) 21:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Will help give good deletion discussions Marlith T/C 01:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, can't see a good reason not to. Neil ☎ 11:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, seems sensible and trustworthy. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Per Pedro. AvruchTalk 18:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, this is one instance when I think the quality of contributions outweigh possible "experience" concerns. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 21:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Appears to be sensible. - TwoOars (Rev) 21:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- SorryGuy appears to be an excellent candidate, as evidenced by his extensive article writing and *fD discussions. His answer to the first question shows an honest self-analysis of his strengths and weaknesses, and it further shows his good judgment by planning to wait until he gains more experience in certain areas before clicking the extra buttons. Good luck gaillimhConas tá tú? 23:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Answers to my questions and question 4 are enough for my concerns. Mr.Z-man 04:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Majorly (talk) 08:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support, per experience. If not now, next time. Good luck. I dorftrottel I talk I 15:23, November 27, 2007
Support A good editor worthy of being an administrator. Appleskin (talk) 16:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]Support Answers to questions are good enough. Support. Bananaisgood (talk) 16:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]Support I support SorryGuy for administrator Cheesecakeyum (talk) 16:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Three above SPAs confirmed by checkuser as being the same person. Clear attempt at disruption. WjBscribe 16:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per pedro It would have been better had you had more experience and more recently. I will urge you to go slow and don't hesitate to ask when in doubt. Your answers to the questions leave me confidant that you will not abuse the tools. , Dlohcierekim 00:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree that one needs to be a conflict resolver to not abuse the tools. Similarly, while we are building an encyclopedia, great building skills are not a prerequisite for the tools. , Dlohcierekim 02:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support we're looking for sysops, not article writers. ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 02:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above user is wrong. We're looking for sysops and article writers. I prefer that users be both, but I see no reason that this user would abuse the tools, so I support. Cool Hand Luke 19:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Especially per your answers to Mr. Z-man's questions. These show a very responsible attitude; you won't abuse the tools. J-ſtanTalkContribs 19:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Seems to be trustworthy, and the opposes have provided no evidence to show that his relative lack of experience has in fact affected his judgment. VanTucky talk 23:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per Gaillimh, good answers, unconvincing opposes. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per VoA. Keegantalk 02:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose since this might be one of the deciding contributions numbers wise, I feel I should contribute a more in depth comment. The user knows policy, has long term commitment, and an unblemished history. The candidate is exemplary of "it is not a big deal" as the buttons would aid in editing and maintenance of the encyclopedia. Qualified and sound. Keegantalk 04:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support inasmuch as, as Keegan just above me, I feel rather comfortable concluding with a good measure of confidence that the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive. Joe 05:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Regretful Oppose Man, I would love to support, but I don't think you have enough experience quite yet. You are obviously growing everyday, and I will willingly support if the trend continues for a couple months or so. Jmlk17 04:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Very weak oppose, leaning towards support per Jmlk. I want to support (that's why I made the oppose weak) because you are a good user (and I've met you in real life). However, the experience concerns concerns me. NHRHS2010 talk 05:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak oppose. I applaud your FAC work but I am concerned about the overall lack of experience. I note a rather limited stat at user talk pages which gives me pause. I believe I can confidently say that another couple of months with consistency and some additional work at AIV and such and I would happily support or even nom. Thank you for your offer. JodyB talk 12:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Oppose per lack of experience, but you seem to be the right stuff. Greswik (talk) 20:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Was he not here since 2005? Marlith T/C 19:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Je m'excuse I'm sorry, but your not quite experienced enough yet. Come back when you helped out more at WP:AIV, WP:AFD, WP:UAA, etc. Icestorm815 (talk) 03:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Not experienced enough yet, and made less than 100 edits in the first nine months of this year. Good future potential for adminship. I'll support after a few more months of regular, positive contributions. Zaxem (talk) 11:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose but sorry, guy, you do not meet my standards for sysop. Try again in a few months after you edit substantially more than 2 articles. Bearian (talk) 16:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just not enough experience. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- --Jeanenawhitney (talk) 14:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- reason also lack of experience Jeanenawhitney (talk) 15:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak oppose for lack of experience, lack of variety in experience. Wryspy (talk) 20:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I respect your oppose, but I feel as though I do have quite a bit of variety in experience. What other sort of experience would you prefer that I have before being given the tools? SorryGuy 01:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, sorry. I also have concerns regarding the experience of this candidate due to little diversification/participation in admin-oriented tasks. In fact, participation in Wikipedia for more than a year has been low and unstable. Húsönd 01:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Very weak oppose for now. This candidate clearly has the raw stuff necessary; mature, well-written answers to the questions, and responses to feedback. An RfA is a good way to get some feedback, though an editor review accomplishes that nicely as well. Anyhow, keep up the good work, and get a little more variety, then come back. :) GlassCobra 07:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- Neutral - Your answer to question #3 gave me pause. While your avoidance of conflicts as an editor is laudable, I'm not particularly keen to see tools granted to editors who have no experience in handling major conflicts. Adminship and conflicts are mutually inseparable, and an admin who has not had major experience in conflict, and by extension conflict resolution on Wikipedia may learn it the hard way and end up causing seasoned editors to leave. Might I request that you elaborate on your answer? —Kurykh 07:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said in answer three, I do understand that conflicts will most definitely come with becoming an admin. However, as I look back at my contributions throughout my time at Wikipedia, I can not think of an instance where any real problem occurred. Frankly, despite the fact that I have fought vandals, I do not believe my user page has even been vandalized. I will say that I am a firm believer in WP:CIV and that I do not believe that I have ever broken it (possibly because I apply similar principles across my internet usage). It's my opinion that it is the anchor of all communal behavior here. If I had to name the most stress I have had while at Wikipedia, it likely came as a result of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Lord of the Rings. At that FAC and elsewhere related to the article there was considerable discussion about cutting the article and how to go about this. Besides this, though, I really can not think of a time I was particularly worried about anything on WP. SorryGuy 08:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not disputing your conviction to uphold WP:CIVIL or any other of our policies. I'm just uncomfortable giving tools to someone who has not gotten his hands dirty yet, so to speak. And I say this because it's a very glaring omission. I'm not going to oppose for this, but I can't support. —Kurykh 08:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said in answer three, I do understand that conflicts will most definitely come with becoming an admin. However, as I look back at my contributions throughout my time at Wikipedia, I can not think of an instance where any real problem occurred. Frankly, despite the fact that I have fought vandals, I do not believe my user page has even been vandalized. I will say that I am a firm believer in WP:CIV and that I do not believe that I have ever broken it (possibly because I apply similar principles across my internet usage). It's my opinion that it is the anchor of all communal behavior here. If I had to name the most stress I have had while at Wikipedia, it likely came as a result of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Lord of the Rings. At that FAC and elsewhere related to the article there was considerable discussion about cutting the article and how to go about this. Besides this, though, I really can not think of a time I was particularly worried about anything on WP. SorryGuy 08:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral: Mainly per the concern raised above. Also, per your answer to question 1, you mention you would like to work on AfD's, while I don't see that you've contributed to AfD discussions all that much, thus, there is a chance that you haven't demonstrated your knowledge of content guidelines and policies. At this point, I don't see any reasons not to support you, however nothing is really jumping out telling me to support you. I am going to take a cursory look through some of your contributions before making any decision. - Rjd0060 (talk) 07:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that my contributions to AfD have not been massive and again I was not expecting this nomination at this time, but what I have contributed to it I believe to be a good guide to my opinions and interruptions of policy and guidelines. As I said in answer 1, I usually comment on the older AfDs, which generally have not reached consensus. As a result, I feel as though they are particularly good examples of my views. However, please feel free to ask me any further questions on my views on specific guidelines. SorryGuy 08:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral per above points. If you come back in a few months, I will gladly endorse your nomination. --Sharkface217 06:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral for lack of experience with policy. Considering what you said just above, perhaps you should not accepted the nom until you yourself thought you were ready. DGG (talk) 09:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said above, I considered doing just that but decided that going through with it now couldn't hurt me and would only lead to fair critiques that allow me to improve as an editor. SorryGuy 22:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral, leaning to support, primarily because of the candidate's response to DGG, above. That attitude is precisely why I think the candidate will get the mop before long - just maybe not this time around. Best wishes, ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
About RfB
Requests for bureaucratship (RfB) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become bureaucrats. Bureaucrats can make other users administrators or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here, and remove administrator rights in limited circumstances. They can also grant or remove bot status on an account.
The process for bureaucrats is similar to that for adminship above; however the expectation for promotion to bureaucratship is significantly higher than for admin, requiring a clearer consensus. In general, the threshold for consensus is somewhere around 85%. Bureaucrats are expected to determine consensus in difficult cases and be ready to explain their decisions.
Create a new RfB page as you would for an RfA, and insert{{subst:RfB|User=Username|Description=Your description of the candidate. ~~~~}}into it, then answer the questions. New bureaucrats are recorded at Wikipedia:Successful bureaucratship candidacies. Failed nominations are at Wikipedia:Unsuccessful bureaucratship candidacies.
At minimum, study what is expected of a bureaucrat by reading discussions at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship including the recent archives, before seeking this position.
While canvassing for support is often viewed negatively by the community, some users find it helpful to place the neutrally worded {{RfX-notice|b}}
on their userpages – this is generally not seen as canvassing. Like requests for adminship, requests for bureaucratship are advertised on the watchlist and on Template:Centralized discussion.
Please add new requests at the top of the section immediately below this line.
Current nominations for bureaucratship
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for bureaucratship. Please do not modify it.
Closed as successful by Cecropia (talk) 16:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC) at (172/3/1); Scheduled to end 13:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WJBscribe (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - When I ran for RfA, one of the things that motivated me to do so was that I often found myself waiting for admins to performs tasks I wanted to help with – spending time reverting vandals already reported to AIV, seeing deletion discussions I could have closed and kept the process moving more smoothly. In deciding to run for bureaucratship I am motivated by similar factors, I spend quite a bit of time pointing crats towards overdue RfAs or Bots that need flagging when I believe the process would run more smoothly were I to have the tools to deal with those myself. One area I’d particularly like to help with is renames, where the burden is shouldered by very few crats who often do hundreds of requests at a time before getting (unsurprisingly) burned out. Secretlondon is nearing 800 renames is understandably tired, Andre is busy in real life and Deskana also has checkuser responsibilities which are understandably a greater priority. So I feel an extra bureaucrat would benefit the community at this time and I’d like to offer to serve in that capacity.
To give you an idea of why I’d make a good addition to our present crat teams, I’m going to summarise the experience I have in the relevant areas:
- Requests for adminship
I’m a pretty active participant in RfAs and involve myself in discussion about RfA such on WT:RFA and participated in the recent RfC. I perform various maintenance tasks, such as correcting end times [40] and identifying duplicated comments [41]. I also close RfAs of very new users that no longer have a chance of success per WP:SNOW [42] to avoid a pile up of opposition and offer advice and encouragement to the unsuccessful candidate [43]. I also keep an eye out for overdue RfAs and point crats who are online in the direction of them to try and avoid successful candidates waiting longer than necessary for their tools [44], [45].
- Username changes
I’ve been helping out with requests for renames and usurpations since March and would be more than willing to help process the requests, rather than just making the requests are as clear as possible for when a bureaucrat comes to review them. I realised the other day to my horror that between the two rename boards and their talkpages, I have over 1200 edits related to renames. I’ve helped several crats who had not performed renames before understand the issues raised by the more complex requests. When several crats felt it would be beneficial to those involved in the process to have some guidelines that gave an indication of how existing crats exercised their discretion to rename users, I worked with Deskana to draft the Wikipedia:Changing usernames guidelines.
- Bot flags
The bureaucrat role here is rather different as crats are expected to flag and deflag Bots on the recommendations of the Bot approval group, rather than apply their judgment to the Bot approval request. Indeed bots that don’t require flags are approved without any crat input at all. I generally keep an eye on bot requests and try and point active crats in the direction of Bots that need flagging [46], [47], [48]. I also have a decent knowledge of Bot flagging practice and have been able to spot a Bot listed for flagging that shouldn’t be [49] (anti-vandal bots need to have their edits visible in recent changes). As a crat I would fulfil these requests rather than simply passing them along.
I hope to bring plenty to the job and would be honoured if the community felt able to trust me in this role. If not, I understand totally and I’ll get back to doing what I’m doing now… WjBscribe 13:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as a Bureaucrat. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?
- A. I am familiar with the various debates and schools of thought on RfA closes. Bureaucrats are expected to promote candidates where there is a community consensus that they are suitable for adminship and to not promote where such consensus is absent. Consensus in this area is rather a creation of Wikipedia and I don’t think a dictionary would be of much help. Consensus in the RfA context tends to be more a more numerical thing than that at AfD because the question being asked is far more subjective. Commentators are being asked whether or not they trust the candidate to be an administrator – as a result the fact that User:Foo does or does not trust the candidate is relevant information in of itself. However determining consensus is not a matter of counting votes – a crat shouldn’t be in a position where one more opinion one way or the other would have affected the outcome. Percentages are sometimes applied to debates as an indicator of the flow of the discussion and there is an expectation that a candidate supported by more than 80% of the community will be promoted and that one with less that 70% will not. Those are not absolute limits, but a crat should not depart too readily or too far from those expectations and should provide a very clear account of their assessment of consensus and the factors they took into account. In most cases, input from other crats should be sought to confirm that the case is appropriate for such a departure. A crat that the community felt was not respecting their consensus would undoubtedly be asked to stand down.
- I am open to change in the manner RfA operates and should the community agree to change the way RfA works – either decreasing or increasingly the level of bureaucrat discretion, I would judge the outcomes based on that community agreement.
- 2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?
- A. I have no plans to throw myself into controversy any time soon. But when a controversial decision does come up I wouldn’t shrink from it. If uncertain, I would open up the matter for input from other bureaucrats – so long as this is to discuss the consensus of the discussion, not the crats sitting as a committee to make their own decision on the merits of the candidate. If I am able to determine the consensus or lack of it, I would be sure to explain my reasons as clearly as possible and to listen patiently to feedback and criticism. We’re all learning when we’re editing Wikipedia – bureaucrats should be no different. In my view the key to dealing with contentious nominations is to ensure that discussions are clear, full and public – such discussions shouldn’t happen behind closed doors.
- 3. Wikipedians expect bureaucrats to adhere to high standards of fairness, knowledge of policy and the ability to engage others in the community. Why do you feel you meet those standards?
- A. Wow, that’s a question that rather asks me to blow my own trumpet. I think I have a strong knowledge of the policy areas involved and that I have always interacted well with other members of the community. I have been involved in mediating disputes and I engage civilly and productively with other users. Ultimately this is a question I have to ask of the community – do you feel that I have yet met the standards you require of a bureaucrat?
- 4. Do you have the time and do you have the desire to visit WP:RFA, WP:B/RFA, and/or WP:CHU on a regular basis to attend to those requests?
- A. Absolutely, I already spend time in those areas as I have detailed above. My helping out with the rename boards can easily be switched to performing/rejecting the requests and I keep an eye on Bot flag requests and RfAs as it is.
Completely, truthfully, totally optional questions from Majorly
- 5. Have you ever nominated anyone for adminship? If so, who and why?
- A: I have nominated: RockMFR, C.Fred, Armedblowfish, FisherQueen, Elonka, JForget, Alasdair, Acroterion and Royalbroil. In each case, I made the nomination because I thought those users had a balance of experience that would make them an asset to our admin team. Wikipedia has an ever increasing neeed for good admins and I encourage everyone to keep on the lookout for users who would be well suited to the position - I have been attempting to find at least one person a month to nominate for adminship to play my part in keeping up our admin numbers.
- 6. Have you ever disagreed with a bureaucrat's decision on an RfA when the candidate was promoted with less than 75% of the vote, or not promoted with more than 75%?
- A: My opinion here is about the discussions and there outcomes, not my personal view of the users involved. As to the first category of contentious RfAs you refer to, one close that troubled me at the time was Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ryulong 3 - there was strong opposition from very respected members of the community and many supporters acknowledged the validity of those concerns. The closing bureaucrats' comments gave the impression that a key motivating factor in their decision was their personal impression of the candidate. It seems to me important for bureaucrats to stick to evaluating the consensus of the discussion and not the merits of the candidate. If one has a strong opinion it is better to join the discussion and let another crat determine consensus. In the end, I don't think promotions in such circumstances do the candidate any favours as their later actions can be undermined by their adminship being on a less stable footing than had they run again at a later time having addressed the concerns raised. Turning to the second category you ask about, I am not currently aware of any promotions of candidates over 75% where I have disagreed with the bureaucrat decision - I may have disagreed with the community's judgment of the merits of the candidate, but that is a very separate matter - everyone won't agree all of the the time. But should such an example come to me, I will of course expand this answer.
- 7. (Very personal question here ^_^). My own RfA was withdrawn by myself after I volunteered to give the tools up, and be reconfirmed by the community through an RfA. Raul654 stated he would promote me without another RfA. Would you promote me without an RfA? Do you think that withdrawing it requires another RfA if the user wants to be an admin again (bear in mind the majority of the opposers were opposing the process, and not myself)?
- A: I think you will agree that this has become rather a tricky issue - Raul654 has taken one position while Cecropia and Secretlondon seem to have taken opposing ones [50], [51]. Although I generaly agree with the position of the latter two about those who go voluntarily through RfA and then withdraw, I think your case raises special issues that would make me lean towards taking Raul654's position. Accusations of sockpuppetry from someone with authority can have a serious chilling effect and I can see the logic in taking that RfA as a "nulity" rather than a withdrawn attempt. That said, it might be wise for someone in your position to go for RfA again (painful though that process is) so that any admin actions you made in the future were backed by a clear mandate. It seems to me that many who saw little point in your reconfirmation RfA the first time would be minded to get involved were there a future one.
- In your case however, I think I would have to recuse myself from acting. I am strong believer that bureaucrats should not excercise their discretion where they are not (or will not appear to be) impartial. For example on a contentious RfA, a bureaucrat who has stong opinions about the candidate should in my opinion support or oppose and recuse from acting as a bureaucrat in dealing with that RfA rather than waiting for it to end and assessing consensus as if they were impartial. In this case, I would be uncomfortable determining the matter because we have as I see it a good relationship and have met outside Wikipedia. I was up most of the night before you withdrew your reconfirmation arguing with Gmaxwell over the evidence and those factors that strongly pointed to his being mistaken. As one of four administrators who were with you at a time when your alleged other account was editing, I feel myself rather involved in the controversy. I think people would have understandable problems with my exercising a discretion in your case when there are other bureaucrats further removed - both practically and emotionally - from your case.
Optional Question from U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk · contribs)
- 8.Of course you have my support anyway. Forgive me if the question is too similiar question 6, but would you ever promote a canadate with under 70% support?(Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ryulong 3, for example was 69%)--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 21:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A: I think I cover this already in my answer to Q.1. I guess the short answer is yes, but rarely and cautiously, where there is a consensus to promote in spite of it falling outside the common range where promotions are thought likely. That might especially happen where some of the opposition is very weak (oppostion to self-noms being a recent example of opposition the community attaches little weight to), or clearly mistaken e.g. someone opposing the candidate due to the recent block in their log when they have in fact never been blocked. See above for the more detailed version.
- Wait, so are you saying you'd have promoted Ryulong? Majorly (talk) 22:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that was just an example of a promotion that occured under 70%, I don't think U.S.A. was asking my opinion on that particular close. But you may be clearer once I've finished answering your questions. WjBscribe 22:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, to be honest, I was asking based on that RfA. I think (and this is just my opinion) that there was not sufficient consencus to promote. But if you can answer (just interested in knowing) in the circumstance of that RfA, would you have promoted. If you're unsure, that's fine.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 22:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See my answer to Q.6 - note that my views on the consensus of that RfA is no reflection of how I judge Ryulong's competence as an admin since then. WjBscribe 22:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I know. This is nothing to do with your opionion on the canadate, but whether you believe their is consensus or not.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 22:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See my answer to Q.6 - note that my views on the consensus of that RfA is no reflection of how I judge Ryulong's competence as an admin since then. WjBscribe 22:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, to be honest, I was asking based on that RfA. I think (and this is just my opinion) that there was not sufficient consencus to promote. But if you can answer (just interested in knowing) in the circumstance of that RfA, would you have promoted. If you're unsure, that's fine.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 22:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that was just an example of a promotion that occured under 70%, I don't think U.S.A. was asking my opinion on that particular close. But you may be clearer once I've finished answering your questions. WjBscribe 22:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait, so are you saying you'd have promoted Ryulong? Majorly (talk) 22:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A: I think I cover this already in my answer to Q.1. I guess the short answer is yes, but rarely and cautiously, where there is a consensus to promote in spite of it falling outside the common range where promotions are thought likely. That might especially happen where some of the opposition is very weak (oppostion to self-noms being a recent example of opposition the community attaches little weight to), or clearly mistaken e.g. someone opposing the candidate due to the recent block in their log when they have in fact never been blocked. See above for the more detailed version.
Another question from Majorly:
- 9. What is the difference between consensus to promote on an RfA and consensus to promote on an RfB?
- A: As things stand there is an expectation that a greater consensus will be required at RfB than at RfA, with controversy having resulted from promotions that were made where the candidate had less than 90% support - for example Essjay and Andre. There is currently therefore a community expectation that opposition to RfBs must be minimal for them to succeed. I noticed earlier that Husond had raised some very sensible questions about whether the promotion threshhold should be higher at RfB at Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrats - that discussion could perhaps do with being on a more watched page so more of the community could join in. Ultimately it is not for the bureaucrats to announce a change in how RfB will work, it is something that would need considerable input and hopefully a consensus could be reached to stick to the present position or harmonise with RfA. On the substantial issue I am rather on the fence - I see the reason for wanting to ensure that crats start out with overwhelming community support given the difficult choices they may be presented with but I think Husond's point that people are aware they are commenting on a position requiring a higher level of trusts and adjust their standards accordingly is a good one. I would follow any discussion on this matter with interest whether this RfB is successful or not.
Questions from Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk · contribs)
- 10. I had this watchlisted for a while, and when I saw it on my list, my instinct was to oppose, but I couldn't for the life of me remember why (it'll probably come to me eventually...). Why do you think I had this feeling?
- A: That's an interesting question. I can't read your mind so can only look for any interaction between us that may have been negative. The only apparent example is my opposition to your 2nd RfA. I originally had a BLP concern that you addressed then the two elements that concerned me where (1) the posting of a private discussion to Wikipedia - regardless of the content of the conversation, I would have expected someone close to running for adminship to know that these could not be posted and (2) an essay you wrote on templating the regulars which I thought was ill thought out and concerned me about your judgment. I stand by those being reasonable concerns - they are things to learn and move on from rather than ones that should bar you from adminship forever but they did convince me that your weren't ready in July. Then I was on the fence about your 3rd RfA and in the end you withdrew before I made up my mind - it was a while ago so my recollection may not be 100% accurate but I think I was surprised that the outcome was worse than that of the first, as it seemed to me that improvement had happened in between. It was a little soon after the previous RfA for me to be entirely comfortable but I did feel that lessons had nonetheless been learned. If that hasn't answered your question, feel free to ask about something more specific if it does come to you.
- If I remember something more specific I'll bring it here, but that's probably it... Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 06:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A: That's an interesting question. I can't read your mind so can only look for any interaction between us that may have been negative. The only apparent example is my opposition to your 2nd RfA. I originally had a BLP concern that you addressed then the two elements that concerned me where (1) the posting of a private discussion to Wikipedia - regardless of the content of the conversation, I would have expected someone close to running for adminship to know that these could not be posted and (2) an essay you wrote on templating the regulars which I thought was ill thought out and concerned me about your judgment. I stand by those being reasonable concerns - they are things to learn and move on from rather than ones that should bar you from adminship forever but they did convince me that your weren't ready in July. Then I was on the fence about your 3rd RfA and in the end you withdrew before I made up my mind - it was a while ago so my recollection may not be 100% accurate but I think I was surprised that the outcome was worse than that of the first, as it seemed to me that improvement had happened in between. It was a little soon after the previous RfA for me to be entirely comfortable but I did feel that lessons had nonetheless been learned. If that hasn't answered your question, feel free to ask about something more specific if it does come to you.
- 11. Opinion on Shalom's RfA?
- A: That RfA posed rather an interesting dilemma for the community as I see it. On the one hand, I can totally understand the trust issues people would have to someone who had previously run for RfA claiming to be a reformed vandal when in fact still vandalising now making that same claim again. On the other, it struck me that given his contribution levels Shalom could have in the 5 months in between have created a new account and done rather well at RfA with no one noticing the connection. Instead he chose to own up to his past and try to regain the community's trust openly and without subterfuge. Not only did I feel that his honesty and courage deserved credit but as a more pragmatic point I would rather for him to have gained adminship admitting to his past (so that others could keep an eye and make sure that such behaviour did not in fact resume) than for him to gain adminship under a different account without us knowing that this is something to watch for. In the end my opinion proved to be in the minority and I respect that, but I am a little concerned about the message others in a similar position may take from the result of that RfA.
- If the final tally had been, say, 34/11/10, and Kathryn NicDhàna questions hadn't been asked (and thus the backlash due to them didn't occur), how would you have closed it? Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 06:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The easiest answer is - I wouldn't as I supported the RfA early on. But assuming I hadn't commented I really can't go on the numbers alone which only give the starting point that a significant number of commentators did not feel they could trust him with sysop tools. To gauge the consensus I'd have to read the opposition and look at the nature of and reasons for those opposes - were any of them described as weak? how well backed up with evidence were they? were their points acknowledged as valid by those who supported or those neutral? how directly did they relate to trustworthiness or competence? I'd also have to look at the strength of the support - did a significant number describe their support as weak or admit to some misgivings about his candidateship? Was there any evidence of sockuppetry? Finally, quite a few people were neutral so their evaluations of the candidate would also play an important part in determining the consensus of the RfA.
- If the final tally had been, say, 34/11/10, and Kathryn NicDhàna questions hadn't been asked (and thus the backlash due to them didn't occur), how would you have closed it? Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 06:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A: That RfA posed rather an interesting dilemma for the community as I see it. On the one hand, I can totally understand the trust issues people would have to someone who had previously run for RfA claiming to be a reformed vandal when in fact still vandalising now making that same claim again. On the other, it struck me that given his contribution levels Shalom could have in the 5 months in between have created a new account and done rather well at RfA with no one noticing the connection. Instead he chose to own up to his past and try to regain the community's trust openly and without subterfuge. Not only did I feel that his honesty and courage deserved credit but as a more pragmatic point I would rather for him to have gained adminship admitting to his past (so that others could keep an eye and make sure that such behaviour did not in fact resume) than for him to gain adminship under a different account without us knowing that this is something to watch for. In the end my opinion proved to be in the minority and I respect that, but I am a little concerned about the message others in a similar position may take from the result of that RfA.
- 12. "Vote" or "!Vote"?
- A: Neither. I've said above that RfA isn't a vote (see answers to questions 1 & 8). But I'm also not very fond of the term "!vote" - those unfamiliar with coding language are unlikely to realise that it means "not vote" and would probably interpret it as some more dramatic version of a vote. I'd therefore prefer avoiding terms that may mislead people. My personal opinion is that the English language is rich enough that we can describe users' contributions to RfAs without needing to use code - they can be described as "comments" or "opinions". It actually sounds much more natural for someone to refer to their support or opposition of an RfA that to their !vote on it it.
- Optional Question from Dustihowe (talk · contribs)
- 13. If the community becomes concerned with some of your actions and a majority wish to see you removed, what will you do?
- A: If it became evident that a clear majority of the community had lost confidence in me as a bureaucrat I would resign. At the moment this would probably demonstrated through an RfC. Obviously I am and would continue to be subject to review by ArbCom - who could decide to remove my bureaucrat status in the case of misconduct even without such a consensus being demonstrated.
- Question from R (talk · contribs)
- 14. ROFL LOL You say RFA is not a vote. Of course it is silly! After all, we've got the sectioning off of supports/opposes/neutrals, the bolding of words, and my favoritest (omg bad English even though I speak it natively) thing of all...the table that tells the crats the percents! I'm not going to ask you why you think it's not a vote, I'm going to ask you what you will do to help make RFA less of a vote, and to make it so just maybe most people and crats won't look at the stupid bot table, not even read the discussion (death to tangobot btw O_O) and say "ok it's at 74% which is under the absolute set minimum, 75%, which cannot change, so I'm not promoting."
- A: It is I think an odd conclusion to assume that because an indication of the progress of an RfA can be given numerically, it must be a purely numerical exercise. Tangobot's summary gives people a decent overview of what is going on, it doesn't dictate outcomes. One of its uses is to give bureaucrats a general idea of how complicated a close is likely to be and therefore how much time might be needed to do a thorough job closing. My answers to Q.1, Q.8 and the follow up to Q.11 give a pretty good indication of how I would go about determining consensus. Those percentage markers give a good idea of the community's general expectations but are not uncrossable red lines, the key element is what the consensus of any given discussion is. I think there is a reason why the tallies are at the top of an RfA page and not the bottom for example - they are the first indicator of how the RfA has gone, not the final one.
TwoThree questions from Geogre (talk · contribs)- 15. Since you've brought it up, in a round about manner, the hottest invocation of "discretion" and most controversial re-promotion of a former administrator was probably user:Carnildo. An RFA went one way (and would have gone much more that way had not people feared "piling on"), and those opposing were pretty heavily experienced and trusted people, as were many who supported, and yet, in what appears to have been private conversation, 'crats went another way, citing "discretion." Was that a mistake? Geogre (talk) 12:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A: On reading the talkpage discussions about the Carnildo close and Taxman, Rdsmith4 & Danny's explanation as to why they departed from the Community's expectations, it seems to me that they factored in the expectations of ArbCom into assessing the RfA - it seems that they had desysopped him not anticipating the difficulty he would face in regaining the tools. Ideally though if it was the case that ArbCom thought he should regain the tools, then it would I think have been better for them to restore them, rather than a divisive RfA resulting. I note that appeals to the Committee are now more common that RfAs following users being desysopped - both Betacommand and Darwinek pursued that route.
- I think you highlight the element that troubles me most about that RfA - the fact that people presuming that it would fail held off their opposition not wishing to "kick him while he was down". That is very much one of the dangers of unexpected decisions. Had there been a conscious decision to lower the barrier for a sysop seaking re-adminship following a desysoping, that could have been made clear in advance and people would have participated in a more informed manner. Either ArbCom or the consensus of an open and well-publicised discussion could have expressly asked the bureaucrats to treat such RfAs as special cases or this one in particular, removing the problematic "surprise" factor. I do not think Carnildo regaining adminship was a bad thing - indeed I am only aware of good work he has done since - but the manner in which it was done lead to people feeling that they had been cheated and that the rules had been altered after the fact.
- 16. Finally, you have again been somewhat ambiguous, to my eye, about one central question in regard to discretion and consensus: is the default to promote or to not promote at RFA? Does it take great support to promote, or does it take substantial dissent to withhold support? Geogre (talk) 12:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A: There are here two conflicting ideologies - on the one hand adminship is long professed to be "no big deal", yet on the other candidate are asked to demonstrate community trust that they should be an administrator. We often see the very real consequences that unwise use of the tools can have for the project - editors subjected to bad blocks leaving, other feeling understandably indignant. Infighting often resulting when time could be better spent building or maintaining the encyclopedia. Poor use of delete tools can also serious offend users and can have problematic consequences in terms of GFDL. Those consequences can all occur with someone acting in the very best of faith. So caution is understandable and, whilst the expectations of admins should not be unrealistic - people will make mistakes and will lose their tempers and say what they later regret, the onus remains on the candidate to demonstrate that they are suited to the task. If there isn't a consensus that they have done so, they should not be promoted.
- 17. Really finally, one frequently hears "we have enough admins," and we more frequently hear "RFA is broken," and we even sometimes hear (from me), "RFA has to have quorum." So, where do you stand? If RFA is "broken," and everyone seems to agree that they dislike it, how broken is it, and how imperative is it to "fix" it, and what is the role of 'crats in performing these fixes? Geogre (talk) 12:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A: I recently expressed my views on whether RfA is broken in this RfC. I won't restate them here save to say that I often think that criticisms of RfA are actually criticisms of how people participate in RfA and that work on changing attitudes has been much more successful than that on changing the process. To take an example from your questions, if you review RfAs for the 6 months, I don't think you'll find much mention of "we have enough admins" at all. This followed long discussions of why more administrators would be beneficial and the relative paucity of admins we have compared to total users. Attempts were made to fimly but politely rebut the view that some sufficient quota of admins had been reached and it seems to now not be a commonly expressed view, and widely seen as not being invitself a valid justification for opposing a candidate. There is no quota on the number of administrators this project can have and in my opinion anyone capable of using the tools and with the trust of the community should have them regardless of how frequently they would use them.
- As to the "quorum" idea, I'm not entirely sure what you mean. If time constrains us from exploring this here, perhaps we could continue the discussion later on my talkpage. I understand quorum as meaning sufficient participation - given that RfAs are open to all and well publicised I don't really see this as being a problem. If few participate in an RfA but the consensus is clear I don't think it matters that other chose not too - if they had objections they could have raised them and I think this is where adminship really isn't a big deal. There is no requirement that a set number of editors endorse someone for adminshup. Indeed years ago RfAs routinely saw less that half a dozen participants.
General comments
- See WJBscribe's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
Please keep discussion constructive and civil.
Discussion
- It would seem that a few in the community are looking for me to "drop the other shoe" and comment on this RfB. I stand by my earlier comments on WJBscribe's road to 'cratitude in the context they were made; now it's the community's turn to see whether I was on the right track or not. Cheers to all, Cecropia (talk) 07:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support
- Yes, absolutely. WJB is a trusted confidant, a fantastic admin and a fine fellow. I have absolutely no concerns here and I am certain he has the knowledge and ability to be be an outstanding bureaucrat. Will has my full support in his request for bureaucratship. Sarah 13:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weaksupport I trust Will's judgment and believe he would be a good crat my only concern being do we really need anymore? KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 13:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)I am convinced KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 14:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]- I am one of the most active and I expect that if I get elected to the Arbitration Committee that my activity will decrease. In addition, we do need more bureaucrats to perform renames. --Deskana (talk) 13:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- According to Wikipedia:Bureaucrats we have 12 currently active crats, so if you become less active, 11 is not enough? I do agree that Will is a great choice, but I'm unconvinced that he is really needed. Still I support. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 14:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would suggest looking at Wikipedia:Successful adminship candidacies and Wikipedia:Changing usernames, or WP:CRATSTATS if you'd prefer an easy to read summary of both (important to note that CRATSTATS is normally manually updated by WJBscribe =]). It's clear that a small subset do most of the work, especially when it comes to changing usernames. This month RFA had more activity from other bureaucrats, but the months before that it was again a small subset that did the work. --Deskana (talk) 15:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's always a small group who actually do the work. Secretlondon (talk) 23:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- More crats are needed - the less glamorous bits (like renames) rarely get done by people. I'm certainly sick to death of doing them all. Secretlondon (talk) 23:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would suggest looking at Wikipedia:Successful adminship candidacies and Wikipedia:Changing usernames, or WP:CRATSTATS if you'd prefer an easy to read summary of both (important to note that CRATSTATS is normally manually updated by WJBscribe =]). It's clear that a small subset do most of the work, especially when it comes to changing usernames. This month RFA had more activity from other bureaucrats, but the months before that it was again a small subset that did the work. --Deskana (talk) 15:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- According to Wikipedia:Bureaucrats we have 12 currently active crats, so if you become less active, 11 is not enough? I do agree that Will is a great choice, but I'm unconvinced that he is really needed. Still I support. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 14:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am one of the most active and I expect that if I get elected to the Arbitration Committee that my activity will decrease. In addition, we do need more bureaucrats to perform renames. --Deskana (talk) 13:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support One of the Wikipedians whose judgement on most things wiki I trust over my own, and one that I trust to trust the community in turn. His answers indicate he will make good use of the status, being helpfull in many areas. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support This was not unexpected. Pedro : Chat 13:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I am one of the most active bureaucrats and I find myself having less and less time to actually perform bureaucrat actions, due to responsibilities as a checkuser and other things. Even so, if we do not need more, redundancy is good, and I know I can trust WJBscribe as a bureaucrat, so it does not make sense to not give him the rights even if he does not use them a lot due to other bureaucrats being active. In summary, I trust him totally. --Deskana (talk) 13:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support His service to Wikipedia is immense in ways edit counts cannot measure. I'd welcome such a thoughtful, enquiring, productive personality being added to the crat ranks. --Dweller (talk) 14:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ~ Riana ⁂ 14:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - My experience of WJB's insight, helpfulness, and judgement, gives me confidence that he will do an excellent job and can be trusted to benefit the community in this role. He's given unstinting, invaluable advice as a confidant to others that I'm aware of, and probably many times I'm not; I'd also trust him to make good decisions of the kind 'crats have to make, and to consult in difficult cases. The practical question "will he help if appointed" is well answered by examples of his existing work in the nomination. FT2 (Talk | email) 14:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I think WJBscribe will do just fine as a bureaucrat. Captain panda 14:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I know this user from elsewhere too. I've seen nothing that makes me think their judgement might be impaired :) (other than by putting this in of course) --Herby talk thyme 14:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support The nominee is one of the few contributors with whom my experience has been completely positive. Although I have become disillusioned with the project, I hope that this nomination is successful, as I am fully persuaded that the nominee will serve as a model community member. Good luck. --Aarktica (talk) 15:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- Of course, polite and familiar with the bureaucratic processes. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Deffo. – Steel 15:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support An excellent candidate and I agree that an additional 'crat would be useful. Ronnotel (talk) 15:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support He has been here a long time, with a perfect record. Great edit history as well. --businessman332211 (talk) 15:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support Although part of me wants to oppose this, because then you'll beat me to helping out at Wikipedia:Changing username and usurpations, you'll be adding the {{done}} or {{not done}} tags before I get a chance to add a clerk note :) (Just joking about the oppose). —Qst 15:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support. Excellent candidate based on his overall record as an editor and administrator and his answers to the questions, and the only RfB candidate I can recall with experience in all of the eclectic areas (RfA's, renames/usurps, bot flags) where the bureaucrats have roles. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. Talk Email 16:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Excellent motivation for running. That should be enough to support in itself. J-ſtanTalkContribs 16:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- trustworthy and familiar with the tasks Agathoclea (talk) 16:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support on the basis that there is a need and WJBS is somweone who can be trusted. Johnbod (talk) 16:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support — Rlevse • Talk • 17:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support About the most obvious support I could ever vote. --David Shankbone 17:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support - I've worked with WJBscribe on a number of different area's here and I've always found his judgment to be excellent. He interacts with users extremely well and always strives to answer any problems that users have. I think what we should look for in a candidate at RfB is there ability to judge consensus, and WJBscribe almost single handedly closes RfD discussions, where, in my opinion anyway, he always comes to the right conclusion. It's my same opinion with his closes at AfD and he always tries to give reasoning to his closures when there is any ambiguity surrounding them. It's important the crats do offer explanations of their decisions when asked for them, and this can often help to stop any wikidrama before it even begins. I trust WJBscribe to communicate after any concerns more than just about any other user here. He is the most active person at WP:CHU and WP:CHU/U by far, and he often has to prod the crats to perform name changes, his excellent understanding of the username policy coupled with knowledge of the process means the only reason why he can't do them himself is purely technical. I got the pleasure of meeting him at the manchester meetup in June, and he's an intelligent guy - I trust and respect him. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I very strongly support this request for bureaucratship. WJBscribe is already an "RfA clerk", and him being a bureaucrat will be a tremendous benefit for Wikipedia. He is a very effective and efficient admin, is always civil and polite, handles stressful situations well, and is clearly one of our greatest users. On other notes, WJBscribe assumes good faith, he has a good userpage, can spell the word "bureaucrat", and made sure that this RfB ends on the 29th of this month. :) Overall, he has been an excellent admin and will make an excellent bureaucrat. Acalamari 17:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support, best candidate in a long time. Wizardman 17:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - every time my watchlist lights up with WJScribe making a comment, I make a point of seeing what he has to say. His wise, kind, and thoughtful contributions mark him well as being the sort of person who would use these tools in a beneficial manner. --SB_Johnny | talk 18:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- the_undertow talk 18:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- GracenotesT § 18:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Even before he was an admin, I learned to rely on WJBscribe's calm advice and knowledge of policy. He has been unfailingly helpful and civil, especially in contentious debates. His comments in policy discussions and mediations show him to be one of the most neutral and good-faith Wikipedians I've worked with. He is already helping out in the 'crat areas where he will be working, and it will only benefit the project to give him to tools to do those jobs more effectively. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 19:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I normally don't comment on these types of things, but WJBscribe is such an excellent editor in all the ways that are required for bureaucratship.--Danaman5 (talk) 19:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Thoughtful and thorough answers to questions above. My experiences and exchanges with him indicate he is well versed in policy and his judgment on Wikipedia seems exceptionally sound. I have never seen him be uncivil or unreasonable. I agree with Kathryn's note above: the fact that he is already helping in 'crat areas up to the limit of his editor and admin powers indicates this is a logical move. I believe he is trustworthy for this position and his abilities are up to the tasks involved. Pigmanwhat?/trail 19:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support good user and administrator, will make a good addition to the bureaucrat team. Cbrown1023 talk 20:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I trust him. I am confident he won't do something totally evil (or bad in the slightest) like giving the bcrat flag to Wily on Wheels or some random vandalism only account on AIV. :P FunPika 20:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support trust him fully, and he has been doing a lot of the administration work around the roles of bureaucrats for a long time now. There can be no better candidate - he does more work for the bureaucrats' effort than some of those with the flag. Martinp23 21:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Excellent, experienced, trustworthy candidate. Húsönd 21:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support - absolutely. I have absolute confidence in WJBscribe, esp. considering his extensive work in 'crat areas already and given his experience as a powerful mediator and arbiter of community opinion. His answers to the questions were spot-on and I am in no doubt as to his impartiality. He has my full support - Alison ❤ 21:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support. WJB. is one of our prime resources at WP:CHU(/U) and the related Bureaucrat pages, a frequent contributor over on Requests for Adminship, an asset to the MedCom (which only serves to demonstrate his trustworthiness), a friendly user who is happy to provide assistance, and an experienced encyclopedia contributor. His candidate statement shows he's on-the-ball and always ready to lend a hand, and I have absolutely no qualms in throwing my support in this rather obvious-choice candidate for the 'Crat tools. Best of luck. Anthøny 21:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: I trust WJBscribe and his answers to the questions are convincing. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Still the same trust I had at the time of his RfA. No worries. ··coelacan
- Support - I absolutely trust WJB to do the job well. He has always been a solid editor, then became an excellent admin. This is the next logical step. Thanks for helping the project out, WJB. Jeffpw (talk) 22:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I trust his judgement and his ability to do the job well. Secretlondon (talk) 23:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support It was pretty obvious I was going to support, but I'll point out the answers to my questions were excellent. Thank you for serving! Majorly (talk) 23:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Bloody oath yes. Daniel 23:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - trusted editor and admin, good luck. ELIMINATORJR 00:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Was-waiting-for-this-watchlisted-redlink-to-become-blue support. WODUP 00:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support what to say thats not already been said. Gnangarra 01:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support already a clerk on WP:CHU and deserves to be a bureaucrat. Now it's your turn to rename users. NHRHS2010 talk 01:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As a 'crat on two other wikis, (Commons and Meta) I know that there is a lot of detail oriented work that needs doing, and renames especially can be quite "boring". I do not buy the "we have enough crats" argument, you can always use more trustworthy 'crats, as "many hands make light work". I think WJBScribe has demonstrated dedication to the project, skill and finesse. Support with every best wish for success. ++Lar: t/c 01:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support another friendly person to bug when looking to get flags assigned :) -- Tawker (talk) 01:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I have incredible confidence in both WJBscribe's work ethic and also his dedication to the project and his ability to prioritise different cases as an admin and clerk of various different things (including his ability to fix my errors on WP:CHU :P) He shows persistent good faith in his dealings with others. I am happy to support this candidate. Orderinchaos 01:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support that is so strong it's worth making an edit for. --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ 02:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strongest possible support. Andre (talk) 03:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Will make an excellent 'crat.--Kubigula (talk) 04:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support If there ever was a candidate who would warrant a waiving of the somewhat standard year as an admin requirement, WJB would be it. WJB is an excellent administrator, and has always shown himself to be knowledgeable, and a voice of reason. In addition, he is one of the best suited admininstrators for the bureaucratship, as he is active at the username boards, RfA and bot flagging. I believe he is correct in his assessment about the need for more bureaucrats, especially if Deskana is appointed to ArbCom. WJB is an outstanding candiate for bureaucratship. We've seen Deskana, Nichalp, Andrevan and Secretlondon, and we'll probably see Cecropia, so I wonder if there will be any bureaucrats who will be able to close this? ;) I (talk) 04:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's occasionally happened that 'crats have closed even controversial nominations they've been involved in. No harm in Deskana, for example, closing this one with consensus so clear.--chaser - t 11:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, why not. Grandmasterka 05:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support-Everything looks good to me! Tiptoety (talk) 05:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. The reasoning for the request is sound and all the answers ring true. I am confident in this user's abilities. SorryGuy 05:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Great track absolutely no concerns both as a user and a admin.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support, I can honestly say that I trust the nominator. Spebi 06:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - very active, seen him all over the place, don't recall any negative experiences. — xDanielx T/C\R 06:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Resounding support —Kurykh 06:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – a trustworthy user with broad experience and reasonable views on RfA. ×Meegs 06:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Absolutely. EVula // talk // ☯ // 07:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Candidate has been among the administrators I hold in the highest regard, and has been constantly reasonable and demonstrated trustworthiness. I have full confidence that determination of consensus will be carried out in a responsible and fair manner. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support do I have to give a reason? Kwsn (Ni!) 07:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I had this page watchlisted for this very reason, I can think of no reson why Will should not become a b'crat. --Chris 07:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)\[reply]
- Finally. John Reaves 07:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I'll jump on this bandwagon. --Akhilleus (talk) 08:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, yep and yep... --DarkFalls talk 08:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- absolutely has demonstrated sound judgement, would make a fine bureaucrat--Hu12 (talk) 11:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Even if we don't need more, it's good to have a surplus waiting for shortages that inevitably arise, and Will is an excellent candidate.--chaser - t 11:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I don't really care if we need more crats, as long as they are good ones. No doubts here. Fram (talk) 12:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support seems like the right person for the job. - Modernist (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Since I can't think of a witty rationale, I'll just say "Should have been made a 'crat long ago". —Animum (talk) 15:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Certainly. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support He looks like hes deicated, responsible, and will do a fine job. Esskater11 17:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Lara❤Love 17:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support — Do I even need to have an explanation? —Jonathan 18:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm Mailer Diablo (talk) and I approve this message! - 19:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, as this will certainly be good for the project. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 19:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've seen WJBscribe at CHU numerous many times, my 85+ edits there are no match for his experience and ability to reason and mediate excellently. His constantly outstanding contributions can be seen right across the board, and his favourable decision to want to help out at CHU shows not only his ability to search and treat weak areas which are currently served by too few bureaucrats but also his dedication to the project. The situation at CHU can sometimes get quite "hot" (shall we say) and his expert ability to protect opinion and consensus whilst being able to negotiate an outcome, is a brilliant quality to have. His effectiveness at trying to help somewhat strained relations between me and Secretlondon, has helped me to gain a greater understanding of what it is like to be a 'crat, I fully understand london's position and I apologise for any misleading or incorrect information I may have supplied. Furthermore, I would welcome any decision to have any bureaurats at the rename page, it can sometimes get severly backlogged, nevermind WJBscribe. Rudget.talk 20:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I don't like the fact that he's been a user for less than a year, which is more than enough for an admin, but not very long considering there are only about 10-12 active bureaucrats. I'd also like to see a few mainspace edits rather than 100% administration. On the other hand, he's a polite and helpful member of wikipedia! He's also articulate instead of a grunt of "umm, yes". Support! Archtransit (talk) 21:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - A good administrator from what I have seen. Will make a solid B'crat. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 21:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support The more supports someone gets, the less substance each additional support contains. This is most certainly true of this support, which does not even mention the candidate. ;) —Cronholm144 22:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support He is a good editor and admin and I don't know many more editors who would be better suited to be a bureaucrat.--Sandahl 23:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, and as you all know now, "I thought you were a <insertclasshere>!" I have, and will always hold on to the belief that he should be a B'crat. <DREAMAFTER><TALK> 23:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Outstanding admin and helpful toward other users. PrestonH 02:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support, one of the most judicious and wise admins on our project, and will make a great 'crat. --krimpet⟲ 04:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Duh. Jmlk17 05:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Most definitely. Best of luck to you! GlassCobra 05:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support WJBscribe is a name I have come across many times while "wandering" around Wikipedia, and he's always seemed to be an admin with a good head on his shoulders. My support and well wishes. JPG-GR (talk) 06:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support, without question WJB is one of the most competent admins we currently have. Mr Which??? 06:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A very good admin. No reason not to support this nomination. --Siva1979Talk to me 07:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. It is nice to see a candidate who is not only qualified by virtue of good admin work, but by actual experience related to the specific jobs of the bureaucrats. Dekimasuよ! 12:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - My experience of you is that you are trust worthy, friendly, and helpful - and have the right attitude to make a excellent bureaucrat, I have not found anything that suggests otherwise. Camaron1 | Chris 12:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. From all my interactions with WJBscribe, I'm absolutely confident that he will be an excellent asset as a 'crat. Will (aka Wimt) 14:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:100 Strong support. I've seen him pester Secretlondon over renames (ovedue, etc.) so many times... Maxim 14:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Great user, great admin, great person. Always seemed very fair and knowledgeable to me. I don't usually do the pile-on thing, but, gotta make an exception in this case :) SQLQuery me! 14:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Just don't forget about the little people. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Great admin, level headed, and civil. This may be pile on at this point, but made a point to come and break my normal long held view that 'crats should be an admin for a year first, WJB strikes me enough to break that. — xaosflux Talk 16:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support good admin, trustworthy. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support no doubt about it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a Secret account 21:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Never thought I'd be one of those "I thought you already were" people, but - since the candidate does so much for the project, I figured this had already happened. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 23:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Fairly active accross Wikipedia; we do probably need more bureaucrats, as there are many bureaucratic actions that often need to be done in little time, and I see that this user is quite fast at doing things, especially handling the AFBG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) situation quickly. Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 23:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Per Charles, so eloquently stated: this will clearly be good for the project. henrik•talk 00:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - definitely. jj137 (Talk) 00:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Should have been a bureaucrat a long time ago. I've seen WJB doing great clerking at WP:USURP, and that alone makes me have extremely strong support. 哦, 是吗?(User:O) 03:13, 25 November 2007 (GMT)
- Unquestionable Keegantalk 03:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - My experience with WJBscribe has been nothing but delightful. He has my full and complete respect - even when I disagree with him, which I occasionally do. - Philippe | Talk 04:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Cecropia, who basically invented the position of 'crat as we know it today, said that WjB was the only person he was absolutely sure would make an excellent 'crat. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 06:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I think you navigated the questions well, especially some there that could have proven a bit tricky. JodyB talk 12:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good answers to questions, good admin, should be asset as bureaucrat. Davewild (talk) 13:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support — I can't believe I'm #117 here :-) The guy's one of the best admins around, why should we not give him the tools? --Agüeybaná (talk) 14:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Support, of course. Excellent admin. PeaceNT (talk) 14:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Support —Reedy Boy 19:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support. Indeed, I would say, enthusiastic support. I cannot count the number of times I have turned to WJB with a question or a request, and he has never failed to be of great assistance. When I, just recently, pointed out to him that he had neglected to respond to a message I'd left on his talk page, he did not hesitate to apologize for what was merely an oversight. This indicated to me something very good about his character, and how seriously he takes his responsibilities as an admin. Give the man the bump, and we'll all be better for it! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 21:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Extremely Strong Support Absolutely. One of the best sysops around.Perfect Proposal Speak out loud! 22:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - Zeibura (Talk) 22:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. A fine admin. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 22:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Follows me around, just like the sinebot does, but he provides helpful answers to questions, quite unlike the sinebot. Uncle uncle uncle (talk) 23:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Miranda 23:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support we need more crats, per Secretlondon. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 01:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ABSOLUTELY STRONGEST SUPPORT I CAN GIVE FOR THIS PHENOMENAL ADMINISTRATOR!!!!!!!!!!! Maser (Talk!) 02:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I think we need more active bureaucrats, and he surely fits the part. – Alex43223 T | C | E 02:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jumps on the bandwagonSupport You'll be a good burecrat. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Support for simple reasons: we need more b'crats and I don't think you'll screw it up. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 05:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Obviously. ➔ REDVEЯS would like to show you some puppies 10:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, good person for the post. Neil ☎ 11:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, it's obvious to me as it is to everybody else. Now we'll need to recruit some more gnomes to do a lot of the behind the scenes maintenance/record keeping work he's been doing. NoSeptember 14:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- Strongest Support. I first encountered WJBscribe when we had a disagreement over an AfD discussion. I initially opposed his RfA. His reaction was just and I later changed my comment to support after evaluating his contributions. Since then I have seen his work all over Wikipedia. He never held a grudge against me. In fact, he approached me asking if I would consider running to become an administrator. I can't imagine anyone being more fair and well-balanced. He exemplifies everything a bureaucrat should be. Royalbroil 15:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Really strong support I'm this far down!--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 22:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support - We need more bureaucrats and I trust you will help out a lot :) -- Cobi(t|c|b|cn) 22:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support ON WHEELS!!! Excellent user. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 22:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good responsible admin; no problems. — Wenli (reply here) 00:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A thoughtful & level-headed wikipedian. Has provided good answers to questions and good contributions generally, from my experience. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 00:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. The candidate has the right (write?) stuff for 'cratdom. Majoreditor (talk) 02:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Lord, yes Cheers, :) MikeReichold 02:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The Scribe is always a voice of sanity. If only we had a hundred of his ilk. --JayHenry (talk) 03:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Sure! King Lopez Contribs 03:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why the hell not? Ral315 » 04:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WJB’s answer to Q12 should be required reading for anyone participating in the RfA process. As for the other questions, I really can’t remember where I had the negative connotations of WJB from, and I’m now guessing it was probably a lame, immature, revenge style motif from my 2nd RfA several months ago, as he alluded to in Q10. I was also glad to see his stance on Q11, although I would have liked to see a more decisive answer to my follow up. However, I was very impressed that he was willing to give Shalom, someone who thoroughly deserves adminship for the countless good thing he’s done recently, a second chance. I’m sure WJB won’t inappropriately promote a candidate, but I do think he will fight for a fairer RfA system, which is absolutely needed. Whilst I have not seen WJB around at CHU(/U) or BRFA, I support him with the crat-mop there simply because the tasks require minimal thought or ability anyway. In his answers to my questions, WJB presented a competence in RfA/B, the (unfortunately, perhaps) most complex and dramatic crat task. And I’m guessing he can spell bureaucrat, another reason to support (joke stolen from Acalamari). For these, and many other reasons that don’t need to be listed, WJBscribe has my strong support in this RfB. Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 04:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Cannot find any reason to oppose. Mr.Z-man 04:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support I have had the pleasure of interacting with WJBscribe on a couple occasions, and he has always been exceedingly helpful to me, as well as always being quite thorough in explaining things to anyone who asks a question. I have never once seen anything that has caused me to pause when I've run across his edits, or administrative actions, and I've seen him around quite a bit. I have been watching this RfB for several days, going through WJB's contributions, as I always do, but I honestly find no reason to not support wholeheartedly. I have to say, when you look at the percentage of active bureaucrats to editors, (13 active bureaucrats performing tasks, and well over 5,500,000 accounts) and the amount of requests that are there to be done, such as RfAs, renaming accounts, helping with bot access rights, etc., I cannot see why we should not have more bureaucrats, if the tasks for bureaucrats are caught up, then they are still here to help with administrative tasks, or work on editing. But I think it is likely that adding another bureaucrat would be very helpful. I think WJB's answers to the questions show a patient, understanding, mature editor who has a wide knowledge of the project and policy. I am especially impressed with WJB's answer to question 12, as it echoes the way I feel 100%. (In fact, I had never seen an exclamation point in front of a word to mean "not", prior to editing here, I always have used the ≠ symbol.) All WJB's replies to the issues here show his dedication to helping Wikipedia. I have no doubt that he will make an excellent addition to the bureaucratic team, and I sincerely hope he is given the chance to help out in this capacity. Ariel♥Gold 04:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support, I rather expected you to run arbcom but it appeared RfB. A bit disappointed, but whatever. @pple complain 05:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support trust is not an issue here. Will be an asset in this new role. BencherliteTalk 08:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Nothing but good can come out of this. Spellcast (talk) 10:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Trustworthy, experienced user. utcursch | talk 14:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - good candidate - discusses things in a calm and well-reasoned manner. Good answers to the questions. Should make a good bureaucrat. Carcharoth (talk) 17:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support GOOD LUCK!! Dustihowe (talk) 19:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I'm convinced that he's trustworthy and knows what's good for Wikipedia. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support —DerHexer (Talk) 21:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support With the lack of 'crat-related backlogs, there are very few administrators who I think should be supported at RfB at this time. However, WJB's prolific contributions to the wiki mean that he is one of those few. An extremely good administrator whose decision-making is pretty much faultless and a nicely completed by a lack of excess wikidrama, dare I say it, perhaps almost the perfect candidate. Best of luck! GDonato (talk) 21:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Super-Duper Support - Bah..I missed another great RfB...people should tell me in advance >:( ....--Cometstyles 21:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not over yet. :P --Charitwo talk 23:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support absolutely! Great admin, trustworthy, level-headed and always very reasonable. Dreadstar † 22:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Can't believe I've forgotten to record this until now. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Seems sensible. A trustworthy, experienced user who is needed at the areas that Crats work. Woodym555 (talk) 22:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - we need more crats, and who better than one of the best administrators on the project? DEVS EX MACINA pray 00:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Major Absolutely Yes Support - If promoted, will be one of the few 'crat's I could honestly say I could trust. I think WJBscribe is incapable of making a mistake. :) Good luck. Spawn Man (talk) 07:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 100% Support - I have had nothing but positive interactions with WJBscribe. Well liked and respected, WJBscribe stands out among trustworthy editors. -- Jreferee t/c 09:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- SUPPORT - one of the finest admins Wikipedia has. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support, without reservations. WJBscribe has done excellent work as an admin, and I have no doubt that he will continue that as a 'crat. --Kyoko 17:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A friendly user with a lot of wikiexperience. Would make a good bureaucrat for the project. LordHarris (talk) 17:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Charitwo talk 23:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Will is already doing much of the work of a bureaucrat, and is clearly capable of taking up the full task. Acroterion (talk) 03:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per Cecropia (who hasn't, of course, explicitly supported, but that's no matter...). Joe 05:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support in the extreme. Duh. If anyone needs these tools, well, it's the user who does all the menial jobs. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 05:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. A solid, hard working admin with good judgement who will do the job well. Capitalistroadster (talk) 10:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I can think of no good reason not to support, and can imagine the excellent work he would do if promoted, which makes supporting very simple really. Nick (talk) 14:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Per my long held views. Nothing against WJBscribe who is an outstanding admin. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 19:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you be able to tell us what these views are, for those of us who aren't familiar with them? (If you've written about them before, as I infer from your statement, surely a link will do!) Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 19:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Mr. Gustafson think's that we do not need more bureaucrats, period.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 19:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- (ec) His views are "we do not need any more bureaucrats". This view is clearly contradicted by my response to one of the first supporters, but there we are. --Deskana (talk) 19:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The total lack of suprise with which I greeted this RfB is only matched by my total lack of suprise that Jeffrey once again chimes in with commentary that adds exactly zero value to discussion, and that once again he has the arrogance to not bother explaining it to those fortunate enough not to be aware of his "long held views". Pedro : Chat 20:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- With all due respect, a peremptory announcement of blanket opposition to all RfB's based on the claim that we need no more bureaucrats, unaccompanied by any analysis suggesting why this statement is true and contemporaneous with comments from existing bureaucrats stating that it is in fact false, represents an unreasoned oppose !vote that does not contribute to consensus decision-making and should therefore be disregarded. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- He has given reasoning before. I think Jeffrey believes the inactive bureaucrats (well, inactive doing bureaucrat tasks) should be removed before any more are made. I tend to disagree with this opinion, BUT his comment is valid and should be regarded as much as everyone elses. Majorly (talk) 15:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Majorly. That's poor for you. I've given reasoning before why I think that Marmite can be beaten until it turns white. Sadly, That was 6.5k edits ago. Incredible though it may be, I don't actually expect other editors to go digging through my contributions to see my ratioanle for commenting on the emulsifying abilities of a yeast extract. I'm one of those old fashioned people (these days) that thinks it's polite to bring it back to the discussion when it's relevant, rather than arrogantly assuming that others either know, or will go looking, for my opinion. Pedro : Chat 20:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't say it is acceptable for Jeffrey not to explain his oppose. I simply said his oppose is valid. I assure you that the bureaucrats know what it is - and that's all that matters really :) Majorly (talk) 20:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? So basically as long as the 'crats know what a oppose or support is based on, as opposed to the community having it clearly presented, then any oppose or support is just a number. Good to note that you think RfA is no longer consensus driven but for the crats to decide what counts and what doesn't. Pedro : Chat 21:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, you misunderstand. I did not say it's up to the bureaucrats. But I'd rather not argue about this, as it is the wrong forum and will only cause bad blood. Majorly (talk) 21:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)#[reply]
- Really? So basically as long as the 'crats know what a oppose or support is based on, as opposed to the community having it clearly presented, then any oppose or support is just a number. Good to note that you think RfA is no longer consensus driven but for the crats to decide what counts and what doesn't. Pedro : Chat 21:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't say it is acceptable for Jeffrey not to explain his oppose. I simply said his oppose is valid. I assure you that the bureaucrats know what it is - and that's all that matters really :) Majorly (talk) 20:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Majorly. That's poor for you. I've given reasoning before why I think that Marmite can be beaten until it turns white. Sadly, That was 6.5k edits ago. Incredible though it may be, I don't actually expect other editors to go digging through my contributions to see my ratioanle for commenting on the emulsifying abilities of a yeast extract. I'm one of those old fashioned people (these days) that thinks it's polite to bring it back to the discussion when it's relevant, rather than arrogantly assuming that others either know, or will go looking, for my opinion. Pedro : Chat 20:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- He has given reasoning before. I think Jeffrey believes the inactive bureaucrats (well, inactive doing bureaucrat tasks) should be removed before any more are made. I tend to disagree with this opinion, BUT his comment is valid and should be regarded as much as everyone elses. Majorly (talk) 15:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- With all due respect, a peremptory announcement of blanket opposition to all RfB's based on the claim that we need no more bureaucrats, unaccompanied by any analysis suggesting why this statement is true and contemporaneous with comments from existing bureaucrats stating that it is in fact false, represents an unreasoned oppose !vote that does not contribute to consensus decision-making and should therefore be disregarded. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The total lack of suprise with which I greeted this RfB is only matched by my total lack of suprise that Jeffrey once again chimes in with commentary that adds exactly zero value to discussion, and that once again he has the arrogance to not bother explaining it to those fortunate enough not to be aware of his "long held views". Pedro : Chat 20:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok. Let's move from here. Pedro : Chat 21:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Majorly. I have opinions on when more crats would be needed. Those conditions do not exist yet, in my opinion. It is not less valid because I disagree with current crats (or everyone else, ftm). I honestly believe this, otherwise I would not !vote this way. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Jeffrey, you astound me. The validity of your opinion or otherwise is without value in a discussion if you can't be bothered to express the reasoning. This isn't complex. If you want to oppose for your reasons at least have the common courtesy to state your reasons. Pedro : Chat 20:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Majorly. I have opinions on when more crats would be needed. Those conditions do not exist yet, in my opinion. It is not less valid because I disagree with current crats (or everyone else, ftm). I honestly believe this, otherwise I would not !vote this way. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you be able to tell us what these views are, for those of us who aren't familiar with them? (If you've written about them before, as I infer from your statement, surely a link will do!) Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 19:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose nothing personal, heck at one time I even told you to go for it. However, I'm not happy with any 'crats involvement in any sort of closed group (medcom, ect). Your response to question #2 given by Majorly troubles me: there was strong opposition from very respected members of the community. This sort of attitude creates elitism, and I've seen times when MedCom members who are admins try to get there medcom buddies through RfA, such as this RfA, where you felt the need to reply to nearly every opposer. I worry that you'd promote just to get your wiki-friends through the process. I also have concerns about your communication. CO 20:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I do see your point, but at the risk of doing exactly what you believe was wrong at that RfA, I don't think 3 replies out of 18 opposes constitutes to replying to almost every opposer. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To respond to some of your points, I looked at that RfA, and to be honest, WJBscribe did not respond to all, or even to nearly all of the opposers; he responded to three, including responding to your oppose. Secondly, regarding concern over WJBscribe's communciation, I have no idea what you mean by that; WJBscribe is easily one of our most communicative users here, giving good responses and details to people; plus, I find that comment about his communication unfair considering the fact you didn't reply at all to other users' responses to this (made only ten days ago), as noted here. Acalamari 20:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I too have reviewed the concern expressed in this comment and find it to be totally without substance. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot in my good conscious support someone to B'crat if this is not explained... Did this guy violate anything? Do we have a RFCU? Remember that it's allowed to use alternative account when editing in area that are prone to disagreement. Without a good judgment there, I cannot support. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 09:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Strike for now. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 09:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]- In my opinion the contribution history of that account speaks for itself. Some months back a number of editors who were identified as here to push a pro-pedophilia agenda were indefblocked, most by Arbitrators as I recall. Now some months later (now that the checkuser data is stale) we are seeing a lot of new accounts and IP editors who are displaying the very same problematic behaviour that resulted in those blocks. Add the fact that this user's familiarity with Wiki-processes (e.g. the speed with which they found the 3RR noticeboard) and the likelihood of block evasion is overwhelming but identifying which exactly was there former account is problematic. ArbCom have asked that appeals of such blocks be addressed directly to them. I do not think there has been such an appeal in this case. I believe my actions in this case are fully in line with instructions from checkusers and arbitrators on dealing with accounts that display such edit patterns. I also don't see how the details of this block are relevant to holding bureaucrat access, seeing that the functions of a crat have no relation to the blocking policy. WjBscribe 09:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As a checkuser, I have no problems with this block, and I have done several such blocks myself. The Arbitration Committee and the other checkusers have been taking a very hard stance on problematic editing from pro-pedophile activists, and the Committee wishes unblock reviews to be conducted privately on their mailing list. That is the encouraged way of handling that specific problem, and WJBscribe's actions were justified and not without precedent. --Deskana (talk) 10:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the standard procedure that has been indicated to administrators dealing with such topic areas by the Arbitration Committee and Checkusers for such situations, as far as I'm aware. Daniel 11:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As a checkuser, I have no problems with this block, and I have done several such blocks myself. The Arbitration Committee and the other checkusers have been taking a very hard stance on problematic editing from pro-pedophile activists, and the Committee wishes unblock reviews to be conducted privately on their mailing list. That is the encouraged way of handling that specific problem, and WJBscribe's actions were justified and not without precedent. --Deskana (talk) 10:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In my opinion the contribution history of that account speaks for itself. Some months back a number of editors who were identified as here to push a pro-pedophilia agenda were indefblocked, most by Arbitrators as I recall. Now some months later (now that the checkuser data is stale) we are seeing a lot of new accounts and IP editors who are displaying the very same problematic behaviour that resulted in those blocks. Add the fact that this user's familiarity with Wiki-processes (e.g. the speed with which they found the 3RR noticeboard) and the likelihood of block evasion is overwhelming but identifying which exactly was there former account is problematic. ArbCom have asked that appeals of such blocks be addressed directly to them. I do not think there has been such an appeal in this case. I believe my actions in this case are fully in line with instructions from checkusers and arbitrators on dealing with accounts that display such edit patterns. I also don't see how the details of this block are relevant to holding bureaucrat access, seeing that the functions of a crat have no relation to the blocking policy. WjBscribe 09:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I will never support a bureaucrat who supports censorship of wikipedia. This is not what wikipedia stands for.--STX 04:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, that is exactly the response that WJBscribe should have given. It's hardly censorship to have the best interests of Wikipedia and the Foundation in mind. WJBscribe was absolutely correct in his assessment. If anything, this diff has made my support for this candidate even stronger. GlassCobra 04:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it not censorship for a hook from a well-sourced, well-written article be removed from the main page? Wikipedia does not have to adhere to the fairness doctrine. Lets review what this well respected admin stated:
--STX 04:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]This article has an elaborate "criticism" section and is unbiased. Any additional exposure Tancredo gets as a result of the entry being featured on the main page is as much negative as it is posivite. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED and the main page is part of the encyclopedia. We don't omit coverage of the riots in France, for example, in order to avoid encouraging kids there to to take part. We cover Nawaz Sharif's return to Pakistan, even though he's a current candidate. Why should we deal with American elections any differently?--Carabinieri (talk) 00:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Having an article about a politician running in an election opens the door for accusations of bias. While other admins can differ in their interpretation of policy, I can see where WJBscribe is coming from. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 05:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- STX, I do not control how DYK is updated and nor would my being a bureaucrat give me any further influence there. I have expressed my opinions on the subject after discussing the matter with Danny, who used to work at WP:OFFICE, and intend to sound out Cary Bass on the same issue. I am now listening to the views of others on the subject in the current discussion. At the moment opinions seem pretty divided on the matter. If there is a consensus that such hooks should be included on the mainpage I would have to accept that. I'm not going to apologise simply for disagreeing with you about something however. Although I don't think the content of articles should be censored, I do think a little finesse is needed when dealing with the public front of Wikipedia (such as the mainpage). WjBscribe 09:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WJBscribe's comment resulted in Carabinieri, probably the most experienced DYK updater there is, conceding that the issue needed to be discussed first. The discussion at the talk page is currently running at around no consensus, and it is generally accepted that consensus is needed for an article to go onto the mainpage as a DYK if it is disputed by anyone. So far, it looks as if WJB's objections were well-founded, and I await any input the Foundation/Office wish to give on the subject. Daniel 09:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that the user Southern Texas is the creator of the article in question and I feel this is just an attempt to seek revenge on WJBscribe for him opposing the article appearing on the main page in DYK. But I guess we should AGF. :) Spawn Man (talk) 11:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless everyone already knew that and I just made myself look foolish... :\ Spawn Man (talk) 11:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That was absolutely the right call, though I would be pissed too if I'd spent a lot of time on the article... Grandmasterka 11:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless everyone already knew that and I just made myself look foolish... :\ Spawn Man (talk) 11:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that the user Southern Texas is the creator of the article in question and I feel this is just an attempt to seek revenge on WJBscribe for him opposing the article appearing on the main page in DYK. But I guess we should AGF. :) Spawn Man (talk) 11:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WJBscribe's comment resulted in Carabinieri, probably the most experienced DYK updater there is, conceding that the issue needed to be discussed first. The discussion at the talk page is currently running at around no consensus, and it is generally accepted that consensus is needed for an article to go onto the mainpage as a DYK if it is disputed by anyone. So far, it looks as if WJB's objections were well-founded, and I await any input the Foundation/Office wish to give on the subject. Daniel 09:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We remove potentially problematic material from the DYK sections all too often, at the end of the day, we will get e-mails through the OTRS system complaining that we favour one candidate more than the next if we put election related DYKs on the front page and even if it shouldn't, such complaints can discredit the project. I also happen to think that references to obscure American politicians are undesirable in such a far reaching international project as this. Nick (talk) 14:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, that is exactly the response that WJBscribe should have given. It's hardly censorship to have the best interests of Wikipedia and the Foundation in mind. WJBscribe was absolutely correct in his assessment. If anything, this diff has made my support for this candidate even stronger. GlassCobra 04:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Neutral, most regretfully, sorry. WJBscribe is an excellent admin whom I respect, but I have concerns regarding his ability to provide feedback. The concerns originated after he posted a few questions for me on my last RfB, which I have answered there and even expanded one of the answers on his talk page. WJBscribe then disappointed me by failing to provide any comment to my answers, which resulted in the fact that I am still ignoring whether he agreed or disagreed with them, and why. Personally I find this behavior (which is not exclusive of WJBscribe) much to be frowned upon, as in no way it contributes for the clarification and eventual improvement of a candidate, and it even hints at a lack of willingness to provide explanations to those that should need them. Húsönd 19:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Husond - just for clarity do you mean "I am still ignoring... " or is it (which I suspect) "I am still ignorant as to ...". Ta! Pedro : Chat 19:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I meant "I am still ignorant as to ...". Portuguese occasionally succeeds in interfering with my English phrasal constructions. Meh. Húsönd 19:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Husond, sometimes people ask you questions just to challenge you and give you a chance to show your best side. If I (me, SB_Johnny) asked a question of a candidate, I might not be looking for an answer that would "determine my vote", but rather just to help clarify things for myself, the community, and above all the candidate. As a good b'crat (I am a b'crat elsewhere, and hopefully a good one), your job is to come to an understanding of community consensus, and it's an extreme sport: you need to ignore your own opinion when reading consensus. Not replying is sometimes the best reply. --SB_Johnny | talk 19:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I meant "I am still ignorant as to ...". Portuguese occasionally succeeds in interfering with my English phrasal constructions. Meh. Húsönd 19:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Husond, I honestly didn't realise you wanted me to reply. In the course of things had your RfB had remained open longer I would have decided whether I would be able to support it. As I said on your talkpage, I was a little surprised that you were applying for a position for the second time without (in my eyes) having fully researched what it involved. You never expanded the question answer on the RfB itself, which was what I wanted, and your further comment on my talkpage [52] was I think you will acknowledge the safe option, deciding to discuss it with other crats before doing what might be controversial. Ideally I would have hoped you would have referenced the relevant part of WP:CHUG, which is linked to from Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Renames and a discussion of the different issues that might come up - for example whether those edits were simple vandalism, only to user space or to the mainspace and attracting GFDL consequences. Having discussed it with some of the current bureaucrats, the feeling I was getting was that they too had been rather unfamiliar with this area when they applied, so I was minded to accept your reply as an adequate knowledge of the area. You then withdrew the RfB so I could not comment there and, as your answer to me hadn't really taken a position, I didn't really have much to give a response on whereas, had you listed a set of circumstances where you would have allowed usurpation of accounts with edits, I would probably have raised concerns if I disagreed with some of those examples. I hope that clarifies why you hadn't heard further from me on the subject. WjBscribe 20:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm satisfied with your response. And you are right, by withdrawing my RfB, I prevented you from adding further comments there (even though I did it days after your questions). Changed to support. Húsönd 21:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel I should show an interest, just because these nominations come up so rarely, but I'm concerned that it might be a weeny bit early. Deb (talk) 12:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You do realise who this is? He's been...er..."hassling" the crat's to close RfAs, change usernames etc for months, and now he's gonna be able to do it himself, which is brilliant. More than likely he'll be one of our most active crats--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 22:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- These nominations do come up so rarely. Wouldn't you agree that WjBscribe was astute enought to reconize the need for one more buraucrat and aware enought of his own experiences to know that he was qualified for the position? His timing is right on (a good quality for a 'crat) so even if it is a weeny bit early in his Wikipedia career there probably are few others ready for crathood and there is a need for new ones. -- Jreferee t/c 15:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
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.
- Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship - Requests for comment on possible misuse of sysop privileges, as well as a summary of rejected proposals for de-adminship processes and a list of past cases of de-adminship.
- ^ 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