Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

Purge the cache to refresh this page

A request for adminship (not to be confused with requests for arbitration at WP:RFAr) is a page to nominate yourself or others to become a Wikipedia administrator, also known as "sysop". Admins have access to a few technical features that help with Wikipedia maintenance. Please see the reading list and how-to guide before applying here.

• See the list of administrators for complete current listing.
• See recently created admins for links to recent successful candidacies.
• See adminship candidacies not promoted for links to non-promotions since April 2004.

Boilerplate questions for candidates can be inserted using {{subst:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Candidate questions}}.

Rules

Administrator status is granted to known and trusted members of the community who are familiar with Wikipedia policies. Administrators have no special authority on Wikipedia, but are held to higher standards, because they are perceived by many, particularly new, users as the official face of Wikipedia. Therefore they should take care to be courteous, and exercise good judgment and patience in dealing with other users. Nominees should have been on Wikipedia long enough for people to see whether they have these qualities. Most new administrators have over three months of participation and over 1000 edits. If you wish to count the number of edits by a nominee, please use kate's tool. You may nominate yourself, but it is advisable to exceed usual expectations before doing so. You may look at the minimum standards for adminship expected by some users at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards.

Nominations remain for seven days so the community can vote and comment on the nomination. Bureaucrats may extend this when consensus is unclear (because consensus is subjective, bureaucrats have some discretion, but the threshold on this page is roughly 80 percent support). Nominations which are clearly not going to gain sufficient support may be removed earlier to prevent discussions that generate ill will; however, as most editors don't visit Wikipedia daily, a reasonable amount of time should be allowed. Some people oppose early removal under any circumstances. If your nomination is rejected, please wait a reasonable period of time before applying again (at least one month is generally expected).

To add your vote, edit the section for that candidate. You may add a short comment to your vote, but discussion and responses to other comments belong in the Comments section below every nomination. When voting, please update the vote tally of the nomination that you are voting in. The vote tally format is as follows: (Support/Oppose/Neutral).

Anonymous users cannot be nominated, nominate others, or vote. They are allowed to comment.

To nominate someone (including yourself)

1. Get permission from the person you want to nominate.
2. Copy the following text:

   {{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/UserName}} ----

3. Edit this page (using the edit button at the top of the page) and paste the text just above the most recent nomination.
4. Replace UserName with the username of the person you are nominating.
5. Save page.
6. Follow the red link to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/UserName and add the following, again replacing Username:

   ===[[User:UserName|]]=== '''[{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/UserName|action=edit}} Vote here] (0/0/0) ending 00:00 [[00 Month]] [[0000]] (UTC)''' your reasoning {{subst:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Candidate questions}}

7. Replace your reasoning with why you believe this person would be a good administrator. Sign your nomination with ~~~~.
8. Preview your nomination to check it. Replace 00:00 [[00 Month]] [[0000]] with the time and date from your signature but make the date seven days later.
9. Save your edit.

Current nominations

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

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

Current time is 13:26, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

---

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

SamuraiClinton

Final (0/18/5) ending 23:13, 22 April 2005 (UTC)

SamuraiClinton is a prolific contributor with a strong interest in participating in the Wikipedia community. I think he would make a fine administrator. LevelCheck 23:13, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• By the comments below, this nomination seems to be 1) doomed to fail, 2) toeing the line for WP:POINT, and 3) in danger of becoming a personal attack magnet. To me, there seems little reason to continue discussing it. Are there any objections to closing it prematurely? Radiant_* 11:41, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, SamuraiClinton should get his 7 days, just like everybody else does. He has a right to enjoy a proper RFA, regardless of how much opposition he has recieved. Unless of course, he consents to this RFA being closed prematurely. -Frazzydee|✍ 20:33, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • It's unlikely you'd get a straight answer (if you got an answer at all) out of Samurai if you asked him if he wanted to end this prematurely. I concur with Radiant; this is just a personal attack magnet and probably a bad-faith nomination. If it needs to stand, though, I guess policy is policy... android↔talk 04:55, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Candidate please indicate acceptance of the nomination here

Note: Please do not vote until User:SamuraiClinton accepts the nomination or somehow indicates that he is interested in pursuing adminship. His comment to his nominator suggests he is not interested, and it is unfair to expose a user to the scrutinizing criticism of an RFA when he does not wish to seek the position. Any user is free to strike or remove this comment if SamuraiClinton accepts his nomination. — Knowledge Seeker দ 23:39, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

From his answers to the questions below, I infer that he does accept the nomination and so withdraw the note above. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:46, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

1. SamuraiClinton almost never puts edit summaries, see [1]. There are many other reasons to oppose Samurai's candidacy, but this one is close to my heart (close enough to not even wait for Samurai to even say if s/he desires the adminship). Oleg Alexandrov 23:36, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
2. Oppose. Too suspicious nomination. No edit summaries, no answer to candidacy and seems to be conflictive. --Neigel von Teighen 23:39, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
3. Oppose. (I'll take the answers to the questions below as an implicit acceptance of the nomination.) Many reasons are listed at his RfC. SamuraiClinton either does not understand the concept of consensus or chooses to ignore it when it doesn't suit his needs, as evidenced at the VfD discussion for Autosexuality (in particular, [2] and [3]). android↔talk 00:25, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

   Oppose. An administrator should present a "face" to the community by having a user page. This is part of how one communicates with other editors. Jonathunder 00:35, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)Holding vote. It appears this user is not seeking adminship (see note by Knowledge Seeker). Jonathunder 00:45, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

4. Oppose, per all the above; no need for repetition. —Korath (Talk) 01:16, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
5. Oppose. I believe that an Admin needs to exhibit a sincere and helpful state of mind. This can not be expressed in words but in deeds. I do think that SamuraiClinton has this potential but is being influenced by others. Too bad. Be yourself and grow. Stupid me if I'm wrong on this. hydnjo talk 02:09, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
6. Oppose. Nothing personal, mind you. Sam is currently the subject of a rather lively request for comment on behavior that can best be described as idiosyncratic. - Lucky 6.9 03:26, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
7. Oppose. Needs to do more edit summaries; idiosyncratic behaviour described in RfC suggests that SamuraiClinton is still getting the hang of Wikipedia operation. Answers to questions below seem to indicate a lack of interest in adminship anyway. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 03:43, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
8. Oppose. SamuraiClinton might be a good admin some time in the future, but right now he simply lacks the maturity and common-sense required (see the Request for Comments on him). I also have very great reservations about the motives of the nominator. Finally, his answers to the candidate questions are not very good. -- FP 05:26, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
9. Oppose. This is an absurd nomination. Firebug 07:49, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
10. Oppose. SamuraiClinton is eager to contribute, and full of good intentions, but he has made a fair number of blunders. He needs to settle down a little. Sjakkalle 08:11, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
11. Oppose, all my reasons have already been said. Rje 13:19, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
12. Oppose. Seems like basically a good person who tries to add good content to WP, but his articles are often VfDed or speedied, particularly as neologisms, which suggests he needs more time to get used to WP before adminship. Also, a nomination by an anon/new user is worrying, though I'm not sure it should be considered a sock--there'd be no reason for it, as self-noms are allowed. In addition, responses to the questions below indicate that Sam is only interested in editing and creating articles, neither of which need admin privileges. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:42, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
13. Specious nomination. The nominator should be censured. RickK 23:20, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
14. OPPOSE. Sorry for screaming but this vote is not difficult. I've looked into SamuraiClintons contributions and have decided that this person is not one with which to trust with administratorship at this time. It's lt's nothing personal, it's just business. hydnjo talk 00:16, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
15. Radiant_* 11:41, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
16. Oppose 1) The user should explicitly support his nomination 2) I'll never vote for a user who has a blank user page. A little info on himself would go a long way in gaining the trust of the community.  =Nichalp (talk · contribs)= 19:04, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
17. Oppose. While I'm still prepared to assume good faith and regard SamuraiClinton's contributions as not malicious, the points raised in Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/SamuraiClinton clearly indicate he's not yet mature for adminship. VladMV ٭ ^talk 18:10, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
18. Oppose. Sockpuppetry, unauthorized closure of VfD, and a slew of absurd contributions. Erratic to say the least. I think he's shown a rather selective lack of comprehension and deserves no good faith presumption at this point, but of course even that presumption would not sustain this nomination. Postdlf 08:45, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
19. Oppose, because of reasons stated above. --Lst27 (talk) 00:01, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
20. Oppose. SamuraiClinton's contributions to date do not yet indicate a good understanding of Wikipedian consensus, or good technical skills with respect to editing or following procedure. He should not be proposed for sysop until he is generally regarded as a reliable contributor, which at this writing he is not. Generally speaking I would not think people should expect to be appointed admins while they have an active RFC criticizing them. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:34, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Is SamuraiClinton the same person as GoofyGuy? I should review all of this user's contributions before voting. Any other aka names that I should look at ? hydnjo talk 00:39, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

   User:SamuraiClinton has variously used "GoofyGuy" and "TheSamurai" in his signatures, but there are no other usernames, except for some anonymous edits before the creation of the SamuraiClinton username. See Uncle G's analysis in the RfC I linked above for more on the anonymous contributions. android↔talk 00:51, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

2. Abstain since user is on RFC. Zzyzx11 | Talk 03:24, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

   Color me naive and/or conservative but I still feel that this nomination was made in bad faith since the candidate is on RFC and this will only has caused more negative comments about him. Zzyzx11 | Talk 06:06, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

3. Bludgeon the nominator with rotten vegetables, since luring SamuraiClinton into being pummeled seems to have been the only point of this exercise. --iMb~Meow 02:40, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
4. Neutral--Comrade Nick @)---^-- 12:48, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
5. Come on, guys. If a vote is like 0-10, there's no reason to keep voting with simply more damaging remarks. And anyway, isn't this exactly the reason why half of you guys voted against WP:RFDA? "Oh dear, User:Ugen64 might get harassed by a request for de-adminship - I can't elaborate further because I have to go pummel another troll on RFA." If there were no policy against personal attacks, I would use take the words "hypocrite" and "some of you", combine them, and make a meaningful sentence. The meaning of this hypothetical meaningful sentence shall never be known, because, as you all know, there is a policy against personal attacks. ugen64 22:27, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• Color me naive and/or conservative but a nomination for Admin by a Not-logged-in or No-Page user troubles me. hydnjo talk 00:30, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I have a user page now (albeit only a stub). I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, but never found it necessary to create a username, until some individuals decided that it was "vandalism" to make a RFA nomination as an anonymous user. Since anonymous users are considered second-class Wikicitizens, I chose to no longer retain that status. LevelCheck 01:02, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Color me naive and/or conservative but a person who creates a user account for the primary purpose of nominating someone for Admin also troubles me. Zzyzx11 | Talk 01:47, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • As stated above, this was only one of the reasons. As an anonymous user, I was accused of "vandalism" for creating perfectly sensible redirects, due to the stererotypes of anonymous users. I created an account to avoid the stigma attached to anonymity. Being accused of "vandalism" for a RFA nomination was only the last straw. LevelCheck 02:35, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Ok, I'll agree with that reason. Zzyzx11 | Talk 03:23, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • Color me naive and/or conservative but I still feel that this nomination was made in bad faith since the candidate is on RFC and this will only has caused more negative comments about him. Zzyzx11 | Talk 06:06, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• SamuraiClinton currently has 1160 total edits: 954/23 to articles/talk, 93/3 to Wikipedia/talk, 41 to User talk, 26/8 to Category/talk, and 11/1 to Template/talk. —Korath (Talk) 01:16, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Note: Based on SamuraiClinton's comments, the nominator LevelCheck previously edited under 63.173.114.137 (talk | contributions). Zzyzx11 | Talk 01:41, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• As a technical note, I wouldn't characterize an anon nominating someone as "vandalism," but the nominator should have noted the policy stated above that: Anonymous users cannot be nominated, nominate others, or vote. They are allowed to comment.
  • Agree with IMeowbot. This nomination is a bad idea which smacks of deliberating trying to get SamuraiClinton pummelled. JuntungWu 05:27, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree with Zzyzx11 (above) and JuntungWu: this would appear to be a bad-faith nomination. However, User:SamuraiClinton has not declined the nomination (despite my request to him on his talk page) and has even answered the questions below. I'm not sure what to make of it but that implies acceptance of the nomination to me. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:12, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • This whole thing is getting more and more suspicious. Android seems to think an a new user named SuperDude115 is his own sockpuppet who slammed himself on his talk page. Even the name is similar. I think it's just about time we put a stop to this farce once and for all. - Lucky 6.9 06:31, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I must point out that LevelCheck's anonymous account (User:63.173.114.137) has only about twenty edits. It seems likely that he has other accounts as well; maybe a sock check is in order? Radiant_* 11:48, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
• this is a blatant eposide of WP:POINT, imho. LevelCheck's action unbecoming of what wikipedia is all about. Kingturtle 02:56, 19 Apr 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. Just editing articles and creating new ones that come to mind.

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

A. Well, some probably.

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 will deal with it in the future?

A. Well, people send me messages concerning bogus contributions, but still; I have superior intentions for Wikipedia.

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

---

Wilfried Derksen

final (22/0/2) ending 17:55 20 April 2005 (UTC)

Excellent user. He made huge bunch of articles about politics. He made about 11911 edits since May 2004. I believe, that he will be a good admin. -- Darwinek 17:55, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I accept. Wilfried Derksen = Electionworld 07:36, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Strong support. -- Darwinek 17:56, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
2. Support - On balance, I think this user's contributions are overwhelmingly positive. At one time I was a bit irritated by what I thought were superfluous prefaces added to articles about every political party he could find, defining what a political party is, but as I've seen more of his work, I've realized that this is a user that we need to see more of. By the way, he's a Dutch politician - the only professional politician that I've seen in Wikipedia, and as such brings much-needed inside knowledge of the political field. David Cannon 21:23, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) (BTW: I am not a professional politican by profession, but am and was an elected official inside resp. an European political party (Bureau member ELDR) and a Dutch party (international secretary D66. Wilfried Derksen = Electionworld 07:52, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC))
3. ugen64 02:00, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
4. Support. Dbiv 08:26, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
5. Merovingian (t) (c) 14:10, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
6. Support. This should be no big deal. JuntungWu 14:17, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
7. support. Kingturtle 15:43, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
8. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 18:59, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
9. I do agree you're a great user. But, you see the rectangular box that says "edit summary" below the edit box? I cannot support you until you put information in there for most of your edits. --Lst27 (talk) 22:00, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) Ok. Sounds good enough to me. --Lst27 (talk) 23:24, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
10. Strange... I'm agreeing almost word for word with Everyking... It's a pity though, because other than the edit summaries Wilfried seems to be a very fine editor. Given Wilfried Derksen's assurance that he will start using edit summaries, I'm changing my vote. (Hm - I'm trusting a politician here :) Grutness|^hello? 23:34, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
11. Support. Productive editor.-gadfium 23:56, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
12. Edit summaries are important, they save people on RC patrol a lot of time. I'm not going to oppose such a good user for this reason alone, but at this time a cannot support either. If this small matter is fixed I will most definitely support next time. In light of the assurances made by Wilfried, I am now willing to support. Rje 01:35, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
13. Excellent user, but I find the lack of edit summaries very disturbing. Zzyzx11 | Talk 23:26, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC). Wilfried Derksen assured that he will use edit summaries more, so therefore I will support him. Zzyzx11 | Talk 01:38, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
14. Support. A fine editor who will be made finer with the keys to the kingdom! - Lucky 6.9 03:28, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
15. Support – He has shown his suitability by making a conscious effort to improve himself and the quality of his contributions. – ClockworkSoul 18:24, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
16. Support. Edit summaries are handy and to some extent important, but I can't condone witholding adminship from an otherwise-great editor on that basis alone. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:50, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
17. Support, though I suggest sticking to one username instead of having one username redirect to the other to avoid potential confusion. --Jiang 04:44, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
18. Support. No substantial reason to oppose. Slac speak up! 04:02, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
19. Instantnood 08:57, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
20. Supporte. Guettarda 14:34, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
21. Support, looks like a good user, and I like his emphasis on neutrality. Sam Spade 15:10, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
22. Support. I haven't met up with this user often, but my experiences have been positive. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 23:04, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

See my reaction above. I will change the way I edit and select minor when suitable and I will fill in edit summaries, especially when it is not a minor edit. Wilfried Derksen = Electionworld 13:57, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Complete lack of edit summaries. What I can judge are edits related to Czech Republic and these are acceptable. I really think controversial topics should be supported by edit summaries so people on RC won't waste their time sniffing vandal. Occasional use of minor edit checbox should also make no harm. Pavel Vozenilek 19:09, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

With promise above (and latest edits) I changed my opinion to support. Pavel Vozenilek 21:04, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1. I'm pretty slack about edit summaries too, so I can't really blame him for that, but not marking minor edits seems weird, and gives a false impression of doing more work than one actually has. Occasionally I'll make a minor edit and accidentally forget to check the box and then feel a little guilty. I can't imagine never using it at all. Everyking 12:50, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
2. Because of my own interest in politics, I'd like to support, but as I've not encounted the user and out of concern for the statements re lack of edit summaries, I cannot at this time. But I won't oppose him either. PedanticallySpeaking 15:08, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• Wilfried Derksen currently has 11914 total edits: 9394/379 to articles/talk, 929/25 to Template/talk, 698/10 to Category/talk, 288/99 to User/talk, and 84/8 to Wikipedia/talk. —Korath (Talk) 09:00, Apr 14, 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.)

I would concentrate on the work I am doing now, that would mean building sections on politics and doing in that field the normal RC work.

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

I am very found of the development of the article on Liberalism, very difficult to keep it neutral and giving information on American and non-American liberalism..

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 will deal with it in the future?

There were some conflicts on templates or categories, but they were solved in a consensus way.

---

Burgundavia

final (22/0/0) ending 9:00 19 April 2005 (UTC)

Burgundavia has 5170 edits. Maybe he might be qualified to carry a mop and a bucket of keys. (he says it is okay with him) -- Cimon 08:23, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Candidate please indicate acceptance of the nomination here

I accept the nomination. Burgundavia 11:19, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Mike H 11:20, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
2. Merovingian (t) (c) 11:31, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
3. Support. Pavel Vozenilek 00:34, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
4. Meelar (talk) 06:36, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
5. Support, a valuable contributor. Sjakkalle 09:08, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
6. Cool. This should be no big deal. JuntungWu 13:49, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
7. Theo (Talk) 16:03, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
8. Zzyzx11 | Talk 16:50, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
9. Absolutely. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 17:00, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
10. Of course. Lst27 (talk) 21:56, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
11. Support- JCarriker 07:23, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
12. Yup. Grutness|^hello? 00:59, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
13. Oh, yeah. Support. No question. - Lucky 6.9 03:28, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
14. Support--Duk 00:55, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
15. Support. Dbiv 11:11, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
16. Ooh, an easy one. Support. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 21:44, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
17. Slac speak up! 04:03, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
18. Good user. - Vague | Rant 09:45, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
19. Support, easily. SchmuckyTheCat 14:36, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC) Burgundavia sometimes comes across other people's edit wars and his outside pressure of just making things consistent with whatever the meta-project is calming.
20. Support. A good editor. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:03, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
21. __________! Neutrality^talk 23:26, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
22. Kingturtle 02:59, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

• Burgundavia currently has 5223 total edits: 3117/94 to articles/talk, 759/38 to Wikipedia/talk, 625/5 to Category/talk, 134/266 to User/talk, 124 to Template, and 61 to Image. —Korath (Talk) 11:47, Apr 12, 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 monitor new pages and look for copyvios and other things. I have not been as extensively involved as in the past, but maintain a low, but steady edit presence

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

A. Primarily the Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports. I have categorized and generally sheperded all 900+ airport in the English Wikipedia for about six months now.

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 will deal with it in the future?

A. I have disagreed with a few people, but none that have been longterm. The most recent is the current mess with China/ROC/Whatever they are calling it this week. I have pointedly stayed out of the fray, except where it spilled over into the airports. You can see Talk:Shenzhen Bao'an International Airport for the primary disagreement. Burgundavia 11:19, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

---

Ellsworth

final (20/0/0) ending 22:57 18 April 2005 (UTC)

Ellsworth, not to be confused with Emsworth, has been around for nearly a year and accumulated over 4000 edits. He has made valuable contributions to articles dealing with financial transactions, taxation, and law, areas where Wikipedia's content still struggles to be adequate. I think with his calm demeanor and open-minded approach to discussion, he would be an excellent administrator. His experience indicates an understanding of Wikipedia policy, and his user page shows that he understands the basic principles that underlie all our policies. --Michael Snow 22:57, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Candidate please indicate acceptance of the nomination here

Accepted, with thanks. Ellsworth 23:40, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Not that being confused with Lord Emsworth is anything to be ashamed of, either. --Michael Snow 22:58, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
2. RickK 23:54, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC) A very prolific and worthy editor.
3. Support -German based articles looks very good. We need translators.--Jondel 00:03, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
   1. Um, actually, I don't know German. I just have looked at some German-language articles that looked like they had good material and were about topics that interested me, and put translation requests up. Then when translations were complete I'd come in and do some light copyediting, only as to grammar and syntax. Ellsworth
4. Sure. --Bjarki 00:04, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
5. Definitely. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:23, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
6. Support. - Darwinek 06:52, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
7. I've been very impressed with Ellsworth -- we've had some minor disagreements, and he's maintained a positive and constructive attitude throughout. RadicalSubversiv E 08:02, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
8. Merovingian (t) (c) 11:27, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
9. Support. Very valuable contributor. Pavel Vozenilek 00:32, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
10. Cool. JuntungWu 13:52, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
11. Zzyzx11 | Talk 16:52, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
12. Fine editor. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 17:03, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
13. Lst27 (talk) 21:55, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
14. Support- JCarriker 07:24, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
15. Of course. Neutrality^talk 16:05, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
16. Emsworth 19:17, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
17. Support. jni 19:20, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
18. Support - being a banker by profession, I have remained associated with financial matters and relevant law and taxation. I saw some of Ellsworth's edits and found them 'worthy'.--Bhadani 05:21, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
19. Support Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:28, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
20. Support. He maintains a level head and he deals with articles on politics? What's his secret? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:12, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

• Ellsworth currently has 4360 total edits: 3693/487 to articles/talk, 9/80 to User/talk, 78/6 to Wikipedia/talk, 5 to Template, and 1/1 to Category/talk. —Korath (Talk) 23:18, Apr 11, 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. Dealing with vandalism and patent nonsense, helping with page moves, perhaps get more involved with votes for deletion.

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

A. I haven't kept a "brag list", because mostly I've been doing a lot of editing of typography, punctuation, and grammar. As the nomination notes, I've been mostly contributing substantively to articles about law and finance. Two of the ones I've done most work on have been negotiable instrument and surety bond.

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 will deal with it in the future?

A. No edit conflicts over articles that haven't been worked out with a couple of posts to the article talk page. I don't get stressed, because I truly try to adhere to the philosophy set forth on my user page.

---

Xezbeth

final (29/1/0) ending 22:24 18 April 2005 (UTC)

Excellent user. He made many articles about films. He made about 11700 edits since August 2004. I believe, that he will be a good admin. -- Darwinek 22:24, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Candidate please indicate acceptance of the nomination here

Accept, and thanks for the nomination. Xezbeth 06:42, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Very strong support. - Darwinek 22:25, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
2. Support. I have seen his work and believe he would make an excellent admin. Zzyzx11 | Talk 23:03, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
3. Support. I've come to know and trust his opinion and judgement on Vfd, and I feel he would be responsible and helpful. Meelar (talk) 23:43, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
4. RickK 23:56, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC) We frequently disagree on the VfD pages, Xezbeth has always been someone who's easy to work with.
5. A definite. Grutness|^hello? 00:30, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
6. Support. User and talk pages show us an editor who communicates well and works well with others. Jonathunder 03:21, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
7. Support. Seen him in VfD. jni 05:58, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
8. Support. Great contributor. Admins are made of such stuff. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 07:48, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
9. I always thought the name was some sort of play on Elizabeth. So I guess I was completely wrong. I see now what it means...I hope the user doesn't take after his namesake any. Everyking 11:01, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
10. Thought he was one. --Merovingian (t) (c) 11:30, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
11. A fantastic contributor who works well with others, I have every faith that he will be a good admin. Rje 11:41, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
12. Easy decision. utcursch | talk 12:12, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
13. Support. An excellent user. Sjakkalle 12:23, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
14. Support. I would love to have such stamina. Pavel Vozenilek 01:06, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
15. Support. Everything I have seen is quite good. Antandrus 01:14, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
16. Support he makes good edits and is very well liked --Zeerus 01:16, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
17. Support, not that litotes are particularly explanatory but I have no reason to oppose. :) Cburnett 06:44, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
18. Support. Radiant_* 13:50, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
19. PedanticallySpeaking 17:06, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
20. Lst27 (talk) 21:56, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
21. Support--nixie 03:12, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
22. Support - Great work on categorization. - SimonP 20:40, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
23. Support Feel we Gnomes ought to stick together. Alai 04:11, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
24. SupportGeni 22:38, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
25. Enthusiastically support. Fantastic editor! - Lucky 6.9 03:34, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
26. 11,000+ edits?! Support Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:49, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
27. Strong Support. Only ecountered her recently but this revert proves, for me, that she has what it takes. An hour of work would have been lost without her. Thanks. -JCarriker 20:16, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
28. Support. Dbiv 11:12, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
29. Support. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:08, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Very Strong Oppose Dwain 22:51, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Any particular reason? Grutness|^hello?

Concur on the rationale request. Cburnett 02:39, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but it probably has something to do with this] VfD. Xezbeth 06:32, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

• Xezbeth currently has 11694 total edits: 10654/59 to articles/talk, 576 to Wikipedia, 201/1 to Category/talk, 116 to Image, 47/36 to User/talk, and 4 to Template. —Korath (Talk) 22:58, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• What kind of bot/tool are you using? (Around 500 edits just yesterday!) Pavel Vozenilek 03:09, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Thirteen of which were non-minor edits to articles. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:27, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't use a bot, but as SlimVirgin says a lot of my edits are minor; either adding categories or wikifying. Xezbeth 06:42, Apr 12, 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'll probably become more involved on VfD, as well as continue with RC patrolling and new page patrolling.

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

A. Not particularly; I try to edit a broad range of articles so I haven't done any huge amounts of work on a single page. I suppose I'm pleased with my contributions to film articles, though a lot of my edits are formatting or copyediting.

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 will deal with it in the future?

A. No, but then again I don't edit the more controversial articles very often. I'd comment on talk pages if I feel the need to, but I wouldn't get stressed over it.

---

Mindspillage

final (41/0/0) ending 18:11 18 April 2005 (UTC)

Mindspillage is perceptive, cool-headed, and has made many excellent contributions, particularly on articles relating to music. She understands quite well how Wikipedia's various policies relate to each other and I think she would be a trustworthy administrator. --Michael Snow 18:11, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm honored to accept. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:45, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Besides, I'm partial to double reeds. --Michael Snow 18:12, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
2. Support--Duk 18:15, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
3. Yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes. CryptoDerk 18:22, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
4. Very, very strongly support →Raul654 18:29, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
5. Support. Adam Bishop 18:36, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
6. Support, exactly the sort of Wikipedian an administrator should be. Thryduulf 19:38, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
7. Support, I second Thryduulf's comment. Rje 20:14, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
8. Support, very good contributor.  ALKIVAR™ 20:15, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
9. Support. An excellent editor who understands and cares about policy. She'll make a great admin. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:17, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
10. Support. Fine contributor (and quite the looker to boot :-P). My compliments on your signature, as well. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 20:41, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    I struck out your male chauvanist POV :P  ALKIVAR™ 21:12, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    I'm not expressing an opinion on the appropriateness of Blankfaze's comment: Some people enjoy a compliment on their looks, some don't; it's not for me or you to decide. But it's inappropriate in Wikipedia (and obviously POV as well) to strike out someone else's non-obscene comment. It's up to Blankfaze to modify it if he wishes or for Mindspillage to complain. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 18:04, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    It was meant as sarcasm :)  ALKIVAR™ 18:16, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    I thought as much, but you did actually strike out the comment, so I wasn't going to restore it w/o explanation. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 18:25, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

11. Strong support; a superb editor with extraordinary common sense. Hard to find a better admin candidate. Antandrus 21:37, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
12. Support. What they said. — mark ✎ 21:40, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
13. Support. - Darwinek 21:52, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
14. Support. - I have seen her work all over the place and I think she will make an excellent admin. Zzyzx11 | Talk 22:09, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
15. Very much so. — Dan | Talk 22:19, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
16. Support. Her user and talk pages show us someone who communicates and works well with others. Jonathunder 23:15, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)
17. Of course. --Bjarki 00:05, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
18. The sooner the better. Grutness|^hello? 00:32, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
19. Support, certainly. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 07:57, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
20. Support seen some of her edits, quality stuff! =)--Comrade Nick @)---^-- 09:12, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
21. Support. I concur with User:Plato. Phils 09:22, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
22. Support. Often seen her edits around and they are always well-reasoned. Dbiv 10:48, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
23. Very strong support. Mike H 11:14, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
24. Thought she was one. --Merovingian (t) (c) 11:31, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
25. Support. - RedWordSmith 19:48, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
26. Support. You should put {{test}} on vandal's Talk page when you do a revert, to have trail for future block. Pavel Vozenilek 00:24, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
27. Support. Bla bla bla. Nadavspi | talk 02:21, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
28. Very strong support. JuntungWu 13:53, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
29. Support. Theo (Talk) 16:22, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
30. PedanticallySpeaking 17:07, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
31. Support. Great user. --Lst27 (talk) 21:53, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
32. Of course. ugen64 02:02, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
33. Support, well liked and her contributions are appreciated by the Wikipedia community --nixie 03:08, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
34. Support, a credit to Wikipedia, enthusiastic support! --Wgfinley 03:53, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
35. Support. --Chammy Koala 16:15, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
36. Support, I've seen this user's contributions via rc and she's very admin-like in her approach. In my opinion she's already made the transition. — oo64eva (AJ) ^{(U | T | C)} @ 04:06, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
37. Support, read your user and talk page, very impressed plus, the comments made by the other supporters convinced me. Tony the Marine Talk
38. Support! Already acting like an admin! Oh, and one terrific trollslayer to boot. - Lucky 6.9 03:30, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
39. But of course. Isomorphic 03:42, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
40. Support. --Bishonen | talk 23:20, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
41. Support. --RobertG 11:53, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose You have the support of the User:Blankfaze, called a users a "looker", who appears to vote based on his 'like' to other users (see his vote above, and comments here).It is outrageous and I can`t get over it. My vote can not turn to yes under any condition, I am very sad to vote no because of this third party, but I am affraid that users like User:Blankfaze will be able to continue with such behavior.--Gmaxwell 03:44, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
   • Wow. I'm utterly speechless. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 03:45, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
   • These "votes-to-make-a-statement" are an absurdity and disrupt the RfA process just as much as bogus VfD nominations; it's a shame those people who make them don't come under fire like users submitting "stupid" VfDs do. Phils 05:53, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

   It's not Mindspillage's fault that Blankfaze voted for her, or what he said. You shouldn't take it out on her. --Chammy Koala 16:15, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

   You're missing the joke. I suggest you carefully read Mindspillage's user page to find out who Gmaxwell is. --Michael Snow 17:33, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh, he's her "significant other". --Chammy Koala 17:49, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes. He didn't believe it would be proper form to add his vote to support... so, naturally, he had to oppose for what he hoped was a transparently ridiculous reason. (Alas, no one will bathe in a toilet if my nomination fails, so he has little incentive to do so.) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:11, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, and the oppose vote from Snowspinner's RFA was too funny to only see once. I'm disappointed that no one remembered it. :-) --Gmaxwell 18:24, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And here I thought we had the makings of tragic opera. "Sigh* -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 18:29, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:Blankfaze has amended his evil ways, so I now withdraw my objection. ;) --Gmaxwell 15:57, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

• Mindspillage currently has 2300 total edits: 1760/66 to articles/talk, 82/129 to User/talk, 193/13 to Wikipedia/talk, 37/8 to Category/talk, 6/3 to Template/talk, and 3 to Image. —Korath (Talk) 19:03, Apr 11, 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.)

For one, the usual RC patrolling which I do when I'm too lazy to write, which would be aided by a rollback button and the ability to actually put some bite behind my bark when I tell vandals to cut it out. I've been around blathering on in IRC during several of the recent rounds of page-move vandalism and I'd be happy to help clean that up, as well as fielding the other admin requests that come up in the channel; I'd also like to take a closer look at Wikipedia:Copyright Problems. And it's been driving me nuts that I can't tweak things in the Main Page templates that are too minor to bother anyone else about!

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

At the moment, Hugo Wolf, Luigi Dallapiccola, and Rebecca Clarke, which were sad little stubs about two extremely important composers and one who doesn't get half as much notice as she should, and I think they're just about decent now. (But never finished, naturally...)

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 will deal with it in the future?

I've been in very little conflict thus far, especially as I don't seek it out; not too surprising for someone who mostly sticks to the dusty corners of classical music. The few minor differences of opinion I've had have been just that, differences of opinion, usually resolved without incident. I try to treat people with courtesy and respect even when I don't at all agree with them, as I don't think anything is gained by doing otherwise; I would like to think I'd remain cool-headed even being drawn in to stickier situations.

---

Uncle G

final (45/22/2) ending 10:05 18 April 2005 (UTC)

A discussion of the outcome of the vote is underway at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Uncle G

Very knowledgeable 'pedian, and has been doing a lot of excellent organizational work to the Wiki, particularly with the Transwiki-to-Wiktionary process. Also has been friendly with explaining the relevant processes to new users. (4982 edits) Radiant_* 10:11, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Candidate please indicate acceptance of the nomination here

• My goodness, look what has happened whilst I've been busy elsewhere! As I said on Wiktionary, if I had been nominated earlier, I would have declined, on the grounds that you simply wouldn't have had enough edit history to look at. I think that there's enough for that to be no longer a consideration. I therefore accept. Uncle G (talk · contribs) 15:21, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)

Support

1. Sometimes, I find User G's comments on his talk page elliptical enough that they could end in "Grasshopper", but...everyone needs a friendly uncle. Grutness|^hello? 10:45, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
2. In the interactions I've had with Uncle G, I can't remember a single instance where I've thought his conduct less than exemplary. Thryduulf 11:16, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
3. Fine. JuntungWu 11:50, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
4. Support, good contributor who works well with others. Userpage doesn't bother me in the least. Rje 14:37, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
5. RickK 22:41, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC). Good editor, manages to proceed through the minefields of VfD without becoming sullied. RickK 22:41, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
6. Very Very Strong Support - I've recently worked pretty closely with Uncle G on tranwikification of articles to Wiktionary, and he's very level headed and a great contributor to Wikipedia. People who oppose Uncle G because he doesn't have a user page need to "...un-learn the false inference that they are making about people with no user pages...". Kevin Rector 03:27, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
7. Support. a careful user. all this "get a user-page" mumbo-jumbo is silly. Kingturtle 05:31, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
8. Support. User pages are nice trivialities, not anything essential. - RedWordSmith 06:27, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
9. Support - lack of a userpage is irrelevant Tuf-Kat 06:32, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
10. I'd go neutral because of the lack of a userpage, but Uncle G is a very hard worker. --Merovingian (t) (c) 15:22, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
11. Support. I have seen Uncle G's work and it seems like he is a hard worker. I think the lack of a userpage is irrelevant because he can slap something on in less than a few seconds. Zzyzx11 | Talk 22:13, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
12. Support. Surely, there are more useful reasons for opposition than lacking a userpage? ugen64 23:27, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
13. Strong support. I thought he was already an admin. --Neigel von Teighen 23:49, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
14. Support. ditto -- BrokenSegue 02:23, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
15. Support. - Mailer Diablo 11:29, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)\
16. Support, hey, it's my nomination. I'd create a redirect from his userpage to his talk page if people think that'd help. Radiant_* 11:42, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
17. Support — MikeX (talk) 16:38, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
18. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 19:28, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
19. Userpage objections are nonsense. — Dan | Talk 22:20, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
20. He's not evil, my requirements are met. --Bjarki 00:08, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
21. I have accepted his reason for having no userpage. Uncle G is level headed and helpful, and we need more such administrators. Sjakkalle 06:20, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC) Affirming vote. Sjakkalle 07:47, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
22. Support. Good user.--Comrade Nick @)---^-- 09:18, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
23. utcursch | talk 12:27, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
24. Would be a shame for this nomination to fail for reasons as trivial as someone not having a user page. Phils 19:52, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
25. Support. It would be nice to use minor edit checkbox sometimes (the one on the left, single click is enough, really) to give hint to people on RC check. Pavel Vozenilek 00:15, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • My frugal use of that tool may well be indicative of my use of other tools. However, I do specifically say "frugal", not "nonexistent". Here's an unbroken series of edits that I marked as minor: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] Uncle G 19:12, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)
26. Support (if I've enough contrib's to vote here:) A user who reminds us all that one should not judge a contributor from the colo(u)r of hir user page link. This red link is a "face to the community" - albeit not a standard one. Who said it had to be? \Mike(z) 10:03, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
27. Support. Although I mostly know this editor through Wikinews, from what I've seen over there he'd make a great admin here. Not having a user page is of no practical consequence. Dan100 11:25, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
28. Xezbeth 19:08, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
29. Support - Good contributions and there is nothing wrong with not having a user page. - SimonP 20:43, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
30. Support Boatloads of good work, and the lack of a user page (until forced) was more than fine, suggesting that vanity doesn't override decisions. (and nice workaround to the "problem" now that I look closer :) --iMb~Meow 05:02, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
31. Support -- Good editor, knowledgeable of policies, already involved in various areas of cleanup. I would feel comfortable handing him the keys to the janitor closet. SWAdair | Talk 05:46, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
32. Support. Trollslayer extrordinaire who is a vital part of VfD. Also, he's left one of the most eloquent and even-handed statements I've ever read over on SamuraiClinton's RfC page. Just get a user page. Become the "blue Uncle" we know you can be. - Lucky 6.9 03:33, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
33. Strong support. I say this with all due respect to those who oppose the nomination. The nominee is clearly not an opportunist: Despite knowing that much of the opposition will cease if he creates a user page, he continues not to have one. This behavior indicates that Uncle G would probably not change his personal view merely to obtain more votes. -- Emsworth 02:18, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
34. Support. Uncle G comes across as patient, fair-minded and good at explaining things. I think he'll be good with a mop. FreplySpang (talk) 04:24, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
35. Support. Will he misuse admin powers? I strongly doubt it based on what I've seen of him and on the endorsements above, and that's good enough for me. Isomorphic 05:00, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
36. Support, I don't think the user page is a big deal, and that seems to be the only oposition to his promotion, he is a good editor--nixie 06:42, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
37. Support. I note that many of the oppose votes are caused by the lack of a user page; while this is unusual, it is not grounds to decline adminship. Uncle G's enabling of his email shows he is responsive to fair comment.-gadfium 08:32, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
38. Uncle G has now linked to his explanation below from the top of his talk page, which is good enough for me. —Korath (Talk) 09:49, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
39. Support. Frankly, I'm stunned that so many people are opposing simply because Uncle G doesn't have the equivalent of "Hi! My name is: Uncle G" --Kbdank71 14:05, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
40. Andre (talk) 15:22, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
41. Support. The lack of a user page is quirky, and probably an error in judgement, but I don't see any other evidence that Uncle G would be anything other than a good and helpful administrator. I actually admire the fact that Uncle G has not created one, given the obvious fact that he could create one, assuage the discomfort of those opposing him solely because of this, be made an administrator, and then delete his user page. Good sense of both independence and honor there. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:52, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    Perhaps you should read back what you just wrote: "he could create one, assuage the discomfort of those opposing him solely because of this, be made an administrator, and then delete his user page." I doubt he thinks that way. I couldn't imagine a greater expression of bad faith. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 17:23, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    Neither can I -- in other words, he's showing good faith (or at least an absence of bad faith) by not doing that (unlike, say, another failed candidate for adminship, who, after having announced his conclusion that he should replace his bad attitude with hypocrisy, changed his name to a smarmy one, always prepending it with a smiley face, apparently of the opinion that RfA voters are WAY stupid.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:51, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

42. I'll support him for the same reason others were opposing me :) brian0918™ 19:42, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
43. SupportThe quality of one's edits and work here on the Wikipedia should determine if one should be an admin, not just a simple user page. Maybe he likes the color red? Bratsche^{talk random} 20:06, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
44. SupportUncle G exceeds all material requirements for an admin. We do not expect nor do we require admins to be yesmen, or to toe the party line for matters unrelated to their ability to function as an admin. That a missing userpage complicates RC monitoring is a sign we need to improve our software and not a reason to punish valuable contributors.--Gmaxwell 00:22, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
45. Support. I don't feel that the issue of a lack of a userpage should make or break Uncle G's adminship. Slac speak up! 04:13, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. An administrator should present a "face" to the community by having a user page. If this user creates one, I will almost certainly change my vote. Jonathunder 17:06, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC) Or create at least a redirect to the talk page. For an admin to have no user page at all would be confusing to new users, and I respectfully don't agree that is a trivial thing. Jonathunder 19:24, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC) The main reason I now strongly oppose is not the user page but the whole pattern and style of communication. See the comments below. Jonathunder 04:20, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
2. Oppose. My experience with this user at Category talk:Move to Wiktionary was disappointing, to put it mildy. It seemed he purposely took comments out of context to make himself look right, and his stubborness to continually delete his user page is pathetic. If Uncle G wants to be independant/special/wild card/free spirit/whatever, then great; he can continue being that way as a regular editor. The contributions he selected for the answer section below are underwhelming. His edit summaries of "Rewritten from sources" (Albert Mackey,Emmett Ashford) lead me to believe he rewrote sections from sources, not that what he was removing stuff because it was copied from sources. Frankly, from the way he handled the issues with his user page (by CSDing it) and the examples he selected from his contributions, I don't think this person really cares if he's admin or not. We have enough admins as it is, we don't need to force it on people who are hemming and hawwing about it. --jag123 02:18, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
   • The edit summary at [27] reads "Entirely rewritten from sources", and yes, they were rewrites from sources. Hence the "References" sections, citing sources, that appear in both rewrites. Uncle G 19:12, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)
3. To me not having a user page marks you as someone who has been on for a week or a vandal with a user name. I patrol the new pages list a lot, and I mostly check the pages of people with no user page of no user name. Howabout1 01:39, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
4. Oppose for now. I originally thought that the lack of a user page wasn't a big deal, but it's starting to bug me. Though I don't like to support broad generalizations, it is useful to distinguish between red names and blue names when going through my Watchlist or "Recent Changes". While I don't expect that EVERY user create a user page, our admins should definitely be expected to support the best practices on wikipedia, and I believe that a user page is one of those practices. His refusal to even create a nominal user page is troubling, indicates a stubbornness to a degree that is inadvisable when dealing with admin powers, and seems almost like a disruption of wikipedia to prove a point. I hate to do it but i'm going to have to oppose. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:43, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
5. No user page. --Lst27 (talk) 21:52, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
6. Oppose. I hate to do this, but the more I think about it the more it bothers me. Administrators must interact with the community and a user page is part of the face one presents. It need not be complex (mine was two short sentences for months), but administrators are trusted members with additional abilities and I feel they should make some effort to connect with the community by posting something. Not to do somehow doesn't seem in the spirit of openness and transparency that I feel administrators should promote, especially regarding themselves. And it seems unprofessional. I also am concerned that Uncle G made no effort here to address this concern or even to explain why he thought it was irrelevant. Administrators should be sensitive to concerns regarding their behavior. However, I understand his lack of comment, as from his answer to question 1 and his comment on Radiant's talk page, it appears that adminship is not something he strongly wants nor is it very helpful to the types of activities he normally does. Of course, some would argue that the best administrators are those who aren't crazy about pursuing adminship, but between my perceived lack of benefit to him and the lack of a user page, it's enough to push me to oppose. If Uncle G wishes to stand out from everyone else, he is free to make his signature red or whatever he likes. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:27, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
7. Oppose. The lack of a user page troubles me. There isn't of course a rule that having one is mandatory for an admin, but at the same time, that this user lacks one gives me enough pause to oppose this nomination. Moncrief 19:07, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
8. With great sadness I feel I have to oppose this nomination, which also means I will not decide on this nomination, leaving it to another bureaucrat's discretion. I say "with great sadness" because Uncle G seems like a fine, decent and principled editor. However, I feel that it sets a bad precedent for an Administrator not to have a User Page as opposed to an Editor not to have one. That is because admins are the public face of Wikipedia and where others turn for help and advice. It is not a good thing for an admin to not have a user page that at least announces that he/she is an admin and expresses the admin's commitment (or lack thereof) to engaging the community and perhaps state those areas where s/he feels s/he can be most helpful. Therefore, I oppose this nomination. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 07:22, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
9. I am afraid that the only interaction I have had with this user resulted in his descending into a rant at me for not having read through several long discussion pages. I am not certain he is of sufficient mentality to have this distinction. Smoddy (_t^g_e^c_k) 14:50, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
10. Oppose. Having an empty user page is not good. I find the explanation for that below unsatisfactory. Oleg Alexandrov 04:13, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
11. Oppose. Lack of a userpage is inconsiderate for anyone given the time it wastes for people on RC patrol. If someone doesn't want to be an admin, that's their choice. For an admin, a voluntary postion to be part of the visible face of Wikipedia, its unnaceptable. - Taxman 00:34, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
12. VERY strongly oppose. Clearly Uncle G doesn't accept community consensus, because he still refuses to create a userpage. To me, the arrogance of not listening to the community is worse than not having a userpage. And, in turn, it's not the lack of a userpage that bothers me as much as the red link and its implications on Recent Changes, votes, polls, and other such things. It's disruptive and it wastes everyone's time. We're here to build an encylopedia and be part of a wiki community, not to make an ideological point. If Uncle G simply redirects his userpage to his user talk page, then I would support. Neutrality^talk 04:05, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
13. Oppose for now, and I do so reluctantly. From what I've seen of Uncle G's edits he's a good contributor an' all, but it's hard enough to form an impression of the people we're working with when we are all interacting pseudonymously over the internet even when they have user pages. Admins, I feel, should present a face to the community. Even if he were to create a fairly uninformative or out of date user page like mine or countless others' it would at least be an improvement on a red link. — Trilobite (Talk) 04:47, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
14. I read Uncle G's lengthy explanation below and it, by itself, is enough for me to vote no. I can appreciate the fight against the stigma of a blank user page, but the fact of the matter is that it does make things easier for other people. CryptoDerk 04:55, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
15. Oppose. It's fine for editors to contribute without a user page, but it's not fine for admins. It rather seems like a policeman or any other official insisting on performing the job without wearing a uniform to identify himself properly. Uncle G needs neither user page nor adminship to continue his great work. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 04:59, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
16. Oppose Similarly, I'm concerned by the lack of a user page. Well, not so much concerned, as he certainly has the right not to have one, and doesn't seems in any way to have sought adminship; but nontheless, I would be uncomfortable with an admin without one (as it'd preclude identifying himself as one, which I feel ought to be if not a formal requirement, then at least a general expectation). I'd also be in any event disinclined to actively support without some stronger statement on performing admin tasks (again, understandable in an "unsought" nomination, and not a reflection on him as an editor in any respect). Alai 06:12, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
17. Oppose due to lack of user page. I respect Uncle G's right not to have a user page and his desire to be judged on his contributions alone, but when weighing up whether users should be given admin powers I need to know more about the candidate. I would extend that to those who deliberately have obscure userpages. Perhaps it should be a requirement for Admins to have user pages. Dbiv 10:54, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
18. Great contributor, but I have to oppose. A simple redirect to his talk would take care of a very annoying red link. I echo Neutrality's comments especially, as well as Dbiv's. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 19:23, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
19. Oppose. He does not have a user page; also please see his comments on "Teenybopper"'s talk page. тəzєті 20:26, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
20. Oppose on the grounds that I cannot agree with the following comment made by Radiant! as part of the nomination - "Also has been friendly with explaining the relevant processes to new users.". When I was a new user who was trying to do the right thing by speedying certain articles, he made comments that came across as curt and a little condescending. I won't debate whether his comments were correct, but I still feel that his approach was inconsistent with the attitude I would expect to see from an Admin (such behaviour greatly increases the risk of bad reactions from both valid contributors and vandals). If he could prove that this flaw no longer exists, then in all other aspects he seems fine. TigerShark 20:34, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
21. Oppose Dwain 22:53, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
22. Oppose. The lack of userpage is no big deal for me, but Uncle G is being quite rebarbative and quick to take offense in some of his responses on this very page. I do like to see admins ready to assume good faith, and to work towards defusing rather than escalating or even initiating quarrels, especially on their RfA page (considering that that is the one time and place people are likely to be as nice as they know how). Bishonen | talk 00:04, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

• Always level-headed in my experience (my main admin criterion), and a sadly uncommon voice of sanity on VfD. Uncle G, however, has no user page, which looks unprofessional for an administrator. I will change to support if this is rectified, even with so little as a redirect to his talk page. —Korath (Talk) 12:39, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• I am sure Uncle G could become a fine administrator, but I would like to see him get a userpage first. Sjakkalle 13:18, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1. Although his contributions are very good, I, too, am a little thrown by the lack of a user page. Red names are usually red flags for new users, which is not an association one wants made with administrators. – ClockworkSoul 13:45, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
2. Would like to see the user get a user page, and answer the questions before deciding. Hedley 18:22, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• Uncle G currently has 4989 total edits: 2946/150 to articles/talk, 1698/35 to Wikipedia/talk, 19/84 to User/talk, 26/16 to Template/talk, 10/4 to Category/talk, and 1 to Image. —Korath (Talk) 12:39, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Question: since when is user page more important than one's work? Pavel Vozenilek 00:20, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I do not understand how people can immediately vote 'delete when, a) he has not yet indicated if he even accepts the nomination, b) he has not yet completed the Questions for the candidate, below, and c) therefore, has not yet considered about making a user page yet. Zzyzx11 | Talk 01:48, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • He can essentially slap on a userpage in less than a few seconds. Zzyzx11 | Talk 22:13, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I'm confused. Why is his User page on CAT:CSD now? He mentions "as explained before" but I don't see a record of this previous indication. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:14, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • OK, After slogging through his talk archives, I'm piecing together that he has a personal philosophy about people's preconceived notions about people without user pages. However, in this case, they were true. It was extremely inconvenient for me not to see a User page, and I had to go through all of your old discussions to figure out why you don't have one. At the very least, if you love that red link so much, just create a note at the top of your talk page explaining why you don't have a user page. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:43, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • For your information: Here is what Uncle G wrote on his talk page about a major reason why he does not have a user page: "The correct solution to what you describe is for people to un-learn the false inference that they are making about people with no user pages, just as they should un-learn the similar false inference that they make about contributions from anonymous users. (Some people falsely infer that anonymity brings bad faith, but anonymous users make thousands of good-faith edits to Wikipedia every day.)" Zzyzx11 | Talk 21:58, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • And what about the new users who want to find out who this admin is, are are confused by a blank page? Jonathunder 22:16, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)
    • There aren't any "archives" to "slog through". I haven't archived my talk page. It's all there, right back to the beginning (minus conversations moved to other talk pages and modulo a failed idea in refactoring). Uncle G 19:12, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)
• I don't really see the problem here. People have all sorts of funky signatures, and Uncle G's happens to be a redlink. People have all sorts of funky user pages, including jokes, medals, pictures and whatever, and while most have some relevant content, this is not a prerequisite; Uncle G's happens to be blank (which does give an air of mystery). I do believe actions speak louder than words. Radiant_* 22:05, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Alright, I'm not going to make a crusade out of this or anything, I just want to explain my vote. While I understand Uncle G's burning need to establish some unique sense of identity on this big confusing wiki, a blank user page is not the appropriate way to do it. Like it or not, a blank user page has connotations of "new"-ness. Uncle G is more than welcome to make his signature a red, non-working link if he likes, but it is still useful to browse the Special pages with the color-- not as a sole qualification of quality, but as an extra indicator. However, if it were just for the blank page, I would have abstained for the vote; it is really Uncle G's intransigence and lack of transparency in this matter that leads me to believe that he is not currently suited to be a good Administrator. At the very least, Uncle G should make this philosophy clear at the top of his talk page, as it has come up as a question several times (with several people "mistakenly" creating a page for him, requiring him to list it on CAT:CSD, disrupting operations further). I see Uncle G's lack of a page as an operational nuisance, it has caused confusion and all of this commotion on the Wikipedia... all so that Uncle G can feel special. Cheers. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 01:54, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • What commotion? I haven't seen any commotion. And this is already addressed on my talk page. Twice. It was also addressed on Wikipedia:Speedy deletions the first time that it came up diff. You talk of "intransigence" and "stubbornness" because I have requested the pages that others have written to be deleted. I suspect that you haven't borne in mind what you would do if someone came along and edited User:DropDeadGorgias, your user page, for you. If other people edited it to contain something that you didn't want, would you change it back to how you wanted it? How strong would your resistance be? Would that be "stubborn" and "intransigent"? I note that you recently reverted it here. I also note that it is currently protected, in response to that one edit. Does your protecting your user page qualify as "stubborn" and "intransigent"? Are you saying that the act of keeping their user page they way that they want it to be, just as you have, should prohibit someone from being an administrator because administrators shouldn't be "stubborn" and "intransigent" like that? Uncle G 19:12, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)
  • I don't really have a problem with his signature having a red link; he could do that with font tags as far as I'm concerned. It is precisely because the lack of a user page gives an air of mystery that I am opposed to it for an administrator. For typical users, no problem—if they wish to stay mysterious, that's fine with me. But I feel administrators should be a bit more forthcoming. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:32, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Any relation to Uncle Ed? -- Viajero 17:00, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • No, no relation to User:Ed Poor; and no relation to Wiktionary:User:Paul G or to Uncle (history) either. ☺ Uncle G 19:12, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)
• Well, this nomination is obviously going to fail now, and from the looks of it, any subsequent nominations will probably fail too. A real shame if you ask me. Especially considering most user pages (whether they belong to admins or not) are nothing but an annotated version of the contributions page or a collection of random buffooneries... Phils 09:04, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't see that this nomination will "obviously" fail. It is on the low end of the "gray zone" and awaiting one of the other bureaucrats to return to make a decision. I don't see the point in criticizing other users who do have user pages. The User Page reveals something about the user whether it is a scholarly dissertation or an embarassment. I don't see what the problem is in Uncle G creating a user page for the purpose of letting those who visit if he were an admin know who they're talking to without having to read through all his Wikiworks. It seems to be that his verbose explanations of why he doesn't have a user page are as self-absorbed and self-revealing as all of us who do. And, as I said, it sets a bad precedent. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 21:22, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Maybe I haven't been around long enough, but it was my experience that usually bureaucrats don't take it on themselves to promote a user with a 30:10 oppose ratio. Also, I mean buffoonery in a rather broad sense, non pejorative; I love when users have witty and original personal pages, but I still consider "most user pages" to be quite trivial, when you look at it objectively. Phils 08:09, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Uncle G has responded here (finally) to the user page question, and I have to say, sadly, I now strongly oppose. It isn't the user page--that's just one tool to communicate with other editors. It's the whole pattern of communication here. He has still not responded to my specific concern, stated twice above, that new users will be confused when they click on an admin's name and see the page creation screen. As I said above, I think even having just a redirect to the talk page would help avoid confusion on the part of new users. I even indicated that though I prefer an admin have a user page, I would have quite likely changed my vote if he had just made it a redirect to his talk page. Instead of acknowledging what I said, he chose to respond as you see below. Jonathunder 04:54, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)
• I wish to point out, with all due respect, that I find most of the objections above to be rather trivial. Firstly, it is argued that the lack of a user page will "confuse" newer users. I feel constrained to ask how this would happen. All new users presumably begin with blank user pages; I fail to see how they would be confused if another user had one. Secondly, it has been suggested that the administrator must present a "face" to the community. I find that having a user page saying "Hi!" is hardly better than having no user page at all. Consider the user pages of present administrators, for example. In fact, let us only consider those administrators whose usernames start with "A." User:Ams80 and User:Arminius have blank or redirecting user pages. User:Andres, User:Andrew Yong, User:Andris, User:Aris Katsaris, and User:Arvindn all have effectively empty userpages, except for lists of contributions. Certainly, there seems to be no problem with these individuals presenting or not presenting "faces." Thirdly, there is the objection that the RC patrol will be harmed. Presumably, those who regularly patrol Recent Changes will quickly get accustomed to the regular users: and they will certainly soon know that Uncle G would not vandalize. Consequently, I do not find that their efforts would be forced to endure any obstacles at all. Not having a user page can hardly constitute disruption. Fourthly, it has been suggested that Uncle G is not respecting "community consensus" by failing to obtain a user page. This point is absurd: there is no clear consensus that he should get a user page, as 2/3 of the voters have supported him so far. Finally, I wish to note that having or not having a user page is no reflection at all on fitness to be an administrator. The failure of one individual to have a user page will not ultimately lead to organizational paralysis or administrative atrophy. It hardly has any effect at all. Thus, I implore the users who object, with all the earnestness at my command, not to object, at least on the grounds of a lack of a user page. -- Emsworth 01:49, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Well put. Phils 05:43, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I note that this vote is out of the gray zone, at 45/22/2. JuntungWu 14:12, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

I was originally going to add this along with my other answers, but decided not to. I've largely left this discussion alone, because, as I've said before, I think that it's up to the rest of you to make this decision. However, I think that some things need addressing.

0. Why do you not have a user page?

A. I don't have a user page very probably for the same reasons that you do.

I have long held that it is a false inference that anonymity implies bad faith, on the grounds that anonymous users make thousands of good faith edits to Wikipedia every day. Indeed, I was exactly such an anonymous user for quite a while. I only became pseudonymous largely because of the convenience of not having my edits confused with other customers of my ISP.

I also similarly hold that it is a false inference to assume that someone without a user page is someone who has "been on for a week" or is "a vandal with a user name". I disprove that latter hypothesis by my existence, as do many other editors who also do not have user pages. This heuristic is faulty, and I invite those who use it to (for example) do Recent Changes patrol on Wiktionary (Wiktionary can always use more RC patrollers.), where many users even of long standing have no user pages. I further ask those people to stop requesting that the world change to match their faulty heuristic, rather than the other way around.

DropDeadGorgias puts forward the rather bizarre notion that the act of not creating a page is "disruption of wikipedia to prove a point". If that were the case, then there are hundreds of millions of people not creating web pages on Wikipedia every day, all of whom are "disrupting" it. The notion that not creating something here is disruption is patently silly.

Xe also talks of "establish[ing] some unique sense of identity". But that is precisely what I'm not doing. "Uncle G" is, quite obviously, a pseudonym — just like DropDeadGorgias is — and a lack of a user page is precisely the opposite of attempting to establish an identity, as is the fact that, this page and its special circumstances aside, I use the default signature with no customization. If I wanted to "establish an identity", connecting my edits here to a real world person that you could throw tomatoes at, I would use an account in my actual name.

But like many of you I use a a pseudonym. Just as DropDeadGorgias and Jonathunder both choose not to tell you what their actual names are, so too do I. My "identity" to these WikiMedia projects is my contribution history, and can only be my contribution history. I want it to be my contribution history. (Note that Jonathunder, whilst asking here how other users can determine who I am, on his own user page answers that question of himself by pointing to his contribution history, a rather marked double standard.) It's the only identity that truly matters when it comes to making decisions about whether and how I can do things here. I thank both Pavel Vozenilek and jag123 for judging me upon it.

Everything else — pictures of me, an autobiography of my life, information about where I went to school and where I live, lists of my hobbies and interests — is autobiography, and by its nature self-professed. I have my own web sites out in the Big Wide World (It seems rather ironic to be referring to the World Wide Web like that, given that there is a Big Wide World outside of it, too. ☺), where I publish my own articles, with no Wikipedia restrictions, and could have reams of autobiography to my heart's content. I don't have such personal data on those, either. (Having been around on Internet for ... cough ... a little while now, I know not to publish such things, not on my own web sites, let alone on here.)

People know me out in the Big Wide World through my published works and what I do, not through what I merely tell them about myself. (They do know me - I've been cited here and there.) The same applies here, in the microcosms that are Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Wikibooks, Wikinews, and so forth. You know me through my editing record; which speaks more accurately than I could in any case. (The automatic record is always going to be equal to or better than any manual record.) The "face that I present" to the world from these WikiMedia projects is an article on Microsoft Pascal or a sentence in chav, and as such is entirely egoless. The "face that I present" to other Wikipedia editors within these projects is through discussions and edit histories. To see why a user page is irrelevant to that latter "face" consider that I could have the spiffiest user page in the world, and it wouldn't help improve my image if I had widespread and uniformly negative contributions elsewhere. (If you still don't get the point, go and look at the pretty user pages of some of the users that are currently banned. I'm not going to be specific, as per the provoking banned users rule, but there are several banned users whose user pages meet the criteria for adminstratorship that some have espoused over the past week.)

You may of course come to a consensus that having a user page is a requirement for administrators. In which case, I suggest that you list that requirement on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship#Rules and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards (which currently sport no indication whatever of such a rule or such a standard) so that we don't waste effort in the future.

Such a requirement would, of course, not be on technical grounds. There is a technical requirement that administrators have working electronic mailboxes, pointed out to me by Wiktionary:User:SemperBlotto, that I didn't fulfil. Absence of mailbox causes procedural problems, since it prevents blocked users from contacting the blocking administrator. As such, I've un-checked the "Disable e-mail from other users" checkbox in my preferences to fulfil that requirement. (As at Wiktionary, I ask you to please use User talk:Uncle G rather than electronic mail for contacting me.) Absence of a user page causes no such procedural problems.

Finally: For those who are referring to "professionalism", I simply point out that I do this as a hobby. I'm not a professional encyclopaedist. (I suspect that if I were, I'd probably be contractually prohibited from being here in the first place.)

Uncle G (talk · contribs) 19:12, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)

A brilliant and thoughtful answer. Reason in itself to confer a distinction that is "no big deal". This attitude should be rewarded, not punished. How the place has gone wrong that it is not! Grace Note 02:56, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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. Well, to be honest, I haven't anticipated anything, not having planned for this. As I said to Radiant! when xe brought this up, the only time in the past that I can think of where administrator tools would have been a benefit was when the backlog built up at WP:CP. I'd have been able to muck in and help. I suspect that I would probably continue largely as I have been, and simply chip in as and when similar such situations arise. Uncle G (talk · contribs) 15:21, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)

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

A. I don't keep lists of things that I've contributed to because I believe that the edit histories are adequate, and indeed better, for that. And I'm not sure that I can give you a list of things that I've been "pleased" about. However, if what you actually want is a set of examples of where I've edited articles, then I can supply a few picked pretty much arbitrarily, in no particular order and with no particular implications. I've not included any articles that I've touched as part of New Page Patrol. You're better off looking at Special:Contributions/Uncle G to get a feel for that.

• Gado-gado — Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Gado-gado should explain why "pleased" is not the best word. Also see Wikibooks:Cookbook:Gado-gado.
• NEET — Also see Wiktionary:NEET.
• numerical prefix — Compare Greek numerical prefixes and Latin numerical prefixes, see Talk:Greek numerical prefixes, and also note Bi, Duo, and Uni. There's still more to do here. So again, "pleased" doesn't quite fit.
• Neurocam
• Yellow Pages
• Lazaretto/Temp
• Pedel
• Catlow
• Albert Mackey
• Kula
• Emmett Ashford
• Enright
• phonemic differentiation
• Universal Genius
• Plant Explorer
• TRGB
• Wikipedia:Guide to Votes for deletion
• Cleo — Also see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Cleo.
• Dunlop — Also see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Dunlop.
• Dunelm
• Wikipedia:Things to be moved to Wiktionary

These articles, although outside of Wikipedia, might also be informative as corroboration:

• Wikibooks:Guide to Windows commands
• Wikinews:Template:Prepared story
• Wikinews:Pope John Paul II dies — a fine counterexample to the notion that editors own news articles
• Wikinews:UK Chancellor of the Exchequer makes 2005 Budget speech
• Wikinews:Template:Ph:Editing
• Wiktionary:Wiktionary:Categorization
• Wiktionary:yiff and Wiktionary:YIFF (also Wiktionary:yiffs, Wiktionary:yiffed, Wiktionary:yiffing, Wiktionary:yiffable, Wiktionary:yiffer, Wiktionary:yiffest, and Wiktionary:yiffy) — I know very little about "Furries" and have never used the word. The original was a copyright violation, by the way.

That's enough time spent on that. ☺ Uncle G (talk · contribs) 15:21, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)

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 will deal with it in the future?

A. Oh gosh, yes. I doubt that anyone reaching this number of contributions will not have. It's not exactly dealing with it, per se, but having so much to do does mean that I cannot sit all day inching towards the 3 Revert Rule on a single article. ☺ I still haven't yet found the time to get back to Talk:Bishop of Durham or Talk:Walton Summit motorway, for example. Uncle G (talk · contribs) 15:21, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)

---

Biekko

final (25/8/2) ending 03:56 16 April 2005 (UTC) (9:11 added to compensate for early closure)

Biekko (user page, contributions) is from Iceland. He is an ideal for Wikipedian: no wikiholic, no POV warrior, sticks with facts, helps with vandals. He is with us since Aug 23, 2003 and clocked 946 edits, mostly Iceland related (see user page for more details). I think he would be of great help to keep this corner of Wikipedia tidy. Pavel Vozenilek 18:51, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Candidate please indicate acceptance of the nomination here

Yeah sure, I accept this nomination. --Bjarki 19:20, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 19:00, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC) (and it should be noted that he has 3089 edits if you count is and enwiki)
2. Carnildo 19:44, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
3. Pavel Vozenilek 20:09, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
4. Smári McCarthy 02:59, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC) - Despite the lack of international involvement, I believe that Biekko will be a fine addition to the administration team. He has served the Icelandic Wikipedia well and is dedicated to the cause. en: might well enjoy and benefit from his help. The way I see it, the worst case scenario is that he does absolutely nothing, which despite being highly unlikely is completely irrelevant: There's no legal or standardized limit to the number of admins. There's no factual reason to deter people from this posting if people have proven worthy and committed at any rate.
5. Support. The opposition is en: Wikipedia snobbery in my opinion. If we take into account his considerable work for is: (and we should take it into account) then it's clear he knows how the wiki works, and even if he isn't yet familiar with every last detail of en: policy I doubt given his admin experience on is: that he'd take some foolish action. Unless someone can point to evidence of disruptive behaviour I'd err on the side of granting adminship. I think it's highly unlikely any harm will result. As Smári says, the worst case scenario is that he does nothing. — Trilobite (Talk) 03:59, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
6. Support. I faintly recall that I'd never touched VfD, RfA, nor any other such page before becoming an admin; why is it different now than it was then? ugen64 04:23, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
7. Support. Fits my primary criterion: highly unlikely to misuse the abilities or cause trouble. Isomorphic 05:40, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
8. Fine by me. --JuntungWu 11:47, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
9. :) — Helpful Dave 12:34, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
10. Support considering this user's excellent work and additional experience with Icelandic Wikipedia. I would like to see hir get hirs hands dirty in the other namespaces, though. – ClockworkSoul 13:52, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
11. Support. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:42, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
12. Support. Skaz 17:30, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
13. I think people are pushing the expectations for adminship too high (1000 total edits, 500 to articles, 200 to talk, 100 to user talk, 100 to Wikipedia:, 100 to Wikipedia talk, 100 to category/talk, 100 to template/talk...uh, on second thought, make that 2000 total edits). He's done enough work here to show he knows how to edit in English, discussed enough to show he knows how to collaborate in English. I don't necessarily give credit for work done on the Icelandic Wikipedia, but it does speak for the fact that he can be trusted, which is what really counts. --Michael Snow 18:11, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
14. Support - Seems active enough and level-headed enough, having a long history in is.wikipedia helps Tuf-Kat 06:34, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
15. 2208 edits on islandic wikipedia too. People should be made admins as soon as they can be shown to be able to handle the proverbial mop and bucket. We can be pretty sure of Biekko I think, unless someone has found an example of a particularly bad conflict? Kim Bruning 11:42, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
16. Support Thank you for vocalising how I feel, Michael Snow :-) — MikeX (talk) 16:41, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
17. Support. We need more diversity.--Chammy Koala 11:38, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
18. Support; trustworthy, experienced; that the experience is on another wikipedia is fine with me. Antandrus 02:35, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
19. Support We need lots of ice. I mean Icelandic experts and total stick tothe fact guys.--Jondel 02:38, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
20. Support. Experience on the Icelandic project shows an ability to work with others and carry out admin tasks; adminship on the English wikipedia will involve only adjusting to the English-specific policies; he has apparently already shown the requisite temperament and ability to do so. And if he only seldom uses the powers but responsibly, that's fine by me. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:41, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
21. Kbdank71 20:42, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
22. Support, why not, no reason to oppose. I strongly support interlanguage wikis, esp. when they translate, BTW! Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 15:45, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
23. Xezbeth 16:02, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
24. Smit 17:41, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
25. Support. These edit count objections are odd. Are we just after a number or a trusted contributor? 3000 total and 800 on English with no negative behavior at least indicates toward a positive contributor. Taxman 17:54, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Not enough experience on the janitorial tasks such as VfD, TfD, CfD, etc. These janitorial tasks are an integral part at being an admin. Zzyzx11 | Talk 21:26, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

   See my comment below for more.

2. Oppose, I expect to see more community involvement and active janitoring from a potential admin. Rje 21:46, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
3. Sorry, not enough experience in janitorial work in the Wikipedia namespace. Mgm|^(talk) 23:26, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
4. Needs slightly more experience. Will support in the future. Carbonite | Talk 13:17, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
5. Biekko seems helpful, but needs more experience here, imho. Kingturtle 05:34, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
6. Good guy, but will support at 1100 edits. --Merovingian (t) (c) 15:27, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
7. oppose for now, not enough edits. my threshold is 1500+.  ALKIVAR™ 20:18, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
8. Oppose. Not now. Please come back after you have 1200 edits to the English Wikipedia. (Unsigned, but vote by - Lst27 17:50, Apr 13, 2005)

Neutral

1. Comment. I will support after this candidate does some more work on the Wikipedia namespace. Rad Racer | Talk 01:19, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
2. Will support in a few months when they have more edits.-gadfium 05:53, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
3. Can you make it clearer your username on the Icelandic wikipedia? These edit count objections are very strange to me if you really have over three thousand edits total. With that kind of experience I'd be inclined to vote support. - Taxman 15:59, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

• My Icelandic username is the same as my English username, Biekko, see also edit count here.

• Ok, I'm supporting now. - Taxman 17:54, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• Biekko currently has 894 total edits to en: 697/79 to articles/talk, 32/0 to image, 29/0 to category, 21/15 to user/talk, 12/2 to Wikipedia/talk, 6/0 to Template, and 0/1 to MediaWiki/talk. —Korath (Talk) 21:31, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Regarding my lack of "janitorial experience": I don't know how much experience from other language editions should be taken into account here. I have played a big role in building up the Icelandic Wikipedia from scratch, I was one of the first admins there and I have definately been one of the most active janitors there as well. I have near 800 edits there outside the main article namespace which is the second highest count for that project. I created the process there for approving featured articles and did a lot of work on the categories. I have deleted, blocked, protected, unprotected & reverted more often than I care to know about. Considering all this it makes me feel a bit odd to read it here that I don't have janitorial experience although I recognize that it would be unfair to expect people to know my background from other projects. Also, these comments express a view that is different from my own about what adminship on Wikipedia is about. My view (and the dominant opinion on is.wikipedia) is that anybody who has established him/herself on Wikipedia as a respected editor should gain access to these few extra functions if they want to, why shouldn't they? But of course this decision is eventually made by the community and I will gladly accept any result they might come up with. --Bjarki 01:33, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• That used to be the policy on this project as well, when the administrator status was initially introduced basically anyone who had been with the project for a few weeks and bothered to ask for it got it, later people started to vote for it which eventually wound up in something of a popularity contest (but that's just my opinion of it). —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 02:43, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)

• I would like to address Bjarki and others who feel that his janitorial experience and work in is.wikipedia is sufficient. Sure, the mechanics and the software program is the same. My concern is that you are dealing with an entirely different set of users here on en.Wikipedia, all with different ideas, culture, and using different versions of the English language. An admin should be able to work effectively, interacting with all these people, and be familar with a wide range of categories here. I do not think you can get a feel for this until you have actually actively participated in janitorial work and discussions here at en.Wikipedia. Zzyzx11 | Talk 04:35, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • As it says in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship#Rules, admins "should take care to be courteous, and exercise good judgment and patience in dealing with other users. Nominees should have been on Wikipedia long enough for people to see whether they have these qualities." It is hard to judge how Bjarki can effectively deal with this wide range of users here on en.Wikipedia when he currently has less than 1000 total edits and currently less than 20 edits in the Wikipedia namespace. I don't want to see him be overwhelmed with Wikistress that he is not effectively prepared for. Zzyzx11 | Talk 06:59, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Umm, he has been on Wikipedia not too far off two years, and has 4000 edits. He is already an experienced Wikipedia admin. All we are doing is extending his admin status to another language project. En: is not an entirely different world, it's just bigger and probably has slightly more rigid policies in place. If anything he is probably at an advantage over the average en: admin because he's been more closely involved in the actual development of policy. As he himself says: "I have deleted, blocked, protected, unprotected & reverted more often than I care to know about. Considering all this it makes me feel a bit odd to read it here that I don't have janitorial experience." I don't forsee this experienced user being "overwhelmed with Wikistress." — Trilobite (Talk) 16:36, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I respect all your opinions. All I'm saying is that I'm not comfortable with giving him the keys to the admin tools on en until he has a few more edits under his belt -- especially janitorial tasks. If I see a major jump in work here on en.wikipedia before the voting deadline, I might change my vote. Zzyzx11 | Talk 22:04, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• It also says that adminship should be no big deal. Isn't Wikistress his own damn business? If he is a good admin on the Icelandic project, you need very good reasons to insinuate that he will abuse his powers on the English project. All other excuses for not supporting him are invalid.  :) — Helpful Dave 12:34, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't believe I ever said anything about the possibility that he might abuse his powers. Based on his work on is.wikipedia, the chances of that are almost none. Zzyzx11 | Talk 22:04, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I am quite amused by all the neutral and oppose comments saying Biekko doesn't have enough edits here or there. People are using very strange measures (to my eyes at least, that is). So a question to those using numeric requirements: could you explain why/how you think such requirements "work" at getting good admins? Kim Bruning 17:11, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, while the question is a valid one imho, it might be too complex to go into here. Feel free to answer on my talk page, if you have some time for me anyway :-) Thanks! Kim Bruning 17:16, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I think that the number of edits is taken far too much into account. A vandal or a troll or even a newbie can rack-up a very large number of edits, but of course wouldn't be nominated for admin. One of the nominees above made 500 edits in one day. What should be noted is that Biekko is already and admin, has had a lot of experience, and will bring something of value to the english wikipedia by improving our articles on Iceland.--Chammy Koala 11:38, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Edit Counting

Why are there so many folks here doing edit counting? This disturbs me. Please explain why this is useful?

And would you be happier if Biekko were to just not use the preview button for a while?

Kim Bruning 22:48, 13 Apr 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 of course continue to revert on sight any instances of vandalism I come across, with admin rights and responsibilities I might start to seek out vandalism more actively. I have mostly stayed away from VfD but perhaps I will start taking an occasional look at it now.

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

A. My single largest contribution to English Wikipedia was probably the history section in Reykjavík which I wrote [28], it hasn't changed much since then. I have made considerable contributions to a number of other subjects, mostly Iceland-related.

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 will deal with it in the future?

A. I like to think that almost all of my interactions with fellow Wikipedians have been positive. I don't remember participating in a edit-war and I can sleep just fine at nights even though someone out there doesn't agree with me on some Wikipedia issue.

Self nominations for adminship

Self-nominators, please review the qualifications above. Some editors feel that self-nominees should "exceed the usual guidelines by a good measure", have an account name that is many months old and have many hundreds of edits (in practice anyone with less than 1000 edits has no real chance of passing). This is not to say that self-nominators are necessarily any less qualified than "sponsored" nominations; however, some editors use their knowledge of the nominator as a "jumping off" point for considering nominees. Most voters can be presumed to consider all nominees on their own merits, and there are even a few who look with special favor on self-nominations as expressing a suitable independence. A good solid background is equally important for both kinds of nomination.

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

---

Phils

final (14/2/4) ending 11:24 21 April 2005 (UTC) I'd like to become an admnistrator. I've been here since October 2004, and I feel that if adminship really is 'no big deal', I'm ready to take up this position of responsibility. I understand my edit count is rather low for many people's taste, but I would like these people to look at my contributions without bias before voting. For those who consider it a requirement for adminship, I have virtually written all of the feature article Link (Legend of Zelda). Phils 11:24, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Merovingian (t) (c) 14:07, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
2. This should be no big deal. JuntungWu 14:19, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC) To elaborate further on my support: I am happy to assume good faith. JuntungWu 16:31, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
3. Conditional support - the condition being that Phils learns how to spell "responsibility" :) Grutness|^hello? 07:25, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

   The spelling error is an artifact from French, one of my native languages. :D Phils 09:15, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

   ah - a polyglot too! Even more reason to support! Grutness|^hello?

4. Support. I'll add to the virtues already described that Phils is a useful and helpful FAC voter, and that s/he gets my extra selfnom points. Edit summaries are important, though, I hope s/he gets into a 100% habit of them real soon.--Bishonen | talk 01:17, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
5. Support Howabout1 02:22, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
6. Support  =Nichalp (talk · contribs)= 07:03, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
7. A bit borderline for me, but constant activity since October, good interaction in Wikipedia namespace and an overall good breadth of contributions to various areas. Nobody's yelling at him on his talk page (though it is a bit thin) and he's not afraid to point out when he was wrong (question 3 below). CryptoDerk 14:59, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
8. Support. I've not personally interacted with Phils before, but looking at his contributions, he seems impressively dedicated and quite capable. – Seancdaug 17:53, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
9. I can see no reason why not. The user seems friendly, getting on experienced, and, crucially, prepared to admit where he is wrong. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 19:17, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
10. Sure. ugen64 20:33, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
11. Good user. I don't consider the "no edit summary in the past" to be a problem. As Oleg Alexandrov said, he's done a good job with it lately. --Lst27 (talk) 21:24, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
12. Sure, why not? sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 06:03, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
13. Support. Less than 2000 edits is a bit on the thin side, but plenty of activity on the Wikipedia namespace, and good work otherwise compensate nicely. Sjakkalle 09:31, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
14. Why not? Slac speak up! 13:15, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Mild oppose. All edits should have edit summary, especially those on generic topics. I would also welcome more contributions outside games, as the admins could get involved in anything. Pavel Vozenilek 17:59, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

   Thank you for your comments. The one about the edit summary I will keep in mind. I've been trying to use it more of late, but it still hasn't become an automatism yet Phils 09:19, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

2. oppose for the meantime. with so few edits, i don't feel i can get a real grasp of Phils' style and personalit.y Kingturtle 03:02, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I don't consider a thousand edits to be a low count at all, even for those who think such is important. (I only post counts to specific namespaces because people are going to be looking at the total with Kate's tool anyway.) I don't vote support or oppose on users who I haven't had prior interactions with, though. —Korath (Talk) 12:21, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
2. Phils edits and interactions seem great, but < 1500 edits is just really hard to go on. I also kind of agree with Pavel's comment that the user's edits seem limited to topics on video games, FAC, and VFD aside. I don't know if that's necessarily a bad thing, but combined with the low number of edits, I feel like it would be beneficial to see a few more months of this user's activity on a wider scope of topics. Keep up the good work though. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:26, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
3. An edit count of (as of this writing) 1167 that is primary limited to video games, FAC, and VFD is not a good sample to judge how Phils effectively interacts with the community as a whole. Zzyzx11 | Talk 23:36, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
4. Edit summaries are indeed important, and Phils has been doing at very good job at that recently (this to address Pavel Vozenilek's concerns). But, a higher edit count would be desirable. Oleg Alexandrov 18:54, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• Phils currently has 1101 total edits: 621/42 to articles/talk, 314/18 to Wikipedia/talk, 25/40 to User/talk, 23 to Image, 13 to Template, and 5 to Category. —Korath (Talk) 12:21, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Closing words. I probably won't be able to check this page or edit before the voting period ends, so I thought I'd write a few words. Whatever the outcome of this nomination will be, I'd like to thank all those who've taken the time to look at my contributions and make all those encouraging comments. Two important things I've learned during this RfA period: 1) edit summaries are important 2) edit count does matter (1000+ is fine by my standards, but I can very well understand why other people don't feel comfortable endorsing a nominee with only ~1100 edits, especially given the average edit at promotion to admin is somewhat higher). I'll keep your suggestions (including diversifying my edits) in mind and, in case I'm not made admin, re-apply for adminship in a couple of months when I have a higher edit count. Thank you all. :D! Phils 20:22, 20 Apr 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. Votes for deletion, vandalism check, and I'm seriously considering taking more frequent and close looks at WP:TfD.

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

A. Link (Legend of Zelda). I feel I've done a good job considering most of our articles on video game characters are notably bad. Having Link on my watchlist also was the ultimate test for "do not bite anons/newcomers": I've often felt like reverting edits that I considered were not up to par with the rest of the article, but instead tried to keep all new information and integrate it smoothly.

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 will deal with it in the future?

A. I had one dispute with User:CoolCat [29]. See the Starcraft section linked on my talk page for details; although both CoolCat and I were pretty sharp worded at times, I think the whole conflict was more of a misunderstanding. I also had a discussion on this talk page[30] about sources. Now this discussion I do not feel so good about: I really came over as an hysteric paranoid. I clearly was wrong and way too much on the defensive. However, I also believe the other participants took my words (I disagree violently...) too literally.

Peter Ellis

(10/8/0) ending 03:50 April 19 2005 (UTC)

Okay, not that I'm hanging by my fingernail waiting for an answer or anything, and I've been out of contact for several days while away with my job. But... What happens now? I can't find any emails, or any comments at User_talk:Peter_Ellis#The_vote. Just wondering... Peter Ellis 05:56, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:Cecropia explained at 07:21, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) that I had NOT been successful. I asked 37 minutes later, "How is the candidate informed, usually? I can not see anything, anywhere, about this last act in the drama; however, I'm happy to be told where it is." I guess I should just wait. I guess that I could see this as a factor of my being so uninvolved in the User community per the vote comments... :-) Peter Ellis 15:24, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

I have been a regular contributor to Wikipedia for over 12 months. As well as editing, I am a regular contributor of new material including pictures (see the list of pages I have established, at User:Peter Ellis. I am known widely at various web sites for linking to Wikipedia. I am known by email to several other contributors and in person by at least one Administrator. Yes, a self-nomination. Peter Ellis 04:35, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC) And, please read the re-newed User:Peter Ellis for geek info that might change your mind, after all. Peter Ellis 12:15, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Blankfaze/admin, I now have one person's standard against which to judge myself.

• Number of edits: not there, yet at <2,000 (but >1,000);
• Time registered: Well qualified at ~15 months;
• POV editing: I have also written (established) several articles about people or topics with which I'm diametrically opposed socially or politically. Guess for yourself.
• Dispute issues: I've NOT got caught up, when I could have, with several quite vociferous editors, one of whom is an Administrator who was recently put on 'stoppage' for several days!
• I'm a reader/researcher/option-provider in my working life, and I think that I need to know (i.) THAT I need to look for policies and procedures (I do), and (ii.) WHERE to look (I either do or could find them if I thought I was in a 'situation'), rather than have a word-for-word knowledge.

For consideration. Peter Ellis 04:19, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. I don't see why it's a necessarily a virtue to involve oneself on others' talk pages. We're building an encyclopaedia, not a chatroom. I urge the others to change their votes. Admin=no big deal, remember? Grace Note 12:57, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
2. If Peter had asked me, I'd have proposed him without hesitation. He's a self-confessed wikipediholic, and has a track record of respecting both the rules and his fellow wikipedians. In addition, he brings to the job professional skills as a journalist and a record of being an effective mediator in other Internet arenas. His edits include starting and polishing articles in a wide range of fields, starting many new articles and showing himself prepared and competent to do painstaking and uncomplaining repairs to less skilled work by others. He's caused little if any controversy, a born collaborator if ever there was one. I met him face-to-face for the first time last weekend when I visited Canberra where he lives; Wikipedia and an unrelated email list to which we both contribute were the main reasons we arranged the meeting. An ideal candidate. Andrewa
3. Support. --jag123 02:18, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
4. Merovingian (t) (c) 09:43, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
5. Weak support. With some reluctance. JuntungWu 13:56, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
6. He can definitely be trusted with adminpowers. Shanes 18:31, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
7. Give him a chance. We can always de-sysop if something goes wrong. --Lst27 (talk) 21:44, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
8. Of course. ugen64 02:03, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
9. Has established himself as a trustworthy contributor, also Wikipedia is not a chatroom and I like users with high substansive contributions/talk ratio. --Bjarki 13:28, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
10. Slowking Man 23:17, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Peter is a good editor, but possibly hasn't interacted enough with other editors. Out of 1,408 edits in over a year, 64 appear to have been to article talk pages, and 14 to user talk pages other than his own. (Correct me if I've got the figures wrong here, Peter.) I'll definitely support in a couple of months if Peter can demonstrate a bit more interaction with others. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:21, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
2. Like Slim, I'll support in the future if Peter gets more involved with the community. Rje 11:45, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
3. We're not building a chatroom, true, but the lack of interaction with others makes it hard to see how he'd handle admin responsibilities. Mgm|^(talk) 20:35, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
4. Hasn't participated in the Wikipedia namespace enough. Is a good editor, but without interaction with others it is hard to tell whether he would be good admin. Hedley 19:33, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
5. Interacting with others is a major part of being an admin. Therefore, the lack of interaction makes it difficult to see how he can handle it. Zzyzx11 | Talk 04:24, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
6. Close, but needs more community involvement. Get involved and there should be no problem supporting next time. Grutness|^hello? 00:58, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
7. What Grutness said. My extra points for the selfnom can't quite outweigh lack of community involvement, and I'm thinking especially of Peter citing "I've NOT got caught up, when I could have, with several quite vociferous editors" as his best involvement in dispute resolution. --Bishonen | talk 09:24, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
8. with no personal offense to Peter, I current oppose this nomination. i'd like to see many more edits so I can get a better understanding of his personality and style. Kingturtle 03:05, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

• Peter Ellis has 1416 total edits: 1061/64 to articles/talk, 175/36 to User/talk, 53/1 to Image/talk, and 26 to Wikipedia. —Korath (Talk) 10:28, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • 14 to user talk that wasn't his own. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:39, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• This user has been here a while, and contributed to many articles and now seems interested in helping with maintenance. Miraculously, he managed not to upset many, if any, or he'd obviously have more edits in the talk namespace, and this is held against him? Wikipedia needs more janitors, not more people with big mouths. --jag123 02:18, 13 Apr 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 don't like conflict, or controversy, and would prefer people to be 'adult'; but I'm willing to be decisive. I hand-code HTML for several site for which I am the 'webservant', but would not get beyond the obvious. I'd much prefer to trawl through the requests and fixes per the Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide. Peter Ellis 05:40, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

A. John Templeton and the Templeton Prize were obvious yet unrecorded when I wrote them; Stan Grant and John Rudder are continuing their ground-breaking work to resurrect a whole language from extinction (it was effectively no longer spoken) and deserve credit for it; the List of highest towns by country seems like a more useful list than some others I've seen at Wikipedia; and, the Fairey Gannet aircraft and its associated engines were crying out for recognition, and are part of a labour of love that is ongoing in other media.

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 will deal with it in the future?

A. I've had no conflicts of which I am aware. There have been various interactions, at least one coming as something of a surprise to the writer who was flushed out of lethargy after I began tidying up the Wiki/HTML code after stumbling onto it from one of the "10 random pages" I was doing; but, I've been watching quite a few more users and their interactions than those in which I've participated. Peter Ellis 04:41, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

Requests for bureaucratship

Bureaucrats are simply users with the ability to make other people admins or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here. 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.

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 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)

---

---

Other 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 misuses of sysop rights

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