Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

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

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

if nominations haven't updated.

Current time is 02:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC). —

Current time is 02:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC). —

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

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

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

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

About administrators

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

About RfA

Recently closed RfAs and RfBs ()

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AirshipJungleman29	RfA	Withdrawn by candidate	27 Sep 2024	34	21	4	62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

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

Nomination standards

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

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

Nominations

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

Notice of RfA

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

Expressing opinions

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion, decision, and closing procedures

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

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

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

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

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

Monitors

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

Current nominations

Add new requests at the top of this section

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

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

Current time is 02:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.

---

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

Johntex

Final count: (37/2/0) ended 14:07 October 26, 2005 (UTC)

Johntex (talk · contribs) – It is both a pleasure and an honor to nominate Johntex for adminship. John has been around for 10 months now, and his edits number 2448 today, well distributed among namespaces. He's a well respected and dedicated user who is deeply involved in the project, and not only in the online aspects but in real life as well, like organizing Wiki-Meetups with Jimbo as he did just yesterday [1]. He's also seriously engaged in welcoming, helping and guiding new users, AfD, cleanup tasks, RC patrolling, etc; and regularly performs a high degree of activity in maintenance, vandal fighting, and general site improvement. His exemplary conduct is clearly demonstrated through a flawless record, and his significant contributions have earned him the recognition of his peers [2]. I'm sure we'll have an extremely valuable admin in him. Shauri smile! 14:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I humbly accept and I thank Shauri for her kind words. It is an honor to be nominated, and a double honor to be nominated by such a fine editor as Shauri. Johntex\^talk 16:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Supersize support as nominator! Shauri smile! 14:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Support. Shauri's description of the candidate and her trust seal it for me.--Wiglaf 14:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Strongly Support. Personal interaction with Johntex and dozen of common watchlist pages that I see him make great edits to daily make me proud to support his bid for adminship! -Scm83x 15:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Support without reservations! Beat me to it. · Katefan0^(scribble) 18:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Support, I definately trust the nominator wouldn't nominate anyone undeserving, and the person seems deserving according to what I've seen. Private Butcher 19:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Support, good egg.  BD2412 ^talk 19:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
7. Support Astrotrain 19:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
8. Yes. He has enough experience to get the dustbuster. Supporting.  Denelson83  19:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
9. Hook 'em. Thoughtful, well rounded user. This in particular really impressed me, and is the final reason I choose to support. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 20:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
10. Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 20:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
11. Support. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
12. Sure Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 00:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
13. Support --Rogerd 00:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
14. Support. -- KHM03 00:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
15. Support after looking through his contributions. Now I'm off to spam RN about the MC... Redwolf24 (talk) 01:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
16. Strong support based on his response to my query below. freestylefrappe 01:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
17. Support I see nothing but good things from/about this guy. Besides, he has an edit count not even Durin can take issue with:>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 01:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
18. Support —Gaff ^ταλκ 02:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
19. -- (drini's page|☎) 02:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
20. Support Have seen him around, always good edits. Banes 05:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
21. Support MONGO 05:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
22. FireFox 08:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
23. Support. The Minister of War 10:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
24. Support. I trust the nominator. The editor's good too :). Oran e (t) (c) (@) 19:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
25. Support. Never met him but has votes from a lot of people I respect, including the nominator. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 20:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
26. Support, per Evilphoenix. Titoxd^(?!?) 21:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
27. Support. Robert 00:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
28. Support --JAranda | watz sup 20:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
29. Support I think this user would be a great addition to the cabal...  ALKIVAR™ 02:52, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
30. Support seems civil, reasonable and willing. Alf ^melmac 08:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
31. Support. +sj + 20:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
32. Support. El_C 21:42, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
33. Support --Kefalonia 08:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
34. Support -- DS1953 ^talk 16:34, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
35. Support An excellent editor. -Willmcw 19:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
36. Support Extremely worthy candidate. jareha 22:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
37. Support Johann Wolfgang 18:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. --Boothy443 | comhrá 21:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

   File:Pikachu2.gif. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 20:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

   I queried Boothy on his opposition to my nomination for adminship in order to see if there was an area of concern for me to improve upon. He has replied at my Talk page to give some explanation of his vote to oppose. If I understand him correctly, he generally wants the bar for adminship to be set high. He seems to think that the system of admins and their nomination is flawed. I also found a partial disclosure of some of his voting guidelines by reading through the RFC on him. [3]Johntex\^talk 02:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

   I find it very hard to assume good faith with Boothy's oppositions. Opposing nearly all potential admins. without explanation is essentially incivil, and without such explanation, in fact, he is not abiding by WikiGuidelines. Furthermore, I believe that these oppositions are a result of simple malice. I noticed that Boothy has 16,000 edits, but is not an adm - perhaps he is trying to hold others back. His contributions reflect a tendency of anger when people have only asked a simple question [4] or he is excessivley sarcastic [5]. I request that medition or arbitration be considered against this user. Him abusing the rights of RfA is harmful to the Wiki in my opinion - trolls, vandals and spammers are not allowed to continue in bad faith - so this user should also comport himself in a civil manner on these RfAs. He is abusing his rights here - and he is apparently making no attempts to stop. He has the right to vote, sure, but all the other Wikipedians have the right to a fair RfA. Something needs to happen! Molotov (talk) 03:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

2. Oppose - This editor has engaged in WP:POINT disruption in the past (for example, VfD'ing pages in retaliation for editing disputes on other articles [6]). He's currently a party to a merged arbitration case involving myself and several other editors that I initiated in late August against another user. This is notworthy because JohnTex joined the arbitration with a countercomplaint against me last month regarding a dispute we had in late May on the Houston Chronicle article. I had not encountered JohnTex anywhere else on Wikipedia between May and September when he joined the RfAr, nor did he participate any further in the Houston Chronicle article or its subsequent mediation attempts. Thus, I consider it fair to question the timing and motive of his involvement in the RfAr given that he was apparently trying to resurrect an old dispute that he had not even participated in for over three months with an editor he had not even encountered for that same period of time. Rangerdude 16:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

The arbitration against Rangerdude involves multiple editors and concerns his POV pushing in articles and uncivil treatment of many editors in Talk pages. He has tremendously slanted the Houston Chronicle article to the point where it consists predominately of controversies. He has admitted nominating for AfD the Dusty Mangum article solely because I created it [7]. My nomination of Dan Patrick (radio host) for AfD was a good faith nomination of an article about someone I considered to be a non-notable person. It was consistent with my general practice of nominating non-notable topics for deletion. The result was 8 keep votes to 5 delete votes, so it was as if it was a completely clear-cut keep it was not as if the community thought it was a completely clear-cut keep. My nomination to delete the article was also consistent with my Proposal to restore some form of balance to the Houston Chronicle, and to the related articles that were suffering under POV-pushing by Rangerdude. My joining the arbitration against Rangerdude was not an example of resurrecting an old dispute. To the contrary, I had been following the correct dispute resolution process in waiting on the outcome of a request for mediation. In fact, User:MacGyverMagic specifically requested me not to edit the articles while mediation was underway. [8] The reason Rangerdude did not encounter me for a while is that I was following the request to avoid editing the articles during mediation. Mediation never solved the dispute. Therefore, I joined the arbitration case as the next step in dispute resolution. Johntex\^talk 19:29, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment - It is curious that JohnTex would attempt to defend his VfD on Dan Patrick by citing the Dusty Mangum VfD considering that the vote on the latter (9 to keep, 7 to delete) was actually closer than the 8 keep/5 delete vote on Dan Patrick! That JohnTex's VfD on Dan Patrick was a retaliatory disruption is further evidenced by the fact that he initiated it only 11 minutes after the article itself was created [9]. Much to the contrary of what JohnTex indicates above, the arbitration case of which Johntex speaks was initiated as a retaliatory RfAr by User:Willmcw a few days after I posted the original RfAr against him. In accepting the cases, the Arbcom voted to merge this second case into the original that I filed against Willmcw. It is particularly notable that I did not even encounter JohnTex anywhere on Wikipedia between late May 2005 and September, when he suddenly popped up again to second Willmcw's RfAr against me citing as his only evidence our dispute from three months earlier at Houston Chronicle. His claim that he had been "following the correct dispute resolution process" on the 3 month old dispute at Houston Chronicle is similarly false as evidenced by the mediation page for this article, Talk:Houston_Chronicle/Mediation. This mediation started on June 12th and attracted comments from myself and the other three editors who had been involved in the Houston Chronicle dispute (Katefan0, Nobs01, and Willmcw), yet as its page history shows [10] JohnTex did not make so much as one single contribution to this mediation, which would've been the "correct dispute resolution process" were he genuinely following it. In reality his last recorded act of participation in the Houston Chronicle dispute was an edit there on May 28th [11] - some 13 days before he claims the mediator asked him not to make any changes there on June 10th. Thus, he not only skipped from participation in the mediation stage entirely but he also dropped out of the original dispute on Houston Chronicle itself almost two weeks before it even advanced to mediation! Given these facts I believe it is safe to classify JohnTex's involvement in the current RfAr as a textbook example of resurrecting an old dispute. Rangerdude 18:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Rangerdude's view has been noted, there is no benefit to any one to debate the matter with him here. The RfAr is the correct place to seek resolution of this matter. If any other editors have a question about this matter, I will be happy to try to address their questions. Johntex\^talk 18:09, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

And I encourage anybody who wishes to review this case in making their vote decision here to view the diffs above. You will find that (1) JohnTex completely dropped off the article where the dispute was happening two weeks before it advanced to the mediation stage, (2) JohnTex completely skipped that mediation process, (3) JohnTex suddenly resurrected his interest in this dispute after three months of silence when Willmcw filed a retaliatory RfAr against me a few days after I initiated arbitration against him, and (4) between May 28th when he left Houston Chronicle and August 26th when he decided to join Willmcw's RfAr, JohnTex and I did not even encounter each other anywhere on wikipedia. If you don't mind having administrators who like to resurrect disputes from three months in the past at opportune times, then by all means vote for JohnTex. That he does this sort of thing, however, should be clear to all in making their decisions. Rangerdude 18:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral Not strong opposition, and willing to change to support, but I'd like an explanation regarding you're interaction with Achilles and the purported spammming. Normally I wouldnt question this, but there appears to be come controversy. freestylefrappe 00:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Reply Thanks for your question, freestyle. It is a little complex, so I will try to explain:

I was watching Jimbo's talk page when I saw Tony Sidaway leave this message. In his message, Tony asks Jimbo to weigh in on an action taken by Achilles. Tony said "Achilles, observing the failure to gain consensus for deletion of an autofellatio image, clearly diagnosed the problem (correctly, in my opinion) as bias due to the fact that most wikipedians don't watch WP:IFD or Autofellatio... he spammed a rather large number of Wikipedia user talk pages...he did so in a selective manner...contacting only those who seemed likely to express a point of view he agreed with."

I then left this message on Jimbo's page, saying "A message to selected people is not spam...Tony Sidaway stated on Achilles’ talk page "Spamming is sending the same message to lots of people." That is not a full or correct definition. For example, www.dictionary.com defines spamming as "Unsolicited e-mail, often of a commercial nature, sent indiscriminately to multiple mailing lists, individuals, or newsgroups; junk e-mail." While it is true that his message could be considered "unsolicited", it was not sent "indiscriminately". He sent the message only to people whom you had reason to believe would be interested in the message. What could be wrong with reaching out to people who are likely to have an interest in a topic?..."

I then left this message on Tony's page, alerting him to the fact that I had replied to his message on Jimbo's page, saying "Hello Tony, I wanted to let you know that I disagree with the comments you made at Jimbo Wales's talk page about Achilles reaching out to potential voters on the autofellatio image issue. I have posted my explanation of why I believe Achilles' actions are not spam on those two Talk pages. As a courtesy to you, I wanted to notify you here that I have made those postings since you may not be watching those pages. This way, you have an opportunity to respond if you wish."

Tony replied "A message to selected people is not spam I'm sorry but that is just silly. Spam is the same message repeated lots of times. Putting the same message on lots of user talk pages is spam. But that isn't the issue, is it? He didn't just spam, he intentionally spammed *only* those people who agreed with him. He tried to cook the vote, to campaign, to go against the consensual decision making that has served Wikipedia so well and turn it into a scramble for votes, and was caught red-handed."

To which I replied, "...Let's set aside for now whether it was spam or not so that we may focus on what you say is the issue. You are equating a "get out the vote" campaign to "cook[ing] the vote". They are not the same. Cooking the vote would be using sock puppets to stuff the ballot box. What he did was analogous to the Democratic party encouraging Pro-choice or gay marriage proponents to go to the polls in a United States presidential election; or the Republican party doing the same with senior citizens and members of the Bel Air country club. Why is there anything wrong with appealing to people who are likely to be receptive to your arguments? How does this go against the "consensual decision making" process? Were people intimidated to vote a certain way? Did he tamper with the counting of the votes received? No. People were encouraged to speak up about an issue he felt they would be interested in. In my relatively short time here, I've seen hundreds of examples of people doing the exact same thing without receiving criticism, and I don't see anything wrong with it."

So, in summary: what happened was Achilles did some campaigning on a deletion issue. Tony complained about it to Jimbo. I chimed in to disagree with Tony and defend Achilles' actions. Some discussion ensued. It was all pretty cordial. We all went on about our business. The full discussion thread is in my Talk archive if you are really interested. I'm happy to answer any follow-up questions. Johntex\^talk 01:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments

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

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

A. I like a lot of variety in my time on Wikipedia. I spend time: contributing to articles, contributing to AFD discussions, on RC patrol, reverting vadalism, answering questions at the Help Desk, welcoming new users, etc. I woud certainly continue these tasks. The one-click revert tool would be helpful in reverting vandalism as I come across it. I would also add helping with AFD closures to my "to-do" list. I know that we consider that being an administrator should be "no big deal". I think that is true in the sense that there is plenty a good user can contribute to the project without being an admin. On the other hand, I think that new users are especially likely to look to administrators for assistance and to set an example. Therefore, I would endeavor to be especially mindful of my obligation to help other users out and to act as a role model.

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

A. Yes and No. Sometimes I go back to them and see there is so much still to improve! Two of the first articles I created were Hook 'em Horns and Stratellite. I think they have developed pretty well, though of course other editors have done a lot of the work. Sometimes, making a small addition to an article can be very gratifying, such as adding a source to help clear up confusion over what day is Victory over Japan Day.

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

A. Yes, sometimes people get passionate about their views on how to improve an article or make this a better place. I think passion is great as long as it comes with civility. My experience is that participating in a dialog is usually sufficient, and I've had a lot of great conversations with people here that have allowed us to reach consensus / compromise on many topics. For example, I'm pleased about the development of Hubbert peak theory. This is an article where emotions can sometimes run high, but I'm happy that we've been able to keep the conversation at Talk:Hubbert_peak_theory civil and that we've been able to work together to improve the article.

I also feel it is important to get help when you need it. I think avenues such as peer review and the dispute resolution system are important parts of Wikipedia. I have tried to help in responding to peer reviews, and I have recently requested peer review on an article I created so that we can ensure my personal opinion does not carry into that particular article. I am a party to a request for arbitration involving User:Rangerdude and several other editors, and I am hopeful that the arbitration process will be helpful to those of us involved.

My plan for dealing with future stress is to try to set an example for good behavior. Also, if things get stressful in one area of Wikipedia, I can always go over to another area I enjoy, or simple hit "Random article" and look for a new way to contribute! Johntex\^talk 18:17, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Update: the peer review process has been very helpful to Baby Gender Mentor, as you can see in comparing the before and after. Johntex\^talk 22:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

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

---

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

Titoxd

FINAL (75/1/1) ending 20:09 October 24, 2005 (UTC)
Titoxd (talk · contribs) –Titoxd is a great guy and a great user. He scored a 609 on the Wikiholic test, is active both in the English and Spanish Wikipedias, just missed making the Advisory Committee in the recent Esperanza Election, and has just over 2,000 edits. Time to give him the mop. Karmafist 21:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I'm honored to accept this nomination and I appreciate any and all constructive criticism comming from it. Please help me get better in helping Wikipedia. Titoxd^(?!?) 21:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Agree, he is a good editor. Martin 21:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Support per everything above, obviously. Karmafist 21:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Strong Support I was thinking of nominating him after the nomination of Greg Asche was done --JAranda | watz sup 21:49, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Support - Titoxd is a great foe of vandals; he will wield a mighty mop. - jredmond 21:56, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Strong support - all of my experience of this user has been highly positive and I have no reason to doubt either is contribution to Wikipedia or his future usefulness as an administrator. An all-round very nice person. --Celestianpower ^hablamé 22:09, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Support - plays a good game of whack-a-vandal.  BD2412 ^talk 22:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
7. SupportIf I had known that he wasn't already an admin I would have probably nominated him. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 22:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
8. Support, per nom. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
9. Support Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 22:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
10. Support Private Butcher 22:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
11. Ab-so-lute-ly. -- Essjay · Talk 22:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
12. Support no doubt in my mind he will be a great admin. -Greg Asche (talk) 22:54, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
13. Support Titoxd removes vandalism a lot and as an admin they could help a lot by banning users that keep vandalising --☺Adam1213☺ Talk+|WWW 23:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
14. Ja. ~~ N (t/c) 23:23, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
15. Support --HappyCamper 00:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
16. Support. Definitely ;-). I've been in edit conflicts with Titoxd 'cause he is faster at clicking save during RC Patrol than I am ;-). >: Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist • E@} 00:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

    And I've been beaten to reverts by admins so many times, I'm sure you know the feeling. :) Titoxd^(?!?) 00:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

    Big AMEN on that!! >: Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist • E@} 02:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

17. Chea! Acetic'^Acid 01:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
18. Support. Ral315 W_S 01:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
19. Support a fellow vandalbuster ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 02:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
20. Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 02:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

    Yes, Oui, Si, Ja, כן ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 02:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC) You voted twice. Titoxd^(?!?) 02:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

    Ooops, sorry..! ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 21:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

21. Support. Hesitation have I none. -Splash^talk 02:34, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
22. Support like I've never supported before. Great guy, even greater contributor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mysekurity (talk • contribs) 03:43, 18 October 2005.
23. Strong Support. Thought Titoxd was one. Oran e (t) (c) (@) 03:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
24. yep yep yep -- (drini's page|☎) 04:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
25. Strong Support For sure! Banes 05:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
26. Support. Valuable contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
27. Support, certainly. --JoanneB 07:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
28. Oh good, finally I won't be the only admin in Arizona. (And I agree with everyone else's reasons for supporting :) Dmcdevit·t 07:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
29. Good stuff. brenneman^(t)(c) 08:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
30. Big Style Furry Alien Support thought he was already... Alf ^melmac 10:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
31. Absolutely. Am thoroughly miffed I'm so far down the line, but very pleased it's a long one. :) encephalon 12:34, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
32. Support. He's not an admin yet? Huh. --Ashenai (talk) 14:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
33. Support. Always good to have more vandal hunters.--Scimitar ^parley 14:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
34. Support. Thought he already was one. the wub "?!" 15:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
35. Support- ditto. --Bhadani 16:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
36. Support without hesitation. Hall Monitor 17:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
37. Support pgk^(talk) 17:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
38. Support looks like a good person to give a mop to.  ALKIVAR™ 18:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
39. Support Dlyons493 Talk 19:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
40. Support Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 20:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
41. Well, I wanted to be evil and be the one oppose vote, but I just can't find anything wrong with Tito. Support. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

    Well, i'm sure Boothy will come around eventually ;-) Karmafist 22:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

    I dunno, He didn't peg me (I was sad) and I didn't see him in any of the ones last week. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 02:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

    Speak of the devil... :-) the wub "?!" 23:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

42. First time I've heard of him, but seems a solid editor. freestylefrappe 00:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
43. Support Very active doing RC patrol, VFU, et al. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
44. Support. Very quick with the vandal reverting. Carbonite | Talk 02:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
45. Support. Of course. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 02:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
46. Support --MONGO 02:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

    Support --JoanneB 10:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC) (One support'll be enough, I reckon. ;) --Ashenai (talk) 10:18, 19 October 2005 (UTC))

47. Good editor, this person seems to be. His nomination, support I do. — JIP | Talk 11:13, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

    Support — JIP | Talk 11:13, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

    Voted twice, you have. — JIP | Talk 11:13, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

48. Support --GraemeL ^(talk) 13:52, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
49. Support {{subst:AdminCliché}} --RobertG ♬ talk 15:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
50. Support Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
51. FireFox 18:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
52. Support. Robert 21:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
53. Support --fvw* 02:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
54. Support—Gaff ^ταλκ 02:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
55. Support Redwolf24 (talk) 02:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
56. Support. Seems to be only a formality, but still. The Minister of War 10:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
57. Support. Wow. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 20:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
58. Support. Very knowledgable of Wikipedia. Courtious, and always asks users on the discussion page if they agree to any major changes before making them. I really appreciate and respect that. Very mature. -- E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - my dropsonde 21:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
59. Support. This guy is good. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 22:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
60. Support 172 | Talk 22:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
61. Support Molotov (talk)
    23:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

    Extreme Lesbian Voter Fraud I'll vote twice just because it's already a foregone conclusion and i'd like to have the honor of having my vote stricken out by this soon to be über-administrator. I was thinking of leaving the umlauts off to see if he replaced them on there before he struck them, but I figured that'd be overboard. FYI, Titoxd, please make sure you invite me to any celebration parties you may have in your fabulous new barn, now horse feces free! ;-) Karmafist 00:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC) Vote dutifully stricken, and sure, you're all invited. :) Titoxd^(?!?) 01:51, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

62. Support. Excellent editor, who should become admin much earlier. Can we speedy approve this? We need him with the rollback for Hurricane Wilma, yes now! --Vsion 20:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
63. Support, good active editor. K1Bond007 22:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
64. Support You're not an admin? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:06, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
65. Hrm. I thought I already voted here.. Oh well, 1.1 votes is better than none. «»Who?¿?^meta 07:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
66. S'port Doc (?) 18:10, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
67. Support You betcha'! Thatdog 21:40, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
68. Support. --tomf688^{talk} 21:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
69. Support Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 02:27, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
70. I'm surprised I never noticed this. Very helpful, and to add to my vote, helped me out recently in a dispute. He definitely deserves it. Support. (Good grief, in my haste to vote, I actually voted in the wrong RfA!) -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 07:31, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
71. Support I though I had already, but guess not! Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 18:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
72. He's not an admin? Support! - Mailer Diablo 13:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
73. Support Another extremely competent user who should be in, great guy. Titoxd! Titoxd! Titoxd! Titoxd...!-) Gryffindor 18:15, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
74. Overwhelming support -- Francs2000 21:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
75. Support. El_C 21:41, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. --Boothy443 | comhrá 21:01, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

   I Oppose you, Pikachu!! File:Pikachu2.gif. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 20:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I find it very hard to assume good faith with Boothy's oppositions. Opposing nearly all potential admins. without explanation is essentially incivil, and without such explanation, in fact, he is not abiding by WikiGuidelines. Furthermore, I believe that these oppositions are a result of simple malice. I noticed that Boothy has 16,000 edits, but is not an adm - perhaps he is trying to hold others back. His contributions reflect a tendency of anger when people have only asked a simple question [12] or he is excessivley sarcastic [13]. I request that medition or arbitration be considered against this user. Him abusing the rights of RfA is harmful to the Wiki in my opinion - trolls, vandals and spammers are not allowed to continue in bad faith - so this user should also comport himself in a civil manner on these RfAs. He is abusing his rights here - and he is apparently making no attempts to stop. He has the right to vote, sure, but all the other Wikipedians have the right to a fair RfA. Something needs to happen! Molotov (talk) 03:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Calm down, people! You're taking his oppose vote harder than I am, and I'm the one being opposed. :) Boothy does have standards for adminship, in fact, he described them to Acetic Acid not too long ago. I can't and I won't blame Boothy for having such high standards—if I don't meet them, then I don't meet them, and that's the end of the story. Everyone, have a cup of coffee on my behalf, ok? Titoxd^(?!?) 04:21, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I added this here because this section seemed kind of empty and surely, one more support's not gonna make a hell of a difference--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 05:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments

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

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

A. I've been very active in the Counter Vandalism Unit the last few days, and before that, I used to do manual RC Patrol to revert vandalism, so that's one thing I'll keep doing. Also, I'm very active at Votes for Undeletion, where being an admin is very helpful. I also plan to help with the backlogs at Templates for deletion, Miscellaneous deletion and of course, the one no one wants to do.

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

A. Most of my article namespace edits have come through Spanish Translation of the Week, and my two favorite articles are Geology of Venus and Geology of the Moon, the current SPATRA. Keeping with SPATRA, but this time on the Wikipedia namespace, I was the one who came up with the idea of commenting untranslated text, as a compromise to a conflict that occured while editing Glacier.

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

A. Mostly, I've been able to avoid Wikistress altogether, so I've been lucky. However, I know that adminship would result in being involved in more conflicts, so I'll say that my personal philosophy is to assume good faith before everything, ignore all personal attacks done on me, and not to attack anyone. Basically, to remember that we're trying to build an encyclopedia here before anything else.

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

---

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

the wub

FINAL (61/2/0) ending 20:07 24/10/05 (UTC)

the wub (talk · contribs) – I've been around since March 2005, and think I am ready for the mop. I've been doing quite a bit of vandalism reversion recently using CDVF and Sam Hocevar's god-mode lite script. Plus I read and contribute on AN fairly often, since I find it a great source of information. I've also been described as a "VFD fanatic" (back when it was called that), though I consider myself neither a deletionist nor an inclusionist. For those who are interested I have 2781 edits, more details here. the wub "?!" 20:07, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

For the above reasons, I have nominated myself for adminship.

Support

1. Support! User:Zirka 12:22, 19 October 2005 (CDT) He focuses his attention not just on the larger, more widely supported pages, or the lightly supported pages, but both. I also approve of his stance on deletion.
2. Good editor Martin 20:41, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Extreme Non-Inclusionist Support. Good editor - why not support? --WikiFanatic^{Talk Contribs 15:48, 17 October 2005 (CDT)}
4. Andre (talk) 20:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Support good editor, and even reverted vandalism on my userpage once. Private Butcher 20:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Support he deserves it. -Greg Asche (talk) 21:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
7. Support Good editor and vandal fighter. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
8. Michael Snow 21:47, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
9. Support Good Vandal Fighter --JAranda | watz sup 21:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
10. Support - after my extensive positive experiences with this user, I see no option but to support. --Celestianpower ^hablamé 22:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
11. Support. Very active and productive, from what I've seen.  BD2412 ^talk 22:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
12. Full, unequivocal, and unconditional support. -- Essjay · Talk 22:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
13. Supportate. ~~ N (t/c) 23:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
14. Keep and expand the wub's wikipowers by granting admin status. Grutness...wha? 23:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
15. Support, impressive record. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
16. I Love the Wub (Strikes Back) This user is the voice of reason in our community! Acetic'^Acid 01:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
17. You weren't? Ral315 W_S 01:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
18. Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 02:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
19. I thought you were already one ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 02:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
20. Support. Active, knowledgeable, good. -Splash^talk 02:34, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
21. Support. I've seen him around more than a few times, which is good enough for me. -[[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] ^{[[additions | e-mail]]} _{03:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)}
22. Oran e (t) (c) (@) 04:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
23. Support good contribution list -DDerby-(talk) 04:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
24. Support. Fine user. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
25. Whaaaat? You mean the wub wasn't an admin already? Quick, we need more wubs as admins. — JIP | Talk 06:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
26. Support the General Secretary of the meta:AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD. Alphax ^τεχ 07:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
27. Support my mighty m:AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD overlord. Proto t c 12:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
28. Support. I would have nominated him myself, if I'd known he wasn't a sysop.--Scimitar ^parley 14:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
29. FULL MEXICABAL SUPPORT -- (drini's page|☎) 16:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
30. Support come across him often. Dlyons493 Talk 19:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
31. Support if and only if you come back to The Signpost... :-) Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 20:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
32. Wubport. Radiant_>|< 21:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
33. Good VFD participation. freestylefrappe 00:40, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
34. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC) Would have been willing to nominate him myself...
35. Support --MONGO 02:52, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
36. Support I wub this user! --Cyberjunkie | Talk 05:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
37. Support me too. encephalon 13:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
38. EXTREME DISK SUPPORT WITH EXTRA KILOBYTES!! Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 00:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
39. Support—Gaff ^ταλκ 02:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
40. FireFox 08:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
41. Support. The Minister of War 10:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
42. Support. Thunderbrand 13:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
43. Support. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 20:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
44. Give-Him-The-Mop-And-The-Flamethrower Support. Titoxd^(?!?) 21:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
45. Support without reservations. Hall Monitor 22:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
46. Support Pilatus 23:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
47. Support Good egg. Hamster Sandwich 19:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

    #Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC) Thanks but you voted twice :-) the wub "?!" 16:06, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

48. Furry Alien Support No doubt about it - seen lots of this editor's work, will be fine admin. Alf ^melmac 08:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
49. Support - I wub lub to hub him as wub-ministrator.--Jondel 13:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
50. S'portDoc (?) 18:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
51. Support. --tomf688^{talk} 21:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
52. Support - a great editor! Pasboudin 22:23, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
53. Yes. I've liked everything I've seen. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 02:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
54. Support. Comments (esp. reasons for self-nom) really earned my vote. -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 07:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
55. Wubbish Support His edits and communications with other editors are very nice. Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 18:10, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
56. Support Molotov (talk) 03:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
57. Support, Sure! I can show some lub for the wub...if it's not too late :>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 10:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
58. Support. - Mailer Diablo 13:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
59. Support - wtf? He's not an admin? --Phroziac^(talk) 18:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
60. Overwhelming support -- Francs2000 21:34, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
61. He's our family... El_C 21:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. --Boothy443 | comhrá 21:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

   File:Pikachu2.gif. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 20:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

2. I don't like his aggressive attitude --Kafuffle 22:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I find it very hard to assume good faith with Boothy's oppositions. Opposing nearly all potential admins. without explanation is essentially incivil, and without such explanation, in fact, he is not abiding by WikiGuidelines. Furthermore, I believe that these oppositions are a result of simple malice. I noticed that Boothy has 16,000 edits, but is not an adm - perhaps he is trying to hold others back. His contributions reflect a tendency of anger when people have only asked a simple question [14] or he is excessivley sarcastic [15]. I request that medition or arbitration be considered against this user. Him abusing the rights of RfA is harmful to the Wiki in my opinion - trolls, vandals and spammers are not allowed to continue in bad faith - so this user should also comport himself in a civil manner on these RfAs. He is abusing his rights here - and he is apparently making no attempts to stop. He has the right to vote, sure, but all the other Wikipedians have the right to a fair RfA. Something needs to happen! Molotov (talk) 03:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

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

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

A. Vandal fighting and newbie test reverting, which I do quite a bit of already. Actually being able to block the vandals, and delete the most obvious junk pages would be a great help. I also think I will close quite a few AfDs, I have plenty of experience in voting on them and have already done a few obvious keeps. Also keeping the Main Page up to date and fixing errors on it that are pointed out by non-admins.

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

A. I think my recent rescue of DJ Quietstorm from its AfD was one of my best achievements. I also did some work on List of Family Guy episodes and am hoping to get it up to featured list status soon after having taken a bit of a break from it.

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

A. I have come into conflict with Mike Garcia a few times in the past, which did cause me quite a bit of stress (though we were by no means the only participants in any of the conflicts). I tried to help resolve the situations through the talk pages. Otherwise I have only earned the ire of vandals that I can recall. In future I would remain civil, and ask for help from other uninvolved admins if needed.

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

---

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

Alphax

Requests_for_adminship/Alphax|action=edit}} Vote here (22/26/5) ending 02:35 2005 October 23 (UTC)

Alphax (talk · contribs) – A smart, innovative, and hardworking user, with a good sense of humour, who won't get too hot under the collar when performing admin tasks. If successful, Alphax will be a great admin. Ingoolemo ^talk 02:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I think this is about the third time Ingoolemo has tried to nominate me now... I guess I'd better accept. Alphax ^τεχ 11:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC) Withdrawing. I'm obviously not ready for this. Alphax ^τεχ 23:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. This user removes vandalism a lot. As an admin they could help more by banning users that continue to vandalise. --☺Adam1213☺ Talk+|WWW 15:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

   Are you aware of quite how many lines your sig takes up? -Splash^talk 16:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

2. Strong support. Andre (talk) 16:49, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Support for a very dedicated Wikipedian, who's active in the community. I hope any who decide not to support this candidate can manage to be polite and fair.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 16:58, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Oops, I forgot to support. Pv.-h4p5 1 |>0|\|+ |-|@\/& 13375k!11z 4|=73.- 411 Ingoolemo ^talk 18:00, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Still Support. Good guy, won't abuse em. Redwolf24 (talk—How's my driving?) 20:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Extreme Wisconsinite Now Living In Illinois Support! I seriously, honestly, truly thought you were one already (no joking). --WikiFanatic^{Talk Contribs 15:40, 17 October 2005 (CDT)}
7. Support the oppose votes are ridiculous (no offence intended :))  Grue  21:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
8. Support Molotov (talk)
   21:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
9. Absolutely support. And for the record, the start date is September 2004, over a year ago. -- Essjay · Talk 23:06, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
10. Extreme Thunderwing support, I've seen this user active on AfD. — JIP | Talk 06:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
11. Alphax enjoys my full support - Mark 08:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
12. Support!--Exir Kamalabadi^Esperanza 10:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
13. Support. BTW, it pisses me off that an admin nomination gets a pile of AFD politics shoved onto it. I don't have to agree with Alphax to trust him with the tools - David Gerard 11:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I'd hate to say this, David, but comments like the one just made are precisely those that can turn an otherwise reasonable discussion or vote into a factionalizing fooionist shouting match. Nor is this the first time that you make such a comment. Please consider that when someone disagrees with a person from another perceived faction, he usually has a good reason, and is not merely reinforcing a perceived faction struggle. Radiant_>|< 22:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
14. Sadly concur with David Gerard. I strongly advise against inclusion of that extremely divisive question in future RFA's, and if it is included, I strongly caution all candidates against answering it, lest another stupid pile-on should result. This is a very strong admin candidate and those opposing him without good reason should ask themselves what good it does to the wiki to exclude good candidates on the grounds of AfD politics. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 12:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

    With respect, Tony, I would never oppose someone for adminship just because of voting tendencies on AfD. Alphax has openly stated an intention below to throw deletion policy to the wind; in effect, to use his adminship powers to push his view instead of talking it over like everyone else. He has legitimate qualms, but this is not the way to go about it. Slandering the oppose voters because you disagree with some of their philosophical views is poor form and reflects badly on both you and David - as is supporting a candidate who has vowed to break policy just because you agree with his. Ambi 12:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

    Rhetoric aside, do you have any evidence to support your rather extreme claim that Alphax has said that he intends to traduce, rather than enforce, deletion policy? --Tony Sidaway^Talk 13:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

15. Support. I fear it's mostly symbolic, now, as the votes pile up. Frankly, if I didn't already know Alphax and know that he is a lot smarter than this AfD would suggest, I'd be seriously considering opposing, too. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
16. Support - I like the fact that he expresses opinions, rather than hides them until after the election. Good answers on the extra questions! Guettarda 14:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
17. Support. I am tired of being asked by this guy to do various admin things. Let him do them himself. And let me add my voice to those objecting to the interrogation of candidates about deletion policy. Kelly Martin 15:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
18. Support Echo thoughts of earlier support votes.--MONGO 17:20, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
19. Support, seems sufficiently familiar with policy, the hordes of people opposing notwithstanding. JYolkowski // talk 23:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
20. Delete, nn admincruft...I mean, Support. Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 00:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
21. Support He will be OK. --Rogerd 04:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
22. Support The arbitrary addition of AFD quesions to this RFA is absurd. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 03:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. The answers to questions 5 and 6 strike me as naive. It's an unfortunate feature of AfD that most debates get, say, a handful of participants unless they are controversial or on high profile articles. A lot of the articles that go to AfD are frankly not worth much more than that. It would be verging on the absurd to close such debates as no consensus because they behave like the average AfD debate. The RfC noted in Q6 is frivolous and the defense given of it here is insulting to a large number of people including many who do not participate on AfD. If that's the most level-headed this editor can be, then they aren't ready for adminship for a while yet. The answer to Q1 is thorough, but finishes with something of a personalised mission statement re AfD/VfU — we have enough people on missions as it is, and I though the RfC is specifically to condemn those who currently pursue one. -Splash^talk 16:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

   Well, if you think bloc voting without considering the merits of an article is level-headed... and if "people on missions shouldn't be admins", how about we de-sysop all the current members of the ADW and AIW? Alphax ^τεχ 23:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

2. Oppose Slash said it better then I could. Well, slightly harsher then I'd say it too. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 16:34, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Very weak oppose I agree with Splash on all he says, so here's my very weak oppose. I do think starting the RfC was bold, but also quite frivoulus. And we have way to many bold admins already. gkhan 17:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

   I thought "RfC" stood for "request for comments". I was looking for comments. Alphax ^τεχ23:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

4. Oppose. I thought the RfC was an interesting idea, but the concept of closing Afd's with less than ten votes is ridiculous and completely unworkable.--Scimitar ^parley 17:38, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

   Please re-read my answer to Q5. Alphax ^τεχ 23:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

   I've re-read it- my understanding is that if there is an article with, say, four votes (two without reasons) from credible contributors, you would close as a no consensus. If I'm mistaken, please let me know, as I'm more than willing to reconsider my oppose vote.--Scimitar ^parley 17:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

5. Oppose. The RfC was somewhere in the grey area between Be Bold and WP:POINT, but with the jumping on the bandwagon of the totally misunderstood, and quite frankly sad, editcountitis debate as well as his comment on consensus make me think that the RfC was geared more towards WP:POINT and future actions will head towards that way as well. However, he did make me laugh in a good way with his comment on Redwolf24's RfB, so much so that I created a user award for it. Karmafist 17:59, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
6. I have to oppose based on question 5. If he's not going to call a vote with 9 votes to delete and 0 to keep a "delete" because it lacks 10 votes then we have a problem. Most debates on AfD don't get 10 votes. More than half are unanimous deletes, but they usually have more like 4 or 5. -R. fiend 18:47, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

   When people see 4-5 "delete, nn." votes in a row they often don't bother actually reading the article (they jump on the bandwagon, or don't bother voting at all), so articles can be sneakily deleted without much thought. The same applies to 4-5 keep votes in a row. Alphax ^τεχ 23:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

   How do you know they don't read them? I, for one, read every article that I vote on at AfD (doing less work there now due to my schoolwork), and sometimes "Delete, nn" is all that needs to be said. It seems somewhat of a hasty generalization to say that AfD voters are not reading the articles in question. --Idont Havaname 01:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

7. Oppose per reasons given before. Private Butcher 19:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
8. Strong Oppose Clearly Don't like the answers for 5 and 6. I dont trust this user with AFDs --JAranda | watz sup 19:38, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

   I don't trust the current AfD/VfU system. Alphax ^τεχ 23:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

9. Oppose based on current answer to closing AfD. As I understand it closure is left to the judgement of the administrator. Disregarding a vote on the basis proposed does not seem appropriate. The voter would have indicated his/her views with the vote and may feel that reasons are adequately covered above - for example, in the nomination if supporting deletion. The approach proposed seems inconsistent with the community approach generally; in this forum, support votes on RfA are not queried when they give no reason.--User:AYArktos | Talk 19:54, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

   If someone says "(keep|delete) per (name)", where (name) has given a detailed reason several lines long, and nothing has changed in the article since the initial vote has changed, I'd see that as a valid vote. And maybe all votes should be questioned. Alphax ^τεχ 23:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

   From what I understand your answer to question 5.2 below and the way you have my addressed my answer here, you would ignore any vote that merely stated keep or delete or whatever and signed their name, even if they were a valid user and given that there is no community suggestion at present that reasons for a vote need to be provided. I would suggest by voting and signing that should be sufficient to indicate their intention especially since there is currently no requirement to justify the position. For an example see support votes numbered 2, 8, 11, 12 above as votes that seem to indicate no reason for support. As I understand it you would ignore them for arriving at a decision about what concensus the community had reached.--User:AYArktos | Talk 11:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

10. Oppose on AfD grounds, particularly as AfD procedure specifically encourages participants not to "pile on" when the outcome is clear. Expecting 10 votes for a unanimous consensus is tacitly expecting Wikipedians to ignore this policy. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 21:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

    Actually, I'd like to see informed decision making taking place. At present all you have to do to get something kept or deleted is get 4-6 keep/delete votes in a row, and no-one else will bother. Alphax ^τεχ 23:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

    As noted, that proposal runs counter to policy and the objective realities of AfD will cause said policy to result in no decision. Also, I don't like the lack of WP:AGF in blanketly accusing a 10-vote unanimous of being baseless lemming-votes (see responses to Splash and R. Fiend) while simultaneously deciding that smaller votes are inconclusive. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 23:59, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

    It's hard to assume good faith when people scream "we are winning! You cannot defeat us!" in the middle of AfD debates. So long as nobody takes a stand against AfD nuts, nothing will change. Alphax ^τεχ 03:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

    Oppose. I prefer candidates to have at least four months on Wikipedia. While your edit count well exceeds my minimum, you have only been here less than a month, and two and a half months is about the bare minumum I would consider supporting. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 21:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

    My first edit was on September 21, 2004 [16]. Alphax ^τεχ 23:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

    Whoops, my bad. I absolutely mis-read that. Thanks for correcting me. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 04:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

11. Very strong oppose. Alphax is a good user, and makes a lot of good contributions. His comments below, however, suggest that he'd make a terrible admin. Ambi 00:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
12. Oppose I'm sorry, but I haven't been crazy about this user since I read the AfD RfC. Alphax's view on deletionists and inclusionists is clouding his judgment about consensus, as seen in Q5. Acetic'^Acid 01:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

    Actually, I think the actions of inclusionists and deletionists are turning the community's definition of "consensus" into "whoever screams the loudest". Don't you think we need some sanity put back into AfD? This is why I think we should be taking a closer look at what we are doing and not just saying "oh, there are 5 votes to keep/delete and nothing else, let's keep/delete it" - don't forget, anything done by one admin can just as easily be undone by another. Alphax ^τεχ 03:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

    Did I miss something? When did AfD descend into entropy? I know the process isn't perfect, but I think your crusade against it is unnecessary. Five people in a row vote to keep an article. You instantly assume that inclusionists are taking over the world? Perhaps it was just a bad faith nomination. Six delete votes in secession? Dear Jimbo, it's a conspiracy! But seriously, I think you're making too much of this. Deletionist and Inclusionist are just two silly labels people categorize each other with. Just like the Punks, Preps, Jocks, etc. from high school. I don't think those two sects are any threat to our deletion process. What did you hope to accomplish with that RfC? Do you want those associations disbanded? Acetic'^Acid 04:34, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

    Yes, from the day it was created, probably, to get rid of the bloc voting mentality, and yes. In that order. Alphax ^τεχ 07:25, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

    You're sure making a mountain out of a molehill. The AIW and ADW were active for about a week many months ago, and have done absolutely nothing ever since - something which I've supported all along. Yet somehow they've become the bogeyman in your mind; I'm not really sure why. Ambi 07:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

    Because they appear to be serious, and people act accordingly, resulting in AfD being such a cesspit that people often leave when they find it. People who mindlessly go through voting to keep/delete everything they see need to RTFA. Disregarding the votes of people who haven't even bothered to RTFA is one way to get them to. Alphax ^τεχ 11:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

13. Oppose; do not trust on AfD. Ral315 W_S 01:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

    Because I don't pander to the inclusionist/deletionist tendancies of the community? How utterly lame. Alphax ^τεχ 03:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

    No, because I think that closing an AFD with 8 delete votes as no consensus is about the stupidest thing you can do. I could go into other things as well, but I'd rather not type a long-winded diatribe against you and make us both look like asses. Ral315 W_S 07:18, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

14. Oppose, purely because he's being rude to people exercising their right to vote 'oppose' if they wish (see the above vote). Not conduct becoming an admin. Proto t c 13:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
15. Oppose per Proto. Admins need to defuse, not enflame. — mendel ☎ 13:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
16. Oppose. If a user wants to start a debate over policy (such as AfD), they should do so in a talk forum, not by trying to become and admin and unilaterally implementing a new policy themselves. The discretion given to admins on things like AfD closings, blockings, and speedy deletions is on a case by case basis, to keep Wikipedia running smoothly; as reactions to previous incidents have shown, it would be an abuse of administrator powers to use them in an effort to spark or influence policy debates. From the answers below, I think that is what this user intends to do. --Aquillion 20:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
17. Oppose- rude and arrogant. Astrotrain 21:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
18. Oppose. I wholeheartedly agree with Alphax that AFD is in need of reform, and would be happy to hear his suggestions. However, until we have an alternative, it is improper to unilaterally use the process in a way that is such a far cry from what is generally agreed upon. Radiant_>|< 22:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
19. Oppose per Proto. Admins should try and adhere to the Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks policies. If a user cannot do so even on their own Requests for adminship (a time when people are on their best behaviour), then that strikes me as a very bad sign indeed. Don't give a fig about AfD views, though. — Matt Crypto 22:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
20. Oppose - Proto put it well; imho Alphax needs to calm down some before I can trust him as an admin. --Stormie 00:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
21. Oppose: I'm bothered by the "how lame" comment above. I'd oppose for other reasons too, but others have already commented on those sufficiently, I think. Jonathunder 05:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
22. Oppose If I'm reading his response to Q5.1 (below) correctly, he's saying he'd close an AfD with, say, 8 or 9 unanimous delete votes as a keep?! That's way out of step with policy and community standards. Since there's every reason to believe this user could not be trusted to close AfD, I must vote to oppose. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
23. Oppose, mostly for reasons already listed by Proto and Acetic Acid. Filing an RfC against all inclusionists and all deletionists is, as already pointed out, a mix of being overly WP:BOLD and breaking WP:POINT; and I noticed from reading Wikien-l last month that his views on the RfC are rather extreme. Threatening an RfC against a user is a rather serious matter, whether you yourself have had any interaction with that user or not. Don't file an RfC against a club of users, especially if you've only had minimal interaction with most of them. A lot of the "inclusionists" and "deletionists" do not do blind voting for keeping or deleting articles just because they are in a specific category; the summaries that they give at m:AIW and m:ADW shed more light on that; there's not really a "bloc" mentality among them, aside from the most radical ones at either end of the inclusionist/deletionist spectrum. Also, very few AfD's get 10 votes or more, as already mentioned, and waiting for 10 votes would only make our AfD backlogs that much more serious. --Idont Havaname 01:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
24. Oppose due to the candidates stance on needing 10 votes to close an AFD. Johntex\^talk 18:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
25. Oppose -- we don't need another admin who just does what he likes on AfD regardless of rules or the outcome of the votes. CDThieme 22:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
26. Strong Oppose per Lomn's research in the comments section and for incivility. A large portion of AfD deletion results are unanimous with fewer than ten votes – vanity that wasn't quite speediable vanity, spam, band vanity, etc. Closing admins get wide discretion, but any personal closure guideline that would provide an automatic keep for so many articles that are regularly deleted – and rightly so – through AfD would be disastrous. Calling someone else's good-faith vote "lame" on your own RfA is inexcusable. android79 13:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Your RFC and your views on AFD makes you too controversial for my tastes. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:41, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 02:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Neutral. In fact the RFC filed against the entire inclusionist and deletionist associations was OK with me, in good faith, and did bring attention to a problem which has affected deletion debates: factionalism. The reason I cannot support is that an admin closing debates with 8 deletes, 0 keeps, as "no consensus" because of a quorum demand of 10 votes will seriously affect the AFD system. Even articles which clearly and objectively must be deleted (hoaxes are things even hardline inclusionists don't usually want kept) usually get less than ten votes, and keeping them because of quorum demands is bureaucratic and can ultimately hurt the integrity of the encyclopedia. Alphax is indeed a valuable contributor to the project, and my objecton is only that one, therefore I am definitely not putting my name in the oppose column. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Reluctantly Neutral. I thought you already were one, and wish you were, but I just can't support your views on closing AfDs. That doesn't mean I don't respect your right to hold that view (and it has its merits) but actually pushing it in practice would go clearly against all deletion policy and border on WP:POINT. Don't get me wrong you're a great editor and I didn't have a problem with the RfC, but admins should at least have broadly similar standards for closing AfD debates. the wub "?!" 16:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Neutral at this stage. However, I am curious about what you think your stance re AfD might be in six months time if you were nommed again. IOW, might you mellow a little, or cling to your current convictions?Moriori 02:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• Editcountitis sucks. Long live Wikipedia! For great encyclopedia! ¡Viva La Revolucion! Alphax ^τεχ 11:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• If I interpret your answers to the questions correctly, what you're really saying is that you wouldn't feel comfortable closing an AfD debate with less than 10 votes on it. For those of you that have concerns about this, I'd like to point out that any admin closing AfD debates is a good thing. Even if he only closes debates with over ten votes that have clear consensus, thats that many less debates for other admins to close. Just something to consider. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 21:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • In response to Evilphoenix's oppose vote on the grounds of how long Alphax has been actively contributing to Wikipedia - I think it is from September 2004 - ie over one year.--User:AYArktos | Talk 22:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• With regards to Alphax's stated AfD closing policy. As of 18 October, the AfD pages for 13-15 October have 354 non-speedied entries. Of those, only 79 (22%) meet Alphax's 10-vote minimum requirement for a result other than an automatic non-consensus keep. I did not attempt to interpret the additional "baseless vote" criterion, which would likely lower that number. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 13:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Moved from "oppose" category due to RfA policy (anons cannot vote):Oppose A month ago he was threatening to leave [17] Not ready to be an administrator.71.28.243.246 16:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

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

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

A. Being a more effective RC patroller (I use Sam Hocevar's script, which doesn't always work, and I'm always having to ask someone else to block the persistant ones who won't respond to being asked nicely), getting rid of dodgy images (as I've been doing a bit of on commons:), responding to page protection and speedy deletion requests, fixing cut and paste moves (yes, they still happen), trying to clean up the mess that still is AfD, making informed decisions at VfU (beyond "valid AfD"), fixing interface bugs... whatever the community demands of me.

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

A. My work on the Welcoming committee has been fun, as it (hopefully) gives new users a few pointers as to how to help out around the place (and hopefully not do strange things like suing us in a COURT OF LAW). Article-wise, I rewrote Age of Wonders fairly soon after I got here, started the articles on AustNet and Division of Mayo, did a few messy page merges (XM29 OICW, Fairchild Republic), and have done a fair bit of double-redirect and disambiguation link repair (I helped get the latter out of a murky little subpage). Oh, I also helped get Wikipedia:Wikiproject User scripts started, which hopefully will provide some nifty features sometime in the future...

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

A. I've recieved a few angry comments over time, but nothing that I couln't just laugh off. I haven't really had any article disputes, but I don't envisage having to do anything stupid if they do arise. A few weeks ago I took a four-day wikibreak, but I think I'm over that now.

4. Do you have an email address set?

A. Yes.

5. What is your opinion re: consensus on AfD?

A. 70-75% with at least 10 clear non-sock/meatpuppet votes that have reasons given. If a vote doesn't have a clear reason, I'll disregard it.

Q5.1 If an AfD doesn't have that many votes would you close it as a no consensus keep or leave it for another admin? the wub "?!" 19:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

A. Close as a no consensus keep. Alphax ^τεχ 23:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Q5.2 Am I correct in understanding that your answer implies that when closing an AfD, you would not include in your count AFD votes that were unaccompanied by a comment even though signed by a "non-sock/meatpuppet". If say we have 14 votes to delete (with reasons) and 10 votes to keep but 4 of the keep votes are with out reasons, you disregard those and you have a 70% (14 out of 20 rather than out of 24) vote in favour of deletion?--User:AYArktos | Talk 22:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

70% is probably too close to call. It would depend on the strength of the arguments and the quality of the article - if in doubt, I'd leave it to someone else.

I find it ironic that you're so critical of inclusionism/deletionism when you take such an inclusionist stand on closing AFD debates. Some might call that hypocrisy. Ambi 07:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I'm perfectly willing to delete things as well, but the deletion policy says "if in doubt, don't delete". If you feel the need to classify me as anything, I'm a mergist. Alphax ^τεχ 13:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

6. What's with the request for comments against all the deletionists and inclusionists?

A. I feel that they are disruptive to AfD and VfU and should be reprimanded for making Wikipedia such a hostile place to potential contributors.

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

---

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

GregAsche

Final (45/1/0) ending 02:11 October 24 (UTC)

GregAsche (talk · contribs) – I would like to nominate GregAsche for adminship. He has been a user in Wikipedia since April 2005 and very active in sinse August, and has racked up more than 2000 edits since then. He is a dedicated editor who is one of the top RC patrolers that is not a admin and also useful in AFD and also rarelykeenly avoids conflicts. He deserves the extra admin tools and would make a outstanding admin. JAranda | watz sup 02:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

He's a really great guy who asks for help when he's not sure, and is bold when he is sure. He communicates well, an admin asset, and all around deserves the tools. Go mop now, and get my coffee. ;-) Redwolf24 (talk—How's my driving?) 02:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I graciously accept, thank you for the nomination. -Greg Asche (talk) 02:32, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Extreme Support As nominator JAranda | watz sup 02:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Support as Co-nominator. Redwolf24 (talk—How's my driving?) 02:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Freakishly Strong Support based on my positive interactions with this editor in various fora, particularly Portal:Law.  BD2412 ^talk 02:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
4. HULK SUPPORT --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 03:52, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
5. SUPPORT --pgk^(talk) 05:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
6. That's hot. Mike H (Talking is hot) 06:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
7. The nominator's assertion that he rarely avoids conflicts troubles me. But I will support anyway! Christopher Parham (talk) 06:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

   Heh, I think he just had a bad choice of words there. -Greg Asche (talk) 12:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

8. Support - have seen some of his edits. Also works, like any other Wiki user would, to revert vandalism. Would be deserved. -- NSLE | Talk 09:22, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
9. Strong support. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m, +e ] 10:54, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
10. Support MONGO 11:56, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
11. Support! Kirill Lokshin 12:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
12. Andre (talk) 16:49, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
13. Support. No-brainer.--Scimitar ^parley 17:47, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
14. Support He isn't already? Private Butcher 19:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
15. {{subst:ITHWOA}} -- (drini's page|☎) 19:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
16. Support Very active doing RC patrol. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:44, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
17. Without reservation. -- Essjay · Talk 23:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
18. Support GregAsche removes vandalism a lot and as a admin he could ban vandalse --☺Adam1213☺ Talk +|WWW 00:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
19. Support, I thought I had voted before, but I hadn't. Good RC Patroller, give him the mop and the flamethrower. Titoxd^(?!?) 00:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
20. Indubitably Ral315 W_S 01:20, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
21. Afford him the keys to the janitor closet. We need more like him, indeed ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 02:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
22. Strong Sopport. Oran e (t) (c) (@) 04:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
23. Support, of course! Seen 'em around on the RC patrol!! >: Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist • E@} 06:20, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
24. Support. the wub "?!" 16:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
25. Support Astrotrain 21:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
26. Great user, just tried to nominate him myself as i didnt realise he already was! Martin 22:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
27. support it is good to have greg around here Yuckfoo 23:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
28. Support Have seen some good interventions, and being nominated by Redwolf helps The Minister of War 09:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
29. Support Dlyons493 Talk 22:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
30. Support. A top-notch vandal fighter. Owen× ☎ 23:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
31. Support. When it comes to reverting vandalism, this guy is the Flash! KHM03 23:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
32. Support; he's a good RC patroller, and everything I've seen so far is excellent. Antandrus (talk) 23:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
33. Hai Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 00:05, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
34. Support—Gaff ^ταλκ 02:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
35. FireFox 08:15, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
36. Support --Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 20:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
37. Support. Robert 00:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
38. Support and congratulations in advance.  :) Hall Monitor 19:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
39. Support. For sure. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
40. Furry Alien Support - What, not an admin already? Alf ^melmac 08:32, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
41. Support' Doc (?) 18:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
42. Support V. Molotov (talk)
    19:33, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
43. Support I thought he was one. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 02:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
44. Support. GregAsche is a very courteous RC patroller and has sufficiently proven his dedication to this project. Thatdog 15:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
45. Supprt as everyone above. Jkelly 17:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. --Boothy443 | comhrá 21:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

   File:Pikachu2.gif. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 20:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

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

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

A. Blocking persistent vandals, clearing the ever growing backlog at AfD, deleting speedys, filling requests for protection and unprotection, and most of all using the admin rollback button on vandalism (although I already use Sam Hocevar's godmode-light.js, but it is a bit slow.

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

A. I've contributed a lot to United States Supreme Court articles such as Republican Party of Minnesota v. White and Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States. I also have probably hundreds of contribs to articles I find on Special:Newpages that I add stub tags too, correct spelling and grammar mistakes, fix formatting, etc.

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

A. I haven't had any serious conflicts yet, mainly anon vandals who I reverted blanking my user page and adding insults, and a few others where I have just backed off before things escalated.

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

---

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

CambridgeBayWeather

Final (37/0/0) ended 14:09 23 October 2005 (UTC)

CambridgeBayWeather (talk · contribs) – I would like to nominate CambridgeBayWeather for adminship simply because I see him/her doing so much good work that I feel Wikipedia would be a much better place if he/she had the admin tools. Vital stats are: 4273 edits, first edit 11-June-05. If there was ever a case for a "speedy promote" then this is it! Martin 14:09, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Thank you very much. I would be honoured to be considered as an administrator. CambridgeBayWeather 05:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Definately. Martin 11:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Support MONGO 11:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Support Excellent contribs: welcoming, wikifying, re-directing and creating. Wish I could remember edit summaries as regularly. Marskell 11:37, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Support. A great editor! Worth interrupting my Wikibreak to support this candidate. Owen× ☎ 12:35, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Support I constantly see this name attached to good work. I am getting sick of it :) Qaz ^(talk) 13:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Support Have seen lots of good contribs from him! --JoanneB 14:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
7. Support goes without saying. For all of the above reasons and probably some below as well but wiki is not a crystal ball. Dlyons493 Talk 14:26, 16 October 2005 (UTC). This was me - wiki seems to log me out randomly. Dlyons493 Talk 08:52, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

   IP vote =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:50, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

8. S'port - you can't get too many Canadians in Wikipedia (excellent contributor) --Doc (?) 14:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
9. You amuse us, CambridgeBayWeather! The only thing funnier... is your imminent adminship! — JIP | Talk 14:56, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
10. Support Private Butcher 15:25, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
11. Support seems to vote on every RFA. freestylefrappe 15:56, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
12. Support Of Course --JAranda | watz sup 16:57, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
13. Support Was thinking of nominating him myself. -Greg Asche (talk) 18:15, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
14. Support. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:29, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
15. Support. Yes please! Shauri smile! 21:18, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
16. Strong support -- Francs2000 22:29, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
17. Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 23:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
18. [Support I've seen good work etc etc Grutness...wha? 00:20, 17 October 2005 (UTC) (It's spring! 20 lovely degrees celsius!)
19. I haven't had much opportunity to interact, but I do remember a survey on which Mr. Weather was a respondent, and he was very forthright in admitting that his edit count was insufficient to participate. Despite being unable to vote, he showed thoughtfulness in the comments he made. Ingoolemo ^talk 02:23, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
20. Support. -Splash^talk 03:00, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
21. Support. I see on my watchlist that he does very good work on articles related to Canada's North. Luigizanasi 03:09, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
22. Support. Seen'em, like'em. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:54, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
23. Support, as has been said above, I see this name reverting vandalism all the time.-gadfium 08:38, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
24. Support. Seen him during RC-patrol. Deserves his "Exceptional Newcomer" award. jni 09:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
25. Support. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m, +e ] 10:58, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
26. Support The usual ITHWO (I Thought He Was One). Banes 12:49, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
27. Andre (talk) 16:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
28. Support Stolen off JIP, I admit it FireFox 17:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
29. -- (drini's page|☎) 19:23, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
30. Florida Bay Weather Support. «»Who?¿?^meta 22:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
31. Support. Fine and sensible contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:20, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
32. Whoa... First time for me using RFA cliche #1, but... I thought this guy was already an admin! Support.  Denelson83  07:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
33. Support. Have noticed him around a lot recently. Will make a great admin. the wub "?!" 16:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
34. Support - He often appears on my watchlist doing Goog Things. The JPS 17:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
35. support he is a good contributor Yuckfoo 04:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
36. Support - Only suprises me the 3680 article edits but only 118 article talk pages... but in the end, who cares. :) --Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 20:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
37. Speedy support, per nom. Titoxd^(?!?) 21:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
38. Support Positive contributions to WP. Good egg. Hamster Sandwich 19:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
39. Support should make good admin. Alf ^melmac 08:30, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
40. Support. —Wayward ^Talk 11:40, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
41. Support V. Molotov (talk)
    19:33, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
42. Support - I was under the illusion that I had already voted support. Never mind. Better late than never... --Celestianpower ^háblame 21:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. --Boothy443 | comhrá 21:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

   File:Pikachu2.gif. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 20:14, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

• Due to the fact that I do some of my editing at work and that for some reason I get logged out of Wikipedia I would ask that potential voters please take a look at User talk:216.126.246.78 and User talk:216.126.246.118. The user pages for these two redirect to User:CambridgeBayWeather. The edits made from these two were not great but I feel that it's important that everyone know from what accounts I am editing and not using a sockpuppet. CambridgeBayWeather 05:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I think you should probably unredirect them. It's just a matter of time before a vandal acquires the address and a stressed-out RC patroller leaves the warning messages on your talk page! -Splash^talk 03:00, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

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

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

A. I would continue on with speedy deletes but more carefully. In other words, as a non-administrator it's very easy to tag articles for speedy knowing that someone else will check it over. As an administrator I would be the one checking to see if it could be changed to a redirect or brought up to a higher standard (I've already got better at doing both of these) rather than a speedy delete. I would like to try and help both with closing AfD and copyvios. Reverting of vandalism and blocking vandals where necessary. I would/do have a far bit of time for this sort of work as I have access both at home and during work. If I found that I was unsure of something then I would seek the advice of a more senior administrator.

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

A. As is obvious from my edits I am very involved in creating Canadian airports. This is being done because it's required rather than because I enjoy it. I do enjoy doing RC patrol to see what's happening. However, the thing I enjoy most is when doing RC patrol I come across articles like Harold Wagstaff and Henry Neville. The first one I found tagged as a speedy consisting of "Harold Wagstaff is a member of the Hall of Fame". A quick search on Google indicated that he was real and had some claim to notability. I made a quick save by removing the tag, giving a bit of context and saving with a edit summary indicating that I would work on the article. After a while I was able to produce a stub on the man that is now ready for editing by someone with more knowledge of Rugby League. I did this at work and due to being logged out of Wikipedia after 5-10 minutes it appears in the edit summary as User talk:216.126.246.78. The Henry Neville was a similar situation but was already a stub. I am not saying that I enjoy doing this due to the fact that I am producing great articles with wonderful prose, which I am not, but it gives me the opportunity to learn something new and the ability to provide information for others to build on.

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

A. So far very little. I suspect that because that this is due to the fact that the articles that are controversial are so far beyond my knowledge that I any edits I did to them (other than reverting obvious vandalism) would probably be considered vandalism anyway. There have only been a couple of people that I have had minor run in with. See User talk:70.81.117.175 who had made edits to Extremes on Earth for which I could not find a source. The nature of his edits, changing the -63 at Snag coldest in North America to -70 at Resolute and that the coldest inhabited place is Resolute at -22.8 (average) are related to my work and I felt they were incorrect. I asked for sources and he quoted the Scholastic Book of World Records for the average and two people on television for the -70. I know that depending on the way the data is handled can produce different results so I did not change that. However, I did revert the -70 back to the standard and verifiable -63. I also tried to explain that TV is not a valid source for information. It stayed at -63 until 02 October when he changed it back to -70 and I then reverted it. It happened again the next day. Since then the temperature has stood and if it happens again I would seek the assistance of someone else to see if I was being unreasonable. The only other person that I had a run in with was here: User talk:Lightbringer. Please see the section entitled "List of proposed Jack the Ripper suspects". It was not being called a Mason or a provider of Masonic propaganda (I'm not a Mason) but the fact that I would cut and paste copyright material. He has not answered my request and I doubt that I will have anything more to do with this user. In truth I come to Wikipedia to get away from the stress provided to me by my supervisor and I very much doubt that anything here could provide me with that much stress. Anyway, if I was being stressed then I would just stop for a few days rather than react to it.

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

---

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

Voice of All(MTG)

Final (26/4/2) ended 20:27 October 22, 2005 (UTC)

Voice of All(MTG) (talk · contribs) – I have been editing Wikipedia for several months now. I would like to be able to do more to prevent further vandalism to articles, which makes Wikipedia needlessly lose credibility. In addition, I don't mind perfoming some of the day-to-day cleanup tasks, such as checking RfAs ands AfDs and what not. I already do many of those tasks when I have the time, along with tagging, cleanup, and NPOV rewordings. I also follow a 1RR instead of 3RR as reverting someone more than once tends to lead staight into the next three times and just increases stress. My objective, as stated on my user page, is to make Wikipedia a factual, objective, and citable source. I stongly believe in encyclopedic standards for all Wikipedia articles; I do not, however, believe in needless censorship that takes away from articles. I have gained much experience editing Wikipedia(such as learning to use more edit summaries!:)), and I think that it would be to Wikipedia's benefit if I was given some extra tools. Voice of All ^@|E|Merit 20:27, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

For the above reasons, I have nominated myself for adminship:

Support

1. Redwolf24 (talk—How's my driving?) 21:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Support - I've seen him about the place being civil and nice. --Celestianpower ^hablamé 21:14, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Support, seems like a good user, and will be a good admin. But first, I have more edits than you ha ha! Private Butcher 21:15, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Support of course. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:32, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Support -Greg Asche (talk) 21:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 21:58, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
7. --JAranda | watz sup 00:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
8. Support!  BD2412 ^talk 05:01, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
9. SupportI like this editor and think he/she is one of the best mannered editors on the Wiki. I see Adminship as "no big deal" but encourage Voice of All to try and contribute more on RC Patrol and to heed friendly advice from well regarded admins that offer it.--MONGO 07:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
10. Support Polite editor, with many good contributions. Banes 15:03, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
11. Support — JIP | Talk 16:35, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
12. Support, with e-mail enabled. Thanks for doing so. Ral315 W_S 18:22, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
13. Support -- Francs2000 22:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
14. Voice of Support(sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m, +e ] 11:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC))
15. Andre (talk) 16:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
16. -- (drini's page|☎) 19:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
17. Support -- Essjay · Talk 23:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
18. Looking at his talk page, VAMTG appears to have a very high spirit. Supporting.  Denelson83  07:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
19. Support. the wub "?!" 16:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
20. Support devotion is more important than clicking "random article". freestylefrappe 00:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
21. Support. Friday (talk) 02:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
22. FireFox 08:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
23. Support. The Minister of War 10:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
24. Support. Very knowledgable, very helpful, very mature. This user knows a lot about Wikipedia and Wikipedia policy. He leave insightful and meaningful comments on the discussion page. And his contributions are solid. My vote thus reflects this opinion. -- E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - my dropsonde 22:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
25. Support V. Molotov (talk)
    19:32, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
26. Support. --tomf688^{talk} 22:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose till user sets/enables his email id. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

  Oppose per Nichalp. An admin needs an e-mail address for contact. Please leave a note on my talk page if you do so, and I'll gladly reconsider my vote. Ral315 W_S 08:34, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

  I already posted it my email up there yesterday on my user page. I also just enabled that e-mail feature.Voice of All ^@|E|Merit 15:22, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

  Thanks for enabling it. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:21, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

  Do not listen to him... Listen to us, User:JIP! An admin doesn't necessarily need an e-mail address. — JIP | Talk 16:35, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

  Yes, they most certainly do. Blockee's should be able to email you. If you don't have one set, I do hope you set it now. Redwolf24 (talk—How's my driving?) 05:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

1. Oppose. Many minor edits to only a few articles, and use of edit summaries is very poor. Owen× ☎ 12:36, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

   I either use an edit summary or "minor" when editing article space depending on what I am doing, so I would not considered it to be "very" poor. Also, I have made many edits that were not "minor", such as NLP, George Bush, History of Peurto Rico, Olmsted Amendment,Antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgery, Operation Bootstrap, Wraparound mortgage,Cephalosporin...and so on...I could go on...Finally, I would by no means not consider 230 distinct pages to be "only a few". 4000 Distince article is definitely a lot, so is 1000, but 230 is not "a few". Some people enjoy clicking "random page", some don't; both are still equally useful. Please check edit histories before making such comments and please do not exaggerate so much. Thank you.Voice of All ^{@|Esperanza|E M} 14:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

2. --Boothy443 | comhrá 21:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

   Note that this user has put "oppose", without any explanation on almost every single RfA all in one short time period. This is either an agenda(no more admins?) or a possible RfC case. Note that the RfA guidelines say please include a short explanation of your reasoning, particularly when opposing a nomination.Voice of All ^{@|Esperanza|E M} 21:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

   He has done for a while now, though I seem to recall he has voted support on a few very rare occasions. As for an RFC, it's been and gone. the wub "?!" 23:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

   Boothy does have admin standards and he explained them to Acetic Acid in one of his talk archives and they are very high so many admins dont even pass with his high admin standards, whichc explains his oppose vote. Jobe6 01:26, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

   Yea I seen Him vote support once in a while but that rare I think his limits on adminship are somewhere --JAranda | watz sup 23:54, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

   here. -Greg Asche (talk) 01:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

3. (posted after edit conflict with the wub) Oppose — while Voice of All(MTG) is a great contributor, I recently came across this edit posted by him on Redwolf24's talk page: boothy344 has voted no on every single RfA without explanation. This is not only suspesious, but against RfA guidlines. This is possible trolling warranting RfC. I wonder if the beaurocrates even count such silly votes. This is just ridiculous. (sic) ([18]) As far as I'm concerned, I would prefer admin candidates not to call someone a possible troll. Not only will this usually flame a conflict, but it may be considered a personal attack. Though I don't agree with Boothy's votes, he is a respected Wikipedian in good standing and should not be called a troll. The rest of the comment, along with his response to Boothy's vote above, also makes me hesistant. While it's OK to question Boothy's votes (many have done so, and I'm sure many will do so in the future), it's certainly not OK to call someone a troll. Combined with a low edit count percentage and diminishing edits on the project (see the chart; your overall contributions have leveled off since 9/16), I just don't think you're ready yet. You're a great Wikipedian, VOA, so please don't be discouraged by my comments. If this RfA fails (which it looks like it won't), I'd gladly support you in the future. Best wishes, and thanks for your understanding. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 23:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

   I said "possible" trolling. In addittion, my edits have increased shortly after I arrived at college. While I was first getting set up there, freshman year,(sept 18), I did not have much edit time. So that explains the temporary edit decrease. They are on the rise again, just get a new chart with Kate's tool or something. Also, I would not accuse him possible trolling if I was confronting him, I was merely discussing that possibility with other people. You should not the distinction. Also, thank you for your respect though, as the other two oppose votes are either unexplained or harsh and exaggerated. Voice of All ^{@|Esperanza|E M} 02:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

   Weak oppose Neutral based on: "Also, I would not accuse him possible trolling if I was confronting him, I was merely discussing that possibility with other people. You should not the distinction (sic)." I do note the distinction and think it a poor one. If you are unwilling to say something to someone directly how is it becoming of you to say it to others? Slander is not slander if presented in a person's company; it only becomes so when an accusation is levelled to third parties. Marskell 09:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

   It is not slander, I said "possible".

   And Boothy would not listen to me anyway, as others have tried, even made an RfC against him, and he totally ignored it. He simply signs under oppose, not bothering to even write "oppose", and then moves on to the next RfA and does the same. When people ask why, he just ignores them(I think that he did responde once to someone though).

   I often find it useful to discuss possible explanations of civility matter with other reasonable people like RedWolf24, and after I consider their opinions and ideas, I then can decide how to attack the situation. MONGO also believes that Boothy was being disruptive and unreasonable, but he also said that he doubts that he is a troll. I considered his opinion and agree. Let me be clear: I do not think that Boothy is a troll, he has made plenty of good contribitions. However, I do believe that being disruptive on RfA is a serious matter, that he should have responded in his RfC, and that such behavoir is uncivil, uneccesary, and makes Wikipedia more cold and harsh than it need be.

   Slander is knowingly saying something false about someone. I said possible trolling, not "he is a troll". In fact, one can do things that are considered trolling and still not be a troll, as they perhaps do not realize the extend of their actions. If I said "he is a troll" or "that was trolling", then it would be possible slander. If I said those things(which I didn't) and I knew that he was not trolling, then it would be slander.Voice of All ^{@|Esperanza|E M} 16:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

   Slander is knowingly saying something false about someone in their absence. Your boss is quite within his rights to bring you into his office and say "I believe you are stealing, what do you have to say for yourself?" even if he is in error; they are not allowed to circulate a rumour to this affect (or even "possibly stealing" which is just a subtler form of slander) amongst others, true or not, in the absence of your being able to defend yourself. Wiki isn't a court obviously, but my implication above is that it is actually acceptable to go to Boothy's page and tell him he is behaving like a troll if that's how you feel and you should actually do this rather than raising it with other people. Granted, an oppose without comment is frustrating and you have taken the time to respond so I will move to neutral. Marskell 17:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

   Thank you. I will try to be more direct in the future, but discussing it with a few others(2-3) in such cases helps me get a more neutral opinion if I am upset by something the relavant person is doing. That way, if I confront him/her, my greviences will less provacative and therefore more productive.Voice of All ^{@|Esperanza|E M} 17:58, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

4. Strong oppose The fact that you are in Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for encyclopedic merit the former Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency concerns me as well as calling assuming boothy a troll. Jobe6 21:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I never called him a "troll", that is just incorrect. Please read my above comments. Thank you.Voice of All ^{@|Esperanza|E M} 22:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral- Few edits on Wikipedia name space, and only 209 distinct pages edited. I would suggest a bit more grunt work and then I will support. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 22:58, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Neutral- per Jossifresco --Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 19:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• Candidate doesn't appear to contactable be email.Geni 22:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I posted my ID, so that is no longer the case.Voice of All ^@|E|Merit 15:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

• Could You tell what specific articles have you written from start (major contributions)? feydey 23:32, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
• A chart showing this user's edits along with a total # of edits line and average edits per day line is available here: Image:Voice-of-All(MTG)-edits.png. I offer this not as a more refined version of editcountitis, but as just one tool to help evaluate an admin nominee with a somewhat low edit count on Wikipedia. --Durin 14:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
• Use of edit summaries is 37%, 45% last 500 edits. Average edits per day is 17 and stable. --Durin 14:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

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

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

A. I will continue to participate in RfAs and VfDs along with various Community Portal Open Tasks. As an administrator, I could not only vote on AfDs, but I could also enforce the consensus once the polls close.

B. Additionally, I could delete relatively new (old enough that they are not just developing stubs) pages that obviosly meet speedy deletion requirements.

C. Reverting vandals using the Rollback feature.

D. Protecting articles only if absolutely necessary(severe POV disputes/trolls/nonstop vandalism from various sources).

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

A. I really enjoyed making edits to Puerto Rico related articles, as they have a calm and onstructive editing envirnment. Doing the research and finding sources gave me a break from NPOV tiptoeing on hot topics.

B. On the other hand, My expansions to the Health section, among other edits, to the George Bush article were quite pleasing, as only constructive edits were made to it by other users, in spite of the fact that the page is on such a contraversial topic. I also enjoyed making other NPOV edits to contraversial pages without getting into any conflicts; this is a testimant to the maturity and reasonable nature of most of Wikipedia's regular contributors.

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

A. My first few day here were rough as I ran into an IP troll. I removed his comment on the George Bush page, which made things get worse. I then realized that generally, it is better to just leave the comments alone, hence giving them no attention, hence I am not feeding the troll.

B. During my ealier time here, I also made an edited out some of Gavin the Chosen's amazingly poor grammar, causing RyanFriesling, who did not notice the ":)" in my edit summary to point errors that I made. That develped into a confict on the talk page, which soon after,was resolved on Ryan's talk page. She misunderstood that I was kidding around and I mistakenly assumed that she was trolling. So I further learned to Assume Good Faith after that(although that is admittedly one of the hardest Wiki-ideals to master).

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

---

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

Misterrick

Requests_for_adminship/Misterrick|action=edit}} Vote here (2/20/1) ending 06:52 October 22 2005 (UTC)

Misterrick (talk · contribs) – I would like have the opportunity to serve the Wikipedia community on a higher level. I have made many contributions and have proved myself to be reliable, I am on and monitor the Wikipedia site on a regular basis and I get along with other Wikipedia users including many of the admins. In my contributions you will see that I have kept my composure when pages that had contributed to were vandalized, Either I or another Wiki user reverted the page back to it's original text without any outbursts or anger on my part. I have also created a few new Wikipedia article which I thought would be in the interest of the Wiki community. I would also keep my Internet Relay Chat program open and set to the #wikipedia channel on the freenode.net server in the event that a user (including admins and newbies) need to contact me posthaste. Misterrick 06:51, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I hereby accept this nomination.

Support

1. Support, been through the contributions and talk, this user is hardly a threat. If he wants the tools, he may have them. --Bjarki 14:32, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 21:57, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - from his statement at the top and his answer to question 1, he seems to know little of what adminship entails and from his lack of edits to talk namespaces, he seems to have interacted little with the community at large. --Celestianpower ^hablamé 07:59, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

   In response, I would like to say I do know what an adminship entails and I strongly disagree with your opinion that I have lacked interaction with the community at large, It is my personal and humble opinion that your post of opposition is nothing more then an attempt to antagonize me into posting an angry response and to make me look like I am not mature enough to handle an administratorship, I'm sorry I won't allow you to try to bring me down. Misterrick 10:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

   I feel I am entitled to oppose on these grounds and see no reason to get hot under the collar. I don't "bait" users (as you would probaly know if you watched RfA) as this is unkind and not very courteous. There is no need to attack my vote and many people below, it would seem, agree with me. --Celestianpower ^hablamé 21:10, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

2. Oppose I rarely oppose, and I think this is only the second or third time I've done so for a non trivial issue. I would like to know why you want to be an administrator? Is is to get the rollback function and block users while working on your favourite article who have conflicting interests? You've been here since 2003, and you have 1300+ edits, and hardly anything in namespaces other than the main namespace. Please explain with a valid reason why you have a diparity in distribution wrt time. Since you contribute in the main namespace I have some questions: I've checked your upload log, but I still need some answers, how well do you know about image copyrights? Do you know the correct formats to use? It seems to me that you don't know anything about Fair use and copyrights. Can you prove me wrong? I also checked out the Mohegan Sun article. Do you know wikipedia's target audience? The article is slightly larger than a stub; why do like the article so much? Are you aware that driving directions are not considered encyclopedic? =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:43, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

   Ok, to answer your first question the main reason is not so I can go around banning people at a whim, I want to seriously work on Wikipedia to look at and help improve the vast number of articles, Only under dire circumstances and with consultation of other admins would I take any serious actions such as blocking a user either temporarily or permanently in response to your second question, Yes I do understand the concept of copyright and fair use, In fact I would like to point out that I am the owner and the co-owner of several registered U.S. Copyrights, Because of the type of business that I work in I need to be knowledgeable on current U.S. and International copyright and trademark laws and yes I am aware that driving directions are not encyclopedic but in the case of the driving distances listed in Mohegan Sun that is more for information purposes then anything else. Misterrick 10:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

   I doubt if Image:Jimboyd-tec.jpg qualifies as {{Fairold}}. Looks more like {{film-screenshot}} to me. (Plus, you've uploaded mostly static .gif files). I won't stoop to oppose you on such flimsy grounds, but I was just wondering if you knew about licences ,since you work in the article namespace and have been here for quite sometime. Now admins have been granted special tools: the blockuser, delete and protect page. (I won't include rollback here). Well, since you want to help improve the vast number of articles, how do you intend using these tools to actually "improve" articles? I usually like to extend my support to editors in their RFA nom, but I can find numerous problems with Mohegan Sun and Ramada, such as the lack of references. If you have solely worked on a better article, please let me know. Most of your recent edits were marked as minor, and I haven't found any real major contributions going back 100 edits or so in the article namespace. (I may be wrong). You also haven't answered my first question. I have no problems with low edit counts, provided you can give me a satisfactory reason, and those edits are valuable to the encyclopedia. =Nichalp «Talk»= 20:22, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

3. weak Oppose well, his reaction to the first oppose makes me wonder if this user can handle disagreement: "I'm sorry I won't allow you to try to bring me down. Misterrick 10:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)" ??? Besides, adminship isn't needed to improve articles and correct misspellings. -- (drini's page|☎) 15:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Oppose your edit count and distribution seems okay, but your reasons for wanting adminship are misguided. You have done scant RC patrol, you haven't been active in voting here at RfA at all. You have been active at IFD and AFD, which is good. Your edit summary usage looks fairly high, which is good. Stay active at IFD/AFD, do more RC patrol, vote more in community events such as RfA, and next time, give us a better reason of why you need the admin tools and I will have no problem supporting. -Greg Asche (talk) 16:15, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Oppose per Drini...woops...got a little confused there... freestylefrappe 18:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

   Huh? =Nichalp «Talk»= 20:22, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

   I think he meant Drini. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 20:34, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

   No, I don't think he did. The candidate is going to be hung by his own words. -Splash^talk 21:14, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

   Don't bite. Marskell 22:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

   I didn't. And anyone who comes to RfA is not (or should not be) a newbie. -Splash^talk 00:33, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

   Huh? You mean anyone who noms or is nominated? A newbie can stumble across this page and still contribute usefully. By don't bite, I just meant "hey, he's going to be opposed, no need to rub it in." Marskell 10:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

6. Oppose per Drini. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 20:34, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
7. Oppose per everyone above—especially his reaction to Celestianpower's vote. Oran e (t) (c) (@) 20:59, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
8. Oppose. If that was the intent of Celestianpower's vote, it appears to have worked. Also, the answer to Q1 misunderstands the nature of adminship. It is not the role of admins to monitor Wikipedia's articles any more than other editors. They are not moderators, they are janitors. -Splash^talk 21:14, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
9. Oppose, per all those reasons given. Private Butcher 21:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
10. Oppose Don't like the reasons he gave. --JAranda | watz sup 00:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
11. Strong Oppose His response to Celestianpower showed to me that he's unable to deal with disputes in a constructive way, his edit count is low, the response to answer #1 shows a complete misunderstanding of admin duties(regarding asking for consensus before doing anything, which almost sounds like someone would need to babysit him), and the final nail in the coffin was the self nom per my views on them at User:Karmafist/wikiphilosophies. Karmafist 02:13, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
12. Oppose I've seen Celestianpower here for quite some time, and he neither baits nor bites. The above response seems to assume bad faith.  BD2412 ^talk 05:05, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
13. Oppose. Sorry to pile on, but he's hung himself. User:Zoe|^(talk) 05:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
14. Oppose - agree with Celestianpower and Drini. User seems naive in the ways of Wikipedia. --Scott Davis ^Talk 07:52, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
15. Oppose for reasons already stated by Drini and others -- Francs2000 22:34, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
16. Oh Dear God No! waaaaaay too green of a user to even ponder the chance of rollback and blocking powers, responses to some of the above opposition votes makes me wonder if this person can take criticism at all without considering it a personal attack.  ALKIVAR™ 00:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
17. Oppose, which I don't think I've ever done, as per the response to Celestianpower. Immediately going into a defensive stance and violating WP:AGF because of criticism is a disqualifier in my book. If you become an admin, you'll be faced with vandals with much less scruples than an admin has. Titoxd^(?!?) 21:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
18. Oppose. Sorry about piling on, but I have to agree with Celestianpower and Drini. Needs more experience first, and we'll see what happens. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
19. Oppose. Response to Celestianpower is worrying. the wub "?!" 16:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
20. Support per Bjarki--Rogerd 04:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC) Oppose after reviewing responses, I have changed my mind--Rogerd 00:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral. I oppose this candidate's becoming an admin, but he already hasn't a snowball's chance of succeeding, so I didn't think it was worth the bother to pile up on the oppose votes. — JIP | Talk 18:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• Please fix your ending time. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
• 1,385 edits per Kate's Tool, although I can't vouch 100% for the link due to the new essay Kate's put on there, and speaking of which, is there any way to just circumvent that essay page? Remind me to ask Kate later if nobody knows. Karmafist 02:13, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

  Good 'ol Kate is making it hard to access the tool for a reason. Down with editcountitits!Borisblue 02:41, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

• A chart showing this user's edits along with a total # of edits line and average edits per day line is available here: Image:Misterrick-edits.png. I offer this not as a more refined version of editcountitis, but as just one tool to help evaluate an admin nominee with a somewhat low edit count on Wikipedia.--Durin 14:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
• Use of edit summaries is virtually 100%. Average edits per day is stable, and less than 2 per day. --Durin 14:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

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

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

A. To monitor Wikipedia's articles to find errors and misspellings etc.. in the articles and fix them promptly and to help keep a watch for unscrupulous users and take appropriate action only with a consensus approval of Wikipedia Administrators.

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

A. I am most pleased with two articles Mohegan Sun and Ramada because with Mohegan Sun I was able to take an article which had almost no information and turn it into a fully functioning page of information and for Ramada I was able to create a brand new article about a subject which has not yet been touched.

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

A. Yes, most recently Mohegan Sun in which an unregistered user kept vandalizing the page I in response left a warning on their talk page asking them not to vandalize the page any further and even after several admins and I reverted the changes this user in turn responded by using threats and foul language I then contacted a Wikipedia Admin on the #Wikipedia IRC chat server and requested that they look into this and if possible to block them from further editing which was done. I remained calm and level headed during this entire time.

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

---

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

Garzo (Gareth Hughes)

Final (37/0/0) ended 14:35, October 20 2005 (UTC)

Garzo (talk · contribs) – Garzo, editing since November 23 2004, among other contributions, used his professional knowledge to bring Aramaic language to featured article status and to cover the subject area by a net of articles for more details. He is helpful and friendly on talk pages. See his user page for more details. Pjacobi 23:15, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Thank you very much, Pjacobi. I accept. Gareth Hughes 00:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. --Pjacobi 23:16, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
2. –Hajor 23:28, 13 October 2005 (UTC) Without a moment's hesitation.
3. Support yet another non working vote here link CambridgeBayWeather 00:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Enthusiastically. —Charles P. (Mirv) 00:50, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Support 3573 edits - more than enough. freestylefrappe 01:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Support good work --Rogerd 02:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
7. Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 05:18, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
8. -- (drini's page|☎) 05:44, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
9. ---I support him. From Analee
10. Support.  Denelson83  07:53, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
11. Support. Peace be with you. - Darwinek 14:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
12. Oran e (t) (c) (@) 15:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
13. Support, will make an excellent administrator. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 16:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
14. Support. El_C 19:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
15. Support, good luck. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:22, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
16. I was surprised to learn he wasn't an administrator already ... ;-) Benne 20:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
17. Support Private Butcher 21:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
18. Support. KHM03 21:45, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
19. Support. --Bhadani 08:48, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
20. Support - Guettarda 13:33, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
21. Support. / Peter ^Isotalo 13:45, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
22. Support. Approachable and friendly user. --HappyCamper 16:07, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
23. Support. Any user interaction I've looked at has been fine. Dlyons493 Talk 16:10, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
24. Support. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 16:27, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
25. My support too. --MissingLinks 17:13, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
26. yes, of course. An asset to the community. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 23:02, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
27. How does one say support in Aramaic? --Fire Star 01:07, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
28. Support. I like what I see in his history. He has had a lot of edits and has been around since 2003. I think he can be entrusted with additional authority. Martin-C 10:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
29. Strong support -- Francs2000 22:35, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
30. Support. Blessed are the peacemakers, and, I might add, the ones that provide quality content. — mark ✎ 10:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
31. Support per nom. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m, +e ] 11:09, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
32. Support Proto t c 12:32, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
33. Support. - BanyanTree 21:44, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
34. Support —Wayward ^Talk 04:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
35. Support, of course. - Mustafaa 11:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
36. Support —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
37. Support Yuber^(talk) 00:27, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
38. Support—Gaff ^ταλκ 02:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
39. FireFox 08:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
40. Support. The Minister of War 10:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

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

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

A. I do come across a lot of vandalism during my wikitimes. This is, perhaps, because my watchlist covers quite a few controversial topics. So, rollback will certainly speed up my anti-vandal patrols. I understand the need for full edit summaries, and so would be particularly loath to use rollback when a more full summary, or careful rewording is required. I get a bit frustrated at the backlog of chores that require a sysop, so I would definitely help out with page moves, merges and splits. Blocking, deletion and page protection are things that I wouldn't be keen to start doing too quickly. I've been a sysop on Religion Wiki for a while.

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

A. I am most pleased with Aramaic language. That article has given birth to a lot of children, and I'm looking to see if any of them are close to featured status (Syriac language and Ephrem the Syrian in particular). A while back, I produced templates for displaying hieroglyphs in articles about Ancient Egypt, and I think they look nice.

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

A. Yes, I have been shouted and sworn at, but I'm glad it's only been on a couple of occassions. I'm also glad that I've never lost my temper, and have always tried to involve others in the establishment of consensus on the talk page. I would certainly not want to use sysop powers under such circmstances.

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

---

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

Tregoweth

Vote here (47/0/1) ending 05:27 October 18, 2005 (UTC)

Tregoweth (talk · contribs) – A HUGE help in helping slay vandals, especially in light of the all-out assault by the troll nicknamed "Mascot Guy." Great work, great fun and a great asset to this site. Please support! - Lucky 6.9 05:27, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination. tregoweth 06:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Extreme first support vote. I was going to nominate him myself, but I am a lazy slacker and I kept forgetting. Sorry. Gamaliel 06:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Strong support. This user has put in an amazing number of edits (not to fall victim to editcountitis, but over 16,000 edits shows strong commitment to the project). I don't see any problems with giving Tregoweth the mop. Ral315 W_S 06:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Aw, nuts! I forgot to support my own candidate! - Lucky 6.9 17:04, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 21:18, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Strong Support OMG 16,000 edits Top VandalSlayer and not a Admin Im in shock --JAranda | watz sup 21:20, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Martin 21:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
7. Strong support. Andre (talk) 21:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
8. Oran e (t) (c) (@) 22:11, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
9. Support. El_C 22:13, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
10. Support CambridgeBayWeather 22:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
11. Support fellow vandal slayer ≈ jossi fresco ≈ 23:13, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
12. Support Private Butcher 23:59, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
13. Support. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:30, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
14. Support. Kirill Lokshin 00:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
15. Support, although I am not sure why it took so long. Rje 01:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
16. Support it's about time --Rogerd 02:32, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
17. Support Access to the rollback tool would be a benefit. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:11, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
18. Support with the quickness. Proto t c 09:05, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
19. -- (drini's page|☎) 05:43, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
20. Support. If drini supports, then you must be a good user.

    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhetoricalwater (talk • contribs) 14:38, October 14, 2005 UTC

21. Support. --Kbdank71 14:39, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
22. EXTREME COPYCAT SUPPORT. RfA cliché--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 16:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
23. Support I hold any great vandal slayer in high regard, especially this one. Banes 17:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
24. Oh, such a cliche, but still quite true: You mean he's not already an admin?! Yes, full Support; level-headed and even-handed and good vandal-fighter. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
25. Support. --Fire Star 02:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
26. Support. -- DS1953 05:59, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
27. Support if he teaches that picture of Johnson, on his userpage, how to read. ∞Who?¿? 08:15, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
28. Support /me hands you a Vorpal Sword of Vandal Slaying +6  ALKIVAR™ 10:52, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
29. Support - Guettarda 13:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
30. Support Dlyons493 Talk 16:23, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
31. Support --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 16:26, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
32. First-time-ever-voting-on-an-RfA-support ♥purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ ^(contribs) 18:45, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
33. Absolutely ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 23:11, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
34. Support, good work. feydey 23:37, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
35. Get them kid! Shauri smile! 04:56, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
36. Support, strong contributer.  BD2412 ^talk 05:06, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
37. Support.encephalon 06:06, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
38. Furry Alien Support will make fine admin. Alf ^melmac 07:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
39. That's hot. Mike H (Talking is hot) 08:44, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
40. Support. --Anetode 12:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
41. Support. --Bhadani 13:38, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
42. Support -- Francs2000 22:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
43. Definite support. +sj + 01:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
44. Support, good editor and patroller --Saluyot 01:44, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
45. Support. If I recognise a name on RFA nowadays it must be a good candidate. JFW | T@lk 03:20, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
46. Support. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m, +e ] 11:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
47. Support. the wub "?!" 16:25, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
48. Support. Hoary 12:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

1. Answers to the questions set below are very short. Astrotrain 21:15, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

   Did you want War and Peace? Mike H (Talking is hot) 08:45, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

   No, but he has written much less than any other candidate, it would have been better to specify what specific areas he was pleased with, and give examples of what conflicts he was involved in. Astrotrain 21:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments

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

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

A. A lot of my edits now are housekeeping of one form or another (copyediting, reverting bad edits, watching for vandalism, etc.); I expect as a sysop I would continue this, along with helping other people with speedy deletes, page moves, renames, and all of the other things I've asked of admins. :)

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

A. Probably my work on categories and disambiguation pages; I'm always pleased when I can make articles easier for someone to find.

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

A. I have had a few minor conflicts (usually resolved), and some users have caused me stress, but I try to remain calm and reasonable.

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

---

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

Jcw69

Vote here (28/0/0) ending 17:03 19th October (UTC)

Jcw69 (talk · contribs) – Jcw69 is an experienced, dedicated user, who has been here since May, 2004. For those with editcountititis, he has well over 3500 edits. Jcw69 has almost single handedly written the geography of South Africa (in terms of places in South Africa) on wikipedia, in addition to many articles pertaining to that country's military and people. He also makes full use of edit summaries. In conclusion, he is a fine editor whom I believe ought to be given the mop. Banes 17:03, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:Thank you Banes, I accept this nomination--Jcw69 11:15, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Pre Nomination Support Good User --JAranda | yeah 19:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Support As nominator. You stole my spot, I thought he had to accept before anyone could vote! Banes 07:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Support Any editor of South African pages knows Jcw69 Wizzy…☎ 06:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Support He's a polite and dedicated editor, who has contributed a staggering amount on South Africa. Impi 08:32, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Support per Impi. freestylefrappe 18:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Support. Another nomination where the vote here link does not work. CambridgeBayWeather 18:26, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
7. Support. In looking through your talk page, I see that the Wikipedia community thinks very highly of you. So, if it's not too premature, welcome aboard.  Denelson83  18:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
8. Support MONGO 20:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
9. Support, sure. --Bjarki 20:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
10. Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 21:17, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
11. Support. El_C 22:13, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
12. Support Private Butcher 23:59, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
13. Support.Oran e (t) (c) (@) 00:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
14. Support. As above. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:30, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
15. Support --Rogerd 02:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
16. -- (drini's page|☎) 05:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
17. Support. A good lad, he'll go far--Xiphon 06:12, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
18. Support. A good and experienced editor – invaluable contributions, particularly in South Africa and related articles – not much work in the Wikipedia namespace yet, but given the challenge I've no doubt he'll rise to it. --Bruce1ee 09:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
19. Support. It's about time. - Darwinek 09:42, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
20. Support lots of excellent work. Dlyons493 Talk 16:27, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
21. Support to the guy in the green jersey with the 'bok on it. Grutness...wha? 00:03, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
22. Support: --Bhadani 13:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
23. Support -- Great work so far, I only expect it to continue! dewet|™ 17:46, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
24. Support -- Francs2000 22:37, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
25. Support. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m, +e ] 11:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
26. Support. Proto t c 12:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
27. Support. Reperire 12:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
28. Support. Elf-friend 14:50, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
29. Support. The Minister of War 10:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC) Only now noticed voting's over! The Minister of War

Oppose

Oppose till user sets/enables his email id. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:02, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

opps, did not know that was needed, anyway I think it is enabled now. (set it in preferences). Thanks for the heads up --Jcw69 19:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

It's not a strict requirement, but Nichalp feels (and I tend to concur) that if you're going to be able to block somebody, they need to be able to email you since they won't be able to post on your talk page. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 21:41, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I believe there was such a requirement about a year back. I have no idea how it got lost in the everchanging rules. Thanks Lomn, but it's not only that. There are many situations that require some level private conversation. Issues on users for example, or perhaps on some policies. Everthing on WP can be retrieved, and so of course this is not the best medium to discuss such private matters. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:43, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

• According to nom, "Makes full use of edit summaries". Edit summary usage is 40%, 80% over last 500 edits, 77% over last 100. --Durin 18:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• When I said that, I meant over the recent ones. Banes 19:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I realise that I have been overlook the edit summaries but I am working on it. --Jcw69 19:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

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

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

A. My main goal is to put South Africa (and the rest of Africa) onto the Wikipedia map but as an administrator I’ll need to increase my work into other fields. For example not to be limited by geography and to increase my RC watch making sure that the vandals don’t get out of hand. An administrator needs to be open, approachable and transparent. Be able to listen and with the mentorship of other administrators make the right decisions. This is something that I will strive to be and with the proper guidance I believe I will be a successful administrator. Jcw

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

A. I am never entirely satisfied with any of my contributions because they always need improvement. In the beginning when I was novice, I made many mistakes but I think I have come a long way since then. This will stand me in good stead as an administrator because I’ve been there, done it and have the “bruises to show”. If I had to choose, it would be the Timeline of South African history with all its pages off it. The reason why: The pages have taken a long time to get where they have and they are many more years of work and information ahead to get them to a standard where I am completely satisfied. Jcw

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

A. Not what I call conflicts. I have been in disagreement with other users but most of the time I just listen. I like to ask a question on a discussion page and then watch the debate. The main one that comes to mind is the Battle of Spion Kop which in all South African minds should be the Battle of Spioenkop but a few disagree and used google as a weapon. Anyway a vote was taken and page left were it is. Jcw

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

---

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

thames

Vote here (26/3/1) ending 15:30 20 October 2005 (UTC)

thames (talk · contribs) – I've found Thames to be a very level-headed editor, I don't think he's ever been in a serious conflict despite the fact that he specializes in political philosophy articles that attract a lot of dispute. Take a look at his contribs, and you will find plenty of "rvv"s- articles on his watchlist apparently attract a lot of POV-pushing vandals and I think Thames will find it easier to deal with them once he has the tools. Those suffering from editcountitis will be glad to hear that he has passed the 3000 edit mark recently. While most of his edits are in article space, a quick look at his user page will show that he has a firm grasp of wikipedia policies and philosophy (note the essay at the bottom). Borisblue 15:30, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept Borisblue's nomination.

Support

1. Borisblue 15:33, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Support plenty of edits, and satisfactory answers. freestylefrappe 16:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Support. KHM03 17:02, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Support. Good user. --Bjarki 20:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 21:16, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Support. El_C 22:13, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
7. Support. If he doesn't have time to use his powers, will it really do any harm? The candidate's amount of time available to spend on Wikipedia in the future shouldn't be a primary consideration in granting or withholding admin powers.--Scimitar ^parley 22:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
8. Support CambridgeBayWeather 22:41, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
9. Support Private Butcher 00:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
10. Support, good user, reasons for opposition so far are weak at best. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
11. Support I simply had to oppose those who oppose on grounds of the user's lack of time. This is, in my opinion, one of the very worst reasons I see for opposing adminship. It does not mean that the project would not benefit from a user having sysop access nor does it imply that one is at all untrustworthy, uncivil, or not knowledegble about policy (although it may mean that these things take longer to show.) Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 00:53, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
12. Support A part time, trustworthy admin is worth having --Rogerd 02:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
13. I actually like the honesty of admitting not having much time. Why is it that worse than people claiming that will fix everytihng on wikipedia even if they won't? – (drini's page|☎) 05:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
14. Support - Lot of dedication in vandal fighting – Obradović Goran (ta^lk 09:30, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
15. Support - Harmless. And many an intention to concentrate on school in favor of Wikipedia has gone awry ;) Haukur Þorgeirsson 00:03, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
16. Support user's on statements regarding lack of time show levelheadedness and honesty... passes my bar.  ALKIVAR™ 10:51, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
17. Support deserves the recognition. Dlyons493 Talk 16:29, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
18. Support - I don't see how not having a lot of time to do stuff means that you should not get admin tools - having lots of people fixing stuff now and again is surely healthier than having a few obsessives working flat out. A solid editor by all accounts. Lupin|talk|popups 03:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
19. I think it's refreshing when a potential admin admits that he won't be on the Wikipedia 24/7. People who use that against him trouble me. Hot support. Mike H (Talking is hot) 08:51, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
20. Andre (talk) 20:49, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
21. Support good admins are always useful, even if they don't edit all that often.  Grue  21:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
22. Support He can have the mop, even if he doesn't use it much. -DDerby-(talk) 04:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
23. Support. Opposing due to warning that he won't be an active admin is new to me. There are several very good contributors here who have admin tools but don't use them much, Camembert is one I can think of off the top of my head. The good work and experience is enough for me to support, even though I haven't interacted with Thames much, just reviewed his contributions. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
24. Support per Scimitar. the wub "?!" 16:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
25. Support --MONGO 03:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
26. Support. Inactivity shouldn't be a problem. Ral315 W_S 07:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
27. Support. I don't understand the insufficient activity concerns. If an editor is suitable for the tools, give them the tools. Another admin doing janitorial work once in a while is better than none at all, right? Friday (talk) 02:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
28. Support The Minister of War 10:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose (reluctantly): The answer to question 1 below is curious. You want to be an admin (you accepted the nom), but doubt you'll have time to do admin things? Why do you need the tools then? The things you say you'd like to spend time on do not need admin tools. Use of edit summaries is a touch lower than I like to see (59% overall, 76% over last 500 edits), and activity level is a bit lower than I like to see (7 edits a day over last 90 days, and that average has been slowly but steadily dropping for the last six months). Your intention of beginning a PhD program means this average will drop further. Also, I am a bit concerned about possible overuse on your part of the {{fairuse}} tag on various images that you have uploaded. About 1/4 of the images you've uploaded have been tagged with this tag, which really shouldn't be used if possible. Lastly, 352 of your last 500 edits have been marked as minor. Are you perhaps over-using the minor edit box? This edit and this edit, for example, do not seem minor to me (but I readily admit this is subjective). Convince me as to why you need/want admin tools when you won't be using them, and I'll probably change my vote. All the best, --Durin 18:02, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

   I nommed him because I noticed he does deal with a lot of vandalism despite not being an active rc-patroller- this is due to the nature of the articles he is interested in. And stuff about being busy- well, I would think that it's more important to be sure our admins don't abuse their powers rather than be sure that they do use them. There was an interesting discussion pertaining this in here. Note in particular that last comment by dab.Borisblue 18:26, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

   I appreciate your comments, as nominator, but I'm hoping for an answer from the nominee. In particular, he says "If I had the time, I would likely involve myself in this project: Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles". So he doesn't have time, but wants the admin tools? This doesn't make sense, to me anyways. --Durin 18:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

   Durin, you raise several relevant points. I wanted to make very clear that I was nominated—I didn't request the nomination myself, the reason being that I did not feel that I could find the time to perform regular maintenance tasks. That's something that everyone considering this nomination should weigh. As for your other concerns, a good portion of my edits without summaries are done to my own user page, which is the only page I edit without summarizing (perhaps I should start, but I never thought my own user page was a big deal). I also did make clear that my ability to contribute is limited by my real world activities (job, PhD), although one cannot go simply by number of edits alone—some are quite minor, like reverts, others are rather larger, like some of my recent edits to Isaac Newton, wherein I used the preview button in order to limit the number of edits I made. I only upload images when an article I'm editing needs one, and in many cases a public domain image does not exist. I am conscientious about tagging all of my images, and have been from day one. I am not indifferent, however, to the free nature of wikipedia, and my use of fair use images is not indiscriminate. Finally, you are correct that some of my edits are tagged as minor when they shouldn't be—I have the "This is a minor edit" box checked automatically in my preferences, and sometimes, when editing in haste, I forget to uncheck it. I don't mark edits as minor in some sort of attempt to obfuscate my changes from other wikipedians. Finally, I certainly don't need admin tools, but if approved to have them, I believe I could use them prudently when needed. Yours, —thames 20:32, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

2. Oppose. User admits to not having the time to do admin chores. Also, with the projects that he/she wants to be involved in, no admin powers are needed. User is a good editor, though. I will support when he/she is "ready". Oran e (t) (c) (@) 22:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Oppose WHats the point of having admin powers if you don't have the time. And if you did't want to be nominated you could have just declined. Jobe6 23:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Remaining neutral - this is a good user who could benefit from having admin abilities, however openly admits to not having the time to actually do admin things. – Francs2000 22:40, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments

1. I would like to quote dab in a recent wikipedia talk comment, since he has wise advice that deals with admins that can't commit that much time to Wikipedia. Context is found here: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_29#Do_we_need_more_admins.3F Borisblue 18:35, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

   I notice there are a lot of nominations lately. Having enough admins is good, because it lets us be picky about candidates. If there is some doubt, or if they do not clearly have enough experience, vote oppose. However, if the candidate is obviously good, there is no reason not to vote for them. Note that not all admins spend all day fixing things. I'm one, and I don't feel obliged to clean up after WoW when I prefer to spend my time adding content (I'm not paid for this after all) So, while I make occasional good use of my admin powers, blocking the odd vandal here or deleting some nonsense there, I am not a dedicated member of the mopping-up squad. Now, 5,000 good editors doing the occasional admin work are at least as good as 50 full-time admins. Bottom line, be picky, but keep nominating trusted users! dab (ᛏ) 21:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC) (quote by Borisblue)

   The number of pages and articles per admin has been steady over the last month, as has the # of edits per day per admin. I don't see any reason to be less picky about who we select. I personally like to see active admins. I always have. That does not cast any judgement on the worthiness of an editor. --Durin 18:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

2. Since I'm not familiar with the candidate, no vote, just a comment: what does it matter if he won't have much time to do admin chores? It's not as though promoting him takes up a place someone who has more time might get; there's no limit. If he also does a little, that a little less work everyone else has to do. I don't believe there's any reason to deny a trustworthy editor admin rights. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Getting somewhat ahead of yourself, aren't you? jguk 16:52, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

   Hehe, I like to think positive. If it doesn't work out, it can easily be changed. —thames 22:52, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

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

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

A. Unfortunately, this is an area where I may not be able to shine as an administrator. My real world job, and the fact that I'm going to be applying to PhD programs in the next month or two, will mean that I will have very little time to perform regular maintenance, or assist in various projects. My own watchlist is rather small (about 500 articles), and I'm mostly concerned with defending article quality there. If I had the time, I would likely involve myself in this project: Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles. (In real life, I was able to go to the DC Wikipedian's meetup, which I very much enjoyed, and was able to advise on the founding of the U.S. Chapter of Wikimedia.) But as far as chores, I just don't have the time right now, and that's worth considering as you vote on my nomination.

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

A. I've been a regular participant in the Wikipedia Collaborations of the Week, which I think is a very important community institution. I also helped to create the Wikipedia:Collaborations overview page, in order to assist others in setting up more collaborations. In the real world, I'm a research assistant in a think tank, so a large number of my contributions come out of my reading: either news stories on current events, or history books. Some of my most contentitious editing has been in various templates (Template:Christianity, Template:Islam, Template:Communism sidebar) where I've consistently tried to fight bloat and enforce talk page consensus. I've also worked on NPOV issues, such as the Rendition page, which I created, and on Neoconservatism (Japan), which I also created. Some of my larger and longer contributions are Geopolitik, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Oswald Spengler, and Decline of the West—all of which are still works in progress.

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

A. I've had one instance of copyvio, which I disputed because I didn't think that corporate bios were copyrighted (see my talk page). Outside of that, I've not had any particular transgressions. As I said above, most of my editing conflicts were in trying to enforce talk page consensus and anti-bloat measures on templates. I had a bit of a tiff over whether the dissolution of the Soviet Union counted as Decolonization, where, again, I relented. I defended Neoconservatism (Japan) from VFD, where I cited enough sources that those opposed to my article relented. I defended Chickenhawk (politics) from User:Walabio's very POV assertions. Other than those relatively minor incidents, I've not really had any full-out conflicts with other users, something I'm particularly proud of. Generally, if you approach others with respect, cite your sources calmly, and let other Wikipedians know that you enjoy editing with them, most conflicts can be avoided before they have a chance to begin.

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

---

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

Freestylefrappe

Final (38/11/3) ending 01:10 October 19, 2005 (UTC)

Freestylefrappe (talk · contribs) – This is Freestylefrappe's second nomination (May 2005 was the first) after an earlier self nomination failed essentially to not enough edits (only about 450 at that time). Today, Kate's tool shows a total of almost 3,000 edits for those that care about edit counts. Freestylefrappe is well rounded; he almost always uses edit summaries, contributes to Wiki namespace, has made big contributions of quality to numerous articles, doesn't engage in edit wars, utilizes talk pages and is an overall asset to Wikipedia. He has been around for over a year and has familiarity with six languages. Time for a mop and a bucket MONGO 01:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I gratefully accept. freestylefrappe 01:43, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Support As nominator, absolutely! MONGO 01:11, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Support does not fit my opposing criteria. --Bjarki 02:17, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Support --JAranda | watz sup 02:18, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Support RfA cliche #1. -Greg Asche (talk) 02:19, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Support, he seems to do good work. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:35, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Support Can't have too many! And doesn't seem to be an Albanian, Macedonian, Pakistani, Indian, Hindu, or Ahmadi. --BorgHunter (talk) 03:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
7. Support. El_C 03:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
8. Support Jobe6 03:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
9. Weak Support. This user once annoyed me about a joke I did to WikiFanatic after I already apologized days ago, so that rather ignored me that s/he (assume she) was reprimanding me for it after it was over. But otherwise the Frappe is a pretty good editor. Redwolf24 (talk—How's my driving?) 03:54, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
10. Yup (I was sure he was an Albanian Hindu). Grutness...wha? 05:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
11. Support. For sure! Banes 05:33, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
12. Support Give him a mop`! --Rogerd 05:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
13. Merovingian (t) (c) 07:15, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
14. Support would have been easier if the vote here link worked. CambridgeBayWeather 07:46, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
15. S'port --Doc (?) 07:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
16. Support. --Monkbel 10:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
17. Support. the wub "?!" 11:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
18. Support. Frappe does good things. -Splash^talk 12:26, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
19. Support. utcursch | talk 13:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
20. Support. KHM03 15:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
21. Support. Kirill Lokshin 15:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
22. Support.Oran e (t) (c) (@) 15:41, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
23. Support Looks to be a strong editor. Maltmomma ^(chat) 17:08, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
24. Support --{{IncMan|talk}} 00:13, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
25. -- (drini's page|☎) 05:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
26. —Charles P. (Mirv) 19:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
27. Bring him in, boys! (And girls; no bias here.)  Denelson83  22:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
28. Support. CDThieme 03:05, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
29. Support Molotov (talk)File:Caranimationforvmolotov.gif
    
30. Guettarda 13:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
31. Support Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 19:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
32. Support Good history. Dlyons493 Talk 19:14, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
33. Support. Jonathunder 22:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
34. Slac speak up! 20:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
35. Strong support -- Francs2000 22:40, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
36. Support editcountitiscountitis is fatal.  Grue  21:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
37. Support —Wayward ^Talk 06:20, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
38. Martin 09:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Weak Oppose. I would support, but during my RfA, this user went around to other people's talk pages and told them to vote against me. He failed to assume good faith on multiple editors parts. I do not particularly care for this type of behaviour. This should be no big deal, so I should at least vote neutral since I don't mind his contributions, but I just cannot support this candidate at this time. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

1. Oppose. --Scimitar ^parley 16:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Oppose. I'd have expected this user to have been a bit more proactive in solving edit disputes, especially on articles started by him. Seems to be like he is on his own track offering little assistance to the actual issues on hand. More maturity required. Idleguy 16:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Weak oppose. I have no objections against him as an editor, and this is the first time I ever oppose a RfA; but his attitude of contacting other users who, like him, had voted against my RfA based on edicountitis in order to establish a common baseline to oppose other "inexperienced" users from becoming admins [19], dissapointed me. Shauri smile! 00:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Oppose, I am sorry Freestylefrappe, but learning how important you feel edit counts to be, I'd rather see you get more experience, first. If your vote should fail, see that as an opportunity in your personal evolution as a Wikipedian.--Wiglaf 06:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

   He has over three thousand edits and he's been here a year. How much more experience do you think he needs? unsigned edit by CDThieme (talk · contribs)

   Since he feels that edit counts are so important that he wrote what Shauri has indicated, I really think we should give him the opportunity of building up an edit count that makes him feel worthy. He deserves that opportunity.--Wiglaf 21:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

5. Weak Oppose. While I can place trust in you, I don't know if you know all the WP guidelines yet. Back in late August/early September in my own RfA, you said that "you cannot become an admin until you have made 1,000 edits". Sorry. --WikiFanatic^{Talk Contribs 23:48, 13 October 2005 (CDT)}

   As I left a note below in the comments section, Freestylefrappe lost his first nomination due to a low edit count, at which time a half dozens folks then told him his edit count was too low...this is the primary reason he may have made the comments to you and to others along a similar vein.--MONGO 04:53, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

   Hahaha, no, see WikiFanatic's talk page and my own for an explanation. I wasnt speaking in terms of policy, I was trying to be realistic. freestylefrappe 19:56, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

6. Oppose per Wiglaf. Places a strong emphasis on edit counts. Andre (talk) 22:26, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
7. "a total of almost 3,000 edits for those that care about edit counts" (emphasis mine). A rather ironic comment. Oppose. – ugen64 02:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

   Why is that an ironic comment?--MONGO 05:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

   In regard to the last five users who have voted oppose, RFA voting style has nothing to do with being an admin. It does not reflect my experience with Wikipedia nor does it have any connection to how I will use sysop privleges. You are voting against me based on a longstanding and precedented policy of requiring a certain number of edits. Perhaps you have not seen Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards...? Or perhaps you had seen that page, but were unaware of my Userpage where I state a minimum of 1,000 edits - which, compared to the standards of many other users, some of whom are admins, would seem small. freestylefrappe 03:58, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

   Actually, the fact that your RfA votes usually look like "oppose, per so-and-so" shows a worrisome lack of communication. This RfA is the first time I've opposed without stating my reasons, and I did it to show you exactly how frustrating it can be to a candidate when the opposition refuses to say why they distrust you.--Scimitar ^parley 17:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

   Never have I once given any objection regarding your not stating your reasons. If you have a problem with voting per another user you should make a suggestion of changing Wikipedia policy. freestylefrappe 19:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

   No, but I state my reasons. My problem is that an admin voting should give reasons for his vote- they should adhere to the spirit, not the letter, of policy, and should realize that it can be frustrating for candidates when they see "Oppose- less than 3000 edits" and then you underneath going "Oppose, per above". Admins should be models in communication.--Scimitar ^parley 14:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

8. Oppose, sneaky personal attack on the user page? Not nice. Proto t c 10:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

   And I really don't care for contributions like this, this and this - let people decide to vote to oppose/support a candidacy for adminship under their own steam. Proto t c 15:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

   As repeatedly stated, Freestylefrappe lost his first adminship attempt because many thought his edit count was too low along a similar voting train of thought as the one you did here. We all have standards either advertised or not that we follow for such things.--MONGO 20:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

   I don't understand what point you're trying to make. See my comment below. Proto t c 11:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

   I simply informed other users that their stated requirements were not met by a user up for adminship. I neither suggested they vote oppose nor did I make any outstanding remarks. If you look at Comics' talkpage you'll notice I offered to re-nominate him after he got more experience. freestylefrappe 19:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

   I would imagine users are simply able to inform themselves of how to vote. I don't like vote influencing. Proto t c 11:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

9. Oppose per Proto. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 22:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
10. Oppose. Sorry, I have to agree with Proto. The "get out the vote" campaigns show poor judgment. Garnering for "oppose" votes on user talk pages shows poor judgment, and it once became an ArbCom issue. The case here is much less severe, but it still makes me uneasy. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
11. Weak oppose, as I'm not really happy with FSF's response to the criticisms above. Radiant_>|< 21:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
12. Oppose, per Proto. Even if his actions were in response to his previously being denied adminship, that doesn't mean he needs to run around ensuring that no one else with low edit counts becomes an admin either. It seems kind of immature, and isn't the kind of person who I would like to see be an admin. Also, I think that people should use {{subst:test}} as an initial warning on a talk page, instead of [20], in the spirit of Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. --Kewp (t) 15:13, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
13. Oppose. A confrontational attitude is not desirable in an admin. Friday (talk) 02:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
14. Oppose From weak neutral, after I suddenly found this on my talk page<Please remove "not even Durin...". This is inappropriate and pointless. freestylefrappe 02:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)> Unfortunately, this confirms, in my mind, the concerns raised here. Much anger is there in this one. Better inappropriate and pointless than confrontational and humorless. Clearly lacks the temperment to be an effective Sysop.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 04:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• • Question: Do the last 2 votes in oppose count since they were made after the deadline? I think the ending should be the 20th and not the 19th, but that still questions the last two oppose votes.--MONGO 05:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
    • If so Kewp's oppose vote also has to count. He only stroke it because he thought the vote was over.--Wiglaf 06:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
      • It is long established principle that all 'votes' count until a 'crat closes the debate. Same principle applies to AfD etc etc too. As long as the question is open, everyone is invited to join in. -Splash^talk 12:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Then why have it open for 7 days to a set time and date if it isn't going to be followed? What good are rules like that if they aren't strictly enforced? You don't need a 'crat to close an AfD vote anyway.--MONGO 13:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
          • On AFD dbeates people may, and do vote after the five (or six)-day deadline has passed. The rules mean that closing a debate prematurely is disallowed, it does not forbid postponments of the closure. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
            • Then why have it read as "ending 01:10 October 19, 2005 (UTC)" Ending....are we now waiting for the "missing chads"? It matters not when a 'crat decides to close the debate part, I just don't see why votes after the time which says "ending" should count. Oh well.--MONGO 13:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
              • I think b-crat may ignore the votes being cast after the deadline, at least that's how I was promoted. After the voting time for me finished, I opposed some other nomination and then I got oppose vote from one of his supporters. I don't think that was counted.  Grue  14:22, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Generally, I haven't had a bad experience with him, but he needs to steer clear of taking sides in petty disputes. Aside from that, good work. a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 01:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Neutral I'm neutral on this one after reading the comments on this users behavior by Lord Voldemort, and Anonymous editor. Private Butcher 15:45, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Weak Neutral. Changed vote from oppose. I still am a bit wary of his/her behavior (see my last vote above), but he/she has been a great sport in responding to private emails. I guess it's no big deal. Good luck, my friend. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Weak Neutral Although I'm impressed by the contributions, there is something about this candidate's style I find confrontational and perhaps a wee bit vindictive. While I've yet to have any direct dealings with the nominee, I cannot bring myself to support.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 02:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• I would like to take this as an opportunity to clear up some misconceptions. For the record, I am and have never been an Albanian, Macedonian, Pakistani, Indian, Hindu, or Ahmadi. In the near future I plan on adding John Adams' Second State of the Union Address, and a page on October 11 2005 letter from al-Zawahiri to al-Zarqawi. freestylefrappe 01:43, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Does he really speak 720 languages? — JIP | Talk 05:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

No Jip, the parenthesis denote multiplication, so he actually speacks 4320 languages -- (drini's page|☎) 05:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the number in parens could be an order of magnitude - 6! = 6 x 5 x 4 x 3 x 2 x 1 = 720; so six (6!) could mean 6 to the 720th power. My calculator does not go that high.  BD2412 ^talk 03:57, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• The "Vote Here" link doesn't appear to be working on this nomination...anyone know how to fix it?--MONGO 10:58, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Fixed. -Splash^talk 12:26, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

After going through his edit history exhaustively, I see that many of the articles he has created and or worked on would possibly be in areas that would cause friction as far as substance and following NPOV and in the few cases in which he had difficulty with this, it was months ago. But in none of those, did I notice any POV pushing, hostility, or edit warring...a pretty big achievement considering the potentially of angry debate due to the subject matter.--MONGO 20:20, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Voters should bear in mind that Freestylefrappe's first nomination failed primarily because of his low edit numbers, hence his apparent concern over edit counts for all admin nominations.

"Even if his actions were in response to his previously being denied adminship, that doesn't mean he needs to run around ensuring that no one else with low edit counts becomes an admin either. It seems kind of immature, and isn't the kind of person who I would like to see be an admin. Extremely well put by Kewp. Shauri smile! 13:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• For any curious users: [for adminship/Shauri]. Wiglaf nominated, Scimitar is number 10, Andre is 13, Sjakkalle is 16, and Radiant! is 25. I can understand - and believe Andre, Sjakkalle, and Radiant!'s votes as legitimate concerns that have nothing to do with that RFA. Scimitar, Wiglaf, and Shauri are trying to pick a fight with me over one vote. Shauri's comment to ALKIVAR is contradictory to her oppose vote here, "if the number of edits is what matters to you, I guess I can understand". freestylefrappe 00:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm truly sorry that you think that way, Freestyle. But I know my motives for opposing, and they have nothing to do with edit count, and even less with a personal issue. In fact, if you read my argumentation, I clearly state that "I have nothing against (you) as an editor". I believe my reasons are expressed clearly, and they are closely related to Sjakkalle's: it's the "get out the vote" campaign based on editcountitis that you clearly stated you were trying to organize against other users' RfAs what I found distasteful. By then, my own RfA was over, so I was safe from it; but not other users whose own nominations were active. Furthermore, such campaigns have nothing intrinsecally bad from my humble point of view, but it's their objectives that define them; and I definetely consider reprehensible one specifically made to oppose your fellow editors' RfA. My comment to Alkivar is also misquoted: I meant that, if his criteria for voting was based on edit counts, I understood, I respected it and had nothing further to add; which is far from stating that I approve it, as I have shown by supporting other users whose RfAs were controverted on the grounds of editcountitis [21][22]. Your suggestion that I'm taking some sort of "revenge" on your oppose vote also fails to address the fact that I supported the RfAs of other users who, like you, had opposed mine, like RyanNorton [23] and Durin [24] (who later changed his opposal to neutral). It saddens me that you don't assume good faith in my motives, which I believed were clear. I also don't think for a minute that Wiglaf's or Scimitar's reasons can be questioned on that basis. I opposed you for that self appointed campaigning, but now, I should also add rude manners and not assuming good faith to that. I leave an open door for the future, and may well support you should this nomination fail; I even offer you sincerely my friendship, in case you want to accept it. But right now, I can't betray the dictates of my conscience. Shauri smile! 11:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I back Shauri up all the way here. Learn to assume good faith and Wikipedia:civility if you ever hope to become an admin. Moreover, your conspiratory work against Shauri's nomination and your groundless assumption about a conspiracy here convinces me that it is right of me to oppose your nomination. Don't judge others by yourself.--Wiglaf 12:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

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

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

A. Most of my sysop-related activities would be closing afd debates and reverting vandalism. Especially the latter as I have found my edits increasingly taken up by reverting anonymously added nonsense. I think the role of administrator should act more as a pacifier than a settler of a contentious dispute.

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

A. John Adams' First State of the Union Address and List of Christian terms in Arabic were some of the better ones. Robert Davis of New Orleans will probably see a lot of action, and Terrorism in Pakistan has had an unusually high edit response. See also: the slightly outdated Pages I started

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

A. The Slavic Macedonian Culture page has generated a large amount of pov pushing, and endless moving (though this seems to have toned down to legitimate disambiguation). Most of this seems to stem not from a dispute over this page in particular, but a larger argument over the use of Macedonia verus Republic of Macedonia. Qiyamah - which I rewrote and expanded upon, triggered a series of reverts between myself and one other user, Universaliss, who is no longer active. Univ. insisted on deleting huge amounts of information, and spent his last few edits blanking the page except for comments like "F*** Islam."

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

---

Requests for bureaucratship

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

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

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

Related requests

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

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